NAB thoughts

[Tonaci Tran]

Okay. This was my first NAB trip. Met up with Blair at the gate closest to Red booth. Blair's advice. Just stay along the wall and it will take us to the RED booth. Blair said "I am pretty fast." Little did I know seconds later, Blair and I would be doing a mad dash towards the Red booth. One other guy was running with us..if you are a reduser chime in hehe. Anyways, as everyone has said here..the demo is f%!*in AMAZING. It alone was worth the trip.

So.. after RED.. I decided to check out the other people. Panasonic.had a monstrous booth, tons of setups, demonstrations..etc. The only had one true 1920x1080p cam (not not 1440x1080 ) which which they quoted me as being 58,000. Then I cruised to JVC who was doing a demonstration.."okay folks this is full HD. Full 720p." Then there is Sony with their f23. Price tag of course is over 150,000.

After seeing all of these HD heavyweights, I couldn't help but think how RED is SOOOO MUCH FARTHER ahead. I saw people oooh and ahhing at 720p and 1080p..when RED is just around the corner showing live 4k footage that obliterates the stuff that sony, jvc and panasonic are showing. At the same time, I also saw and understand Jim better now. These companies are moving at a snails pace. I am scared to think how NAB would be like without RED. I would probably be lusting for that f23 I could never afford.

It's insane to think that RED came from prototypes last year, to working 4k cams, a 4k demo by Peter Jackson, AND integrated native 4k final cut pro support only one year later.

[Jarred Land]

thanks for the update tonaci.

the line just to get into the booth is an hour long, and the excitement is high and people leave just happy.. Its amazing what Jim has built in just over a year.

power to the people.

[Rick Darge]

To be honest, I couldn't be less interested in what the other camera companies were doing yesterday - Everything felt very mute when compared to RED. I mean, why bother? $50K+ camera that does 1/8 of what the Red can do? It would have been nice to see Panasonic/Sony and JVC pack up their bags and leave mid-Nab yesterday.. I walked by the Panasonic booth and saw 16GB and 32GB cards.. didn't care at all and I own a HVX.. Saw some footage off JVC cams, walked right by.. I had such a hard time leaving the Red tent.. Jim and crew were so nice to deal with. Red really felt out of place at NAB, they should have had their own building.

[jbeale]

....the line just to get into the booth is an hour long...

That says something! I'm not there so I don't have a sense of what it's like, but I wonder if there are any other booths at NAB with an hour-long wait to get in?

[Tonaci Tran]

May film rest in peace.

[Cory Schulthies]

May film rest in peace. I wonder how long it will take to convert Spielberg from his soon to be outdated medium.

[Tonaci Tran]

"http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/robert.html

"You tried to coax Tarantino, a film purist, into going digital. What was your argument? I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era. He said, "If you can do that, I'll be convinced." I took footage from Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, degraded it digitally, and mixed it with some music. I wanted it to look like a living graphic novel. I showed him the results, and he was blown away. He said, "All right. You win."""

Well, Tarantino was convinced. Once these film purists realize that they can acheive ANY look they want digitally..why shoot film??

[PaulClements]

Why shoot film... For the love of their medium. Spielberg loves the smell and touch of film, the same way a painter prefers his oils to acrylics I suppose. Film has been making beautiful amazing motion pictures for a very long time, that won't change.

Digital acquisition isn't for everyone for sure, it doesn't mean those who love film should deride it, nor vice versa.

The thing is, with Red - Both are great :)

[Jarred Land]

That says something! I'm not there so I don't have a sense of what it's like, but I wonder if there are any other booths at NAB with an hour-long wait to get in?

I think we broke the record... I dont think there was a line anywhere that i saw, except for to go pee or to buy a hotdog.

[Tonaci Tran]

Film has been making beautiful amazing motion pictures for a very long time, that won't change.

It did for photography in the sense that big cam manufacturers have basicaly stopped making still film cameras. When 4k projectors become more common in theatres..taking film and doing a 4k output..I'm sure that grain will be more noticeable on a 4k projector (another future downside to film).

anyways, im sure speilberg will be in the minority of people clinging on to 35mm film. but to each their own. I just find it amusing when some resist change for quirky reasons.

[Bruce Allen]

Why shoot film... For the love of their medium. Spielberg loves the smell and touch of film, the same way a painter prefers his oils to acrylics I suppose. Film has been making beautiful amazing motion pictures for a very long time, that won't change.

True, that! As a painter I thought I'd always be using oils... love that smell ;)... until I found that you could get acrylics with great pigments, lower price, nearly as good a feel, greater control over drying time, greater durability, less harm to the environment, less harm to me, plus also the ability to still use them when I moved from a nice painting area in South Africa to a small apartment in LA!

I think Red is going to be such a killer palette of acrylics that even Spielberg will be tempted.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Paul Wizikowski]

That says something! I'm not there so I don't have a sense of what it's like, but I wonder if there are any other booths at NAB with an hour-long wait to get in?

Its certainly impressive to see the buzz and interest that RED is generating. By 15min after the doors to the floor opened the line to RED was around the entire booth (probably over an hour wait at that point).

But as for other booth's wait times, most if not all other booths are completely open. Enter and exit as you please. Only RED let in limited numbers at a time. Of course that is because they can only let so many into their 4k theatre at a time. Personally I think they made the right decision with the way they ran their booth but unfortunatly the demand far exceeded RED's ability to supply. MANY people who wanted to see the footage or even just the camera's couldn't get in. RED could have easily used twice the floor space perhaps even more. Even with the limited number of people in the booth it was still very cramped.

[Paul Wizikowski]

It did for photography in the sense that big cam manufacturers have basicaly stopped making still film cameras. When 4k projectors become more common in theatres..taking film and doing a 4k output..I'm sure that grain will be more noticeable on a 4k projector (another future downside to film).

anyways, im sure speilberg will be in the minority of people clinging on to 35mm film. but to each their own. I just find it amusing when some resist change for quirky reasons.

With that in mind don't be surprised in 2-5 years when Speilberg chooses a digital format that he is satisfied with. RED is just the next step of the very very beginning of viable digital cinema formats.

[Nate Caauwe]

It is indeed amazing seeing how far RED has come in only one year. I was at NAB last year and clearly remember listening to groups of guys outside their tiny little tent saying things like "Yeah, right" as they gave their presentation. Looking at pictures from this year...way bigger booth and far different opinions. I was dying to go this year specifically for the 4K theater, but alas, I couldn't afford it. I'm booking a flight and hotel in a matter of weeks for next year though, just as soon as they start taking bookings for that week :D

[david farland]

I think we broke the record... I dont think there was a line anywhere that i saw, except for to go pee or to buy a hotdog.

So Jarred....

if you could do all that at the Red booth the others would pack up and go home....umm gives me an idea (file://Jarred/)...

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Talked with different people from Pansonic, JVC, Sony: What I'm shocked about, that they are not shocked at all. They even don't know what the RED workflow can do for there believers. It's just ignorance - as if dinosaurs don't know, that there time has come. Ok, to be fair, this companies win there money with all the broadcast stuff And who cares about, if it is real HD ore just a derivate of something else, if the pictures are totally crunched and overencoded - who cares, it's just television. Todays news are tomorrows history. RED is the future for all who want's more, who love the essence of there work, who fight for the ultimate shot.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The "user base" of the NAB trade fair has a wide gamut and for many of the attendees it is simply about paying the bills. Many of the folks on this forum approach this work as something that means a bit more. Are we delusional? Maybe, but please don't pinch me.

The RED booth does seem to somehow exist in its own dimension on the show floor. Walking around with my RED reservation holder badge and even my Titanium R around my neck has been an experience.

IMHO people who belittle the RED either lack imagination or see RED as a threat to their livelihood. I suppose the elitist viewpoint would be that they should take a bigger bite out of life. The more charitable view is simply to pity the waste.

In any case, I have found my personal interactions at NAB with many of the folks that I only knew from this forum to be soul stirring. Passion, imagination, excitement, intelligence, humanity and most of all humor. I feel lucky to call myself a REDhead, to be a dreamer, to question paradigms and to be able to enjoy the company of this group - even if it usually just cyber.

I raise my glass to you all.

[Ken Willinger]

I spent quite a long time at the Sony booth talking to a rep there about the XDcam 2/3" chip camera due out January 08. Doesn't overcrank/undercrank...doesn't record in 24P. If it had those options it would be a camera that would interest me (in addition to having RED...for different segment of my clients). But they f__ked up yet again. And the Sony guy admitted it. I told him I had a RED res and we talked at length about RED. He admitted that Sony is feeling pressure from it. I give him credit for being honest.

[JCallahan]

"http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/robert.html

"You tried to coax Tarantino, a film purist, into going digital. What was your argument? I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era. He said, "If you can do that, I'll be convinced." I took footage from Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, degraded it digitally, and mixed it with some music. I wanted it to look like a living graphic novel. I showed him the results, and he was blown away. He said, "All right. You win."""

Well, Tarantino was convinced. Once these film purists realize that they can acheive ANY look they want digitally..why shoot film??

It should be noted that Tarantino still ended up shooting Death Proof on film, despite having been "convinced" as he said. In my humble (and perhaps uninformed) opinion, I think Grindhouse is a good demonstration of how great film still beats great digital. However, I'm not saying that this will always be the case. Digital is just getting started, and not only that, there is always room for more formats and alternate colorations. I liked the acrylic analogy posted above. Well done.

[PaulClements]

It did for photography in the sense that big cam manufacturers have basicaly stopped making still film cameras. When 4k projectors become more common in theatres..taking film and doing a 4k output..I'm sure that grain will be more noticeable on a 4k projector (another future downside to film).

Photography and Cinematography are quite different though. Professional photography exists in a world of rapid workflow; newspapers, magazines, websites etc.

Cinematography by contrast involves days, weeks, months and very often years to deliver a piece that lasts about 2 hours.

That demand for delivery of the final product is what seperates the two.

Don't get me wrong though. The delivery of footage shot digitally will be far more accessable, quicker, cheaper and better to work with especially for smaller productions where a more rapid turnover and lower cost exists. It will be more suitable than digitizing film for post production and make more sense in my opinion. The point I am making is that I don't see the 'digital replaced film in photography' as a perfect comparison.

I do agree with you that the impact of 4k projection being adopted on a larger scale will have more of an impact, as will delivery of the feature via satallite or whatever means distributors agree upon. Though I don't think grain will be much of an issue, personally I like it, though I have no quams about adding it in post :)

[PaulClements]

True, that! As a painter I thought I'd always be using oils... love that smell ;)... until I found that you could get acrylics with great pigments, lower price, nearly as good a feel, greater control over drying time, greater durability, less harm to the environment, less harm to me, plus also the ability to still use them when I moved from a nice painting area in South Africa to a small apartment in LA!

I think Red is going to be such a killer palette of acrylics that even Spielberg will be tempted.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Exactly, but many art lovers would argue that a painter who can handle oils well is a better painter than someone who can handle acrylics well, because it is a harder format to work in. Personally I don't think either makes one artist better or not, but relatively there will always be individuals that will respect film makers for capturing the final shot and not editing it in post over digital capture with half an eye on adjustment in post.

The problem I have with most film these days is that in post it is edited, color corrected, effects added and so on and goes through the digital process anyway. By the time it comes out the other side of post you have lost the essence of it being film. You might as well start with a digital acquisition if this is how you intend to finish the production.

[Jason Murphy]

Definitely a few interesting topics raised on this thread.

The references to still photography and painting are key here. It's still important to recognize that film and digital are different media. I agree that in still photography, almost nobody shoots 35mm anymore; however, I still shoot large format (4x5) film, and even though it's a real niche market, I'm not likely to stop shooting large format for awhile. They are still different media, and for me, the deliberate pace of shooting large format (and the knowledge that shooting this one photo will cost me at least $2) in most circumstances leads to better photographs. It's certainly a hassle, but oftentimes, it's worth it.

Same with oils and acrylics. You can do things in one medium that you can't with the other. Oils just don't dry quickly, and so you can work at a more deliberate pace in mixing colors, etc, without the worry of it drying on you. Acrylics definitely allow you to work in much more flexible and cheaper ways, but that doesn't always lead to better paintings (though it certainly can).

I think there may be applications here for motion picture film and digital cinema.

One of the things that is often overlooked in terms of image quality is the texture of an image. Acrylics don't have the same texture as oils, 35mm film doesn't have the same texture as digital cinema, Super 8 doesn't have the same texture as 70mm, and DV doesn't have the same texture as HD.

Image surface texture plays a major subconscious role in how an image is recieved. And quite frankly, image texture (by which I do not mean the texture of what is shown, though that too is important) can usually be attributed to imperfections or degradations in the resolving medium. Grain, visible pixels, compression artifacts, scratches; all of these things IF USED WELL can enhance the image.

The strength and weakness of high-res digital cinema is that it doesn't seem to have any inherent texture (this isn't quite true, but it's more true now than before). It's grain free, and there are no visible pixels or compression artifacts. The lack of texture can make things look strangely hyper-real, but one can texture (or not) the image any way one likes. It means that a filmmaker has more control of this tool, but my guess is that most won't take advantage of it.

Clearly, if RED holds up in real-world tests as far as image quality and workflow go, it's going to shake things up in the industry big time, and demand will continue to be huge; more importantly, it has the potential to completely change things on the lower end of production (budget-wise).

But this doesn't necessarily mean there will be better movies, though one can hope. There still aren't many great poets in relation to the population at large, and the technology of writing has been around and widely available for a very long time.

Hopefully, though, this will give people more leeway to experiment with high quality imaging, and really put something out there that's groundbreaking and worthwhile.

Basically, at the end of the day, and probably what some skeptical cinematographers are (wisely) thinking is this: good technology doesn't make good movies. And more good technology won't necessarily mean more good movies.

As Robert Bresson said: Someone who can work with the minimum can work with the most. One who can with the most, cannot, inevitably, with the minimum.

All that said, I'm still really excited to see RED in action, and I can't wait to be able to try one out myself. But until then, I still gotta work with what I have.

[Kyle Spicer]

Very Well said Jason! I think to each their own, and there are always reasons to use one medium over the next.

[PaulClements]

I think Red's next camera should be one of the following:

A Cubist camera
A Pointilist camera
A Surrealist camera

:)

[JustinGD]

Personally I don't think either makes one artist better or not, but relatively there will always be individuals that will respect film makers for capturing the final shot and not editing it in post over digital capture with half an eye on adjustment in post.

I agree, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who can capture the final shot without editing. However, I think it's their technical ability not artistic ability that is to be respected. Digital capture and editing makes it easier to get the right shot, but they are still just tools. Art has always been about creating a vision, and if digital makes it easier to take something from inside your head and put it on a screen, then the art becomes more "true" in some ways.

To use the painting metaphore, using digital capture and post production is like having a wider variety of brushes to paint with. Some may call it cheating because it's easier, but I believe that the final product will be more true to what the artist saw in their head.

That's what I think, but I'm of the digital generation and hope to grow with the medium. So what do I know?

[PaulClements]

It's all very subjective, and that's the point. For instance I think it can be the artistic ability more than the technical ability that can be respected in capturing such a shot, a reverse of what you think Justin.

It's the fact that opinions on different artforms exist that, to me at least, mean film will continue to be used for quite some time and is of course the basis for why people argue about using one over the other. Some people cannot except another persons point of view which is the saddest thing, and I can safely say that within the film vs digital there are many such people on both sides of the coin.

[Tonaci Tran]

Definitely a few interesting topics raised on this thread.
Image surface texture plays a major subconscious role in how an image is recieved. And quite frankly, image texture (by which I do not mean the texture of what is shown, though that too is important) can usually be attributed to imperfections or degradations in the resolving medium. Grain, visible pixels, compression artifacts, scratches; all of these things IF USED WELL can enhance the image.

The strength and weakness of high-res digital cinema is that it doesn't seem to have any inherent texture (this isn't quite true, but it's more true now than before). It's grain free, and there are no visible pixels or compression artifacts. The lack of texture can make things look strangely hyper-real, but one can texture (or not) the image any way one likes. It means that a filmmaker has more control of this tool, but my guess is that most won't take advantage of it.



Like evryone said..this is ALL so subjective. I love the clean pristine look. I hate grain. After seeing peter jackson's red mini movie... a period piece by the way... the lack of grain did not make it look any less nostalgic. It did not suffer from not having that oh so classic film grain.

[Tonaci Tran]

Photography and Cinematography are quite different though. Professional photography exists in a world of rapid workflow; newspapers, magazines, websites etc.

Cinematography by contrast involves days, weeks, months and very often years to deliver a piece that lasts about 2 hours.

That demand for delivery of the final product is what seperates the two.


Don't both demand rapid delivery? Time is money. I think the big movie companies put alot of pressure for the film crews to finish projects as fast as possible, just as magazines demand quick turnaround from their photographers.

But i hear ya Paul. I just have a different perspective.

[Jason Murphy]

Like evryone said..this is ALL so subjective. I love the clean pristine look. I hate grain. After seeing peter jackson's red mini movie... a period piece by the way... the lack of grain did not make it look any less nostalgic. It did not suffer from not having that oh so classic film grain.

You are, of course, correct, Tonaci. It's a very subjective thing (like most aesthetic decisions are). I shoot 4x5 stills (and have occasionally done the occasional 8x10 contact print), for example, because I don't want any visible grain in the photographs. I've shot Super-8 and really low-end DV for the exact opposite reason. But one of the likely unintentional side-effects of high-end digital cinema is now that texture can be a conscious aesthetic choice that isn't tied to method of origin. Two recent digital examples: the grainless, clean images of Zodiac worked really wonderfully in the movie, and on the other hand, the only interesting part of Robert Rodriguez's half of Grindhouse (beside Rose McGowan's machine-gun leg, of course) was the deliberately textured and distorted image, which was used in a near-expressionistic manner.

Not being at NAB, I haven't seen PJ's mini-movie, and I'm still kind of sad that I won't be able to see it projected in 4K, unless RED decides to show some stuff up around NYC in the near future (hint, hint :biggrin:). I've seen 4K-projected footage originating from Dalsa's camera, as well as 65mm, 35mm, and 1080p, and it all looked pretty good, the 4K & 65mm@4K especially, so I can imagine that PJ's piece looks quite stunning.

There is certainly no need for nostalgia to be grainy. It's probably more interesting if it's not. :)

[Zach Hilton]

I think we broke the record... I dont think there was a line anywhere that i saw, except for to go pee or to buy a hotdog.

Two days straight! Heck yeah! I would have to echo a lot of comments made today. I do feel the desire to post about my experience with the RED booth. Although, it is incomplete without pictures, and the like. The RED booth was the first place I went. Got there yesterday at 10:40 AM and there was already a 45 min. wait. This morning just after 10:00, the line was atleast 1 1/2 hours long. Apart from being the ONLY place that had that much traffic, it was the ONLY booth that kept me thinking the rest of the day how silly and crappy all these other cameras are. I'm glad I got in (reservation wise) when I did...even though it was a little late. Okay...onto the experience.

The Red team in general were very friendly. Jim, thank you for taking a personal interest in the booth. It was nice to meet you and talk to you. You are a very friendly chap. At first, a lot of the Red team seemed to be very on the defensive side, and I can understand why. But some advice...relax, you know you blow everyone else out of the water. Just eat it up and let all the criticism hit off the metal walls of the Red booth!

I did have multiple opportunities to talk to Jim's fiance, Meesha or something? Very friendly gal as well. Congrats! But the funny thing is, she spotted my friend and I 20 bucks to pay for our lunch...very embarrassing (yes we paid her back today) but can I say, the team went out of their way to make this the best booth, in and out of it...and it definitely shows. Couldn't have asked for a better Reservation Holder treatment than being let in and not having to wait the 2 hours in line (very helpful...thank you!), having Jim's fiance spot us money (once again, thank you!), and the on-hands experience with the cameras. A huge success in my opinion.

Another funny thing was watching Mike and a representative from Arri talk about the camera...thank goodness for a cell phone camera...it will be posted in a bit.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is, very AWESOME presentation. Richard Bluck said some pretty interesting things. They shot night for day on a couple of the shots. It was getting late, and the light was fading fast, so they just put up white cards in the distance because that was going to be out of focus anyway and shot that for a day scene. Very impressive. Also, there is a low-angle shot of the pilot sitting in the cockpit. You can see incredible detail in the shadows and such, and the sky is absolutely beautifully exposed as well. I asked him it that was sky replacement...and it was not. Straight from the camera. At the time of shooting they had 9 stops of latitude (according to Richard) and I heard mentioned in the booth that it is up to 11-12 now. Very, very impressive. Just can't say it enough. Thanks Jim. Thanks Red Team. Have a great rest of the week. Smile...and let the criticism roll of the shoulder, and the applause come from all around. Standing ovation here!

[Steve Gibby]

I wonder if there are any other booths at NAB with an hour-long wait to get in?

In two days of walkiing throughout all the exhibit halls of NAB, I don't remember seeing any lines for any other booths at all. The RED booth lines were the only apparent booth lines....and they were long all day both days. The Apple booth demonstration theater was always packed though...

[Zach Hilton]

In two days of walkiing throughout all the exhibit halls of NAB, I don't remember seeing any lines for any other booths at all. The RED booth lines were the only apparent booth lines....and they were long all day both days. The Apple booth demonstration theater was always packed though...

As was Adobe's, but those two I think that are a little different.

[feb31films]

, and I can safely say that within the film vs digital there are many such people on both sides of the coin.

Way to play it safe, Paul. :sarcasm: Seriously though, there seems to be an interesting dichotomy on this thread between the individual artist and the (members of the) media company. Many here are looking for an alternative way to express themselves and will shoot on many formats, Red being only one. Others are looking to shoot the same high quality footage as before at a fraction of the price to increase the profit margin.

[Ziggy Uszkurat]

It should be noted that Tarantino still ended up shooting Death Proof on film, despite having been "convinced" as he said. In my humble (and perhaps uninformed) opinion, I think Grindhouse is a good demonstration of how great film still beats great digital.

Box office returns and most critics seemed to think Death Proof was a pile of doo doo. The medium is just the medium - making it on film doesn't guarantee a quality story (neither for that matter will shooting on Red).

Just my 2c worth...
Ziggx

[Brook Willard]

We are all entitiled to our own opinions and practices... :)

[Andrew Benz]

The "user base" of the NAB trade fair has a wide gamut and for many of the attendees it is simply about paying the bills. Many of the folks on this forum approach this work as something that means a bit more. Are we delusional? Maybe, but please don't pinch me.

The RED booth does seem to somehow exist in its own dimension on the show floor. Walking around with my RED reservation holder badge and even my Titanium R around my neck has been an experience.

IMHO people who belittle the RED either lack imagination or see RED as a threat to their livelihood. I suppose the elitist viewpoint would be that they should take a bigger bite out of life. The more charitable view is simply to pity the waste.

In any case, I have found my personal interactions at NAB with many of the folks that I only knew from this forum to be soul stirring. Passion, imagination, excitement, intelligence, humanity and most of all humor. I feel lucky to call myself a REDhead, to be a dreamer, to question paradigms and to be able to enjoy the company of this group - even if it usually just cyber.

I raise my glass to you all.

Great post my man, you have framed the DIFFERENCE between us and the others pov very well. I have a story about a gentleman that is a head engineer for a local, but make the purchasing decisions for several stations. He is a very intelligent man, but RED did not compute for him or more importantly he could not understand why it would compute for me (even though I am a crossover shooter and have skillsets that no one in any of his station posses) or why I would want one of the first 1500 ... I will go into details later-- I was away for 36hrs. and need to catch up--- too bad we can't just "jack in" ala Wiliam Gibson-(RED is the closest thing to cyberpunk aesthetic for me).

Thank you again Blair.

Cheers-- Andrew

[Nathan Troutman]

Some people love black and white. Some people love records. Film is moving into the world of black and white. If it wasn't for the digital abilities of post production film wouldn't look all that good at all. Just watch a film from ten years ago and see how poor it looks (just watched Sleepy Hollow a few days ago. The grain is annoying. I didn't remember it from before but film isn't all that film anymore.)

How much "film" is left when the first thing that happens is turning it into digital and doing all kinds of digital post-production to make it look good - including getting rid of grain. I've never heard an 8-year old say, "Cars, doesn't look like film." Why is it I love to show digitally prestine animated films on my HD projector? Clear, vibrant, colorful, WOW. HD is changing what the audience sees as amazing video. None of these changes involves anything that film does well. Any film that tries to acheive this look must do so with tons of digital enhancements to make it look more. . . well. . . clear and less grainy and washed out.

I'd love to see someone show the actual "film" from a movie minus the digital post production process. There's nothing special there - only nostalgia. It's in the past. Only the industry has fought to keep it alive. The only reason why is control. The less people that can make films the more control the few people that can make films have and the more money they can make. With Red - outsiders have a real chance. With digital distribution the industry has even less control. 2007 - the year of the rebellion.

[JCallahan]

Box office returns and most critics seemed to think Death Proof was a pile of doo doo. The medium is just the medium - making it on film doesn't guarantee a quality story (neither for that matter will shooting on Red).

Just my 2c worth...
Ziggx


Hardcore digital apologists always use this argument. It's true... but I didn't say anything about story. I prefered the overall look of Death Proof to the look of Planet Terror. That's all there is to it. It might not matter to some members the audience, but it should matter to the people who are most obsessed with it. If you are behind the camera creating something that you care very deeply about, and one medium offers a certain style or a coloration that you feel better serves your vision, you are going to try to pursue it if at all possible. True?

I'm up in the air about digital. I think that digital's biggest and most important role is that it's like a flight simulator for analog formats. Get some digital equipment, shoot on it or record on it, make amazing things. Then later on, if you see the need, shoot on film and record to analog tape. The word doesn't need another analog vs. digital debate, but I'm suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't offer a proper archival format....

That said, I think Red is brilliant. It looks like it is finally going to close the quality gap between analog formats and their flight simulators. I swear I'm not here to piss in anyone's cereal. So far, I think that a lot of new technologies, particularly in the digital realm, are about ease and price alone. Quality has often taken a backseat. Digital editing of video and sound have also served as destructive influences on the creation of art (not that any misused tool wouldn't be a destructive influence). I want to be wrong about this. Red seems to be a push in the right direction, and the philosophy behind it as a product is the most decent thing that the industry has ever done.

[Chris Kenny]

The word doesn't need another analog vs. digital debate, but I'm suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't offer a proper archival format....

See, that's all a matter of perspective. I've got more of an IT background, and I'm extremely suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't let me make multiple flawless copies! The idea of having my "data" in only one place scares the hell out of me.

[Peter McCully]

As a kid I remember being enthralled by Cinerama and 70mm films. There was something special about being immersed in big, beautiful images that were inspirng and exciting. Later when I could just afford to buy and process 16mm reversal film and make my own art school movies, I felt that here was the power at last for me to create imagery for the big screen! Ha. After viewing PJ's tremendous little film at the booth on Monday I can see that the power has really arrived. That imagery had the presence and sparkle that 70mm used to have over normal 35mm presentations. Bring it on!!

[JCallahan]

See, that's all a matter of perspective. I've got more of an IT background, and I'm extremely suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't let me make multiple flawless copies! The idea of having my "data" in only one place scares the hell out of me.

I guess time will tell on this one. Like with revisiting masters and footage from now in say 50-60 years. Or 100 years. I say footage from now because no sort of long term, totally safe mastering format exists just yet. I would wager to say that in 50-60 years the specifics of digital/computer technology will be radically different, and the specifics of analog technologies will still be fundamentally the same. So, if given 2 masters to revisit in the future, which do you think you would try to work with first? I can imagine what hell it will be for people trying to revisit 4k masters from today... "I can't track down hardware that will run this codec...this doesn't have a SATA port so I need to find a box that has one of those...oh no the disk crashed." With analog formats, although it won't be easy by any stetch, I think that at any point it would probably be easier to track down and assemble the components to build a projector than say a video card with 4k output or what have you.

[Mardi_Gras]

Hollywood Reporter's piece on the short film.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003572364

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I would wager to say that in 50-60 years the specifics of digital/computer technology will be radically different, and the specifics of analog technologies will still be fundamentally the same. So, if given 2 masters to revisit in the future, which do you think you would try to work with first? I can imagine what hell it will be for people trying to revisit 4k masters from today...

Digital / data archives don't work this way. They are meant to evolve over time, not sit on a shelf indefinitely. And you can bet that in 50-60 years that analog technologies like 35mm film will become rather scarce. The revolution is here now and it's only a matter of time before 35mm production shifts from mainstream production to perpetuated art. And from there it will become nostalgic and then antique. Just because it has been with us for some time doesn't mean it will be here for just as long.

Coming from an IT background myself, I find the concepts of film archival to be outdated and inadequate. All the time we hear about film restoration and the work that must be done to locate decent film prints to work from so that digital / HD masters can be created for DVD production, etc.. Even with films that are less than 15 years old.

Whatever I create digitally now and for the rest of my life will be around at least that long... Barring catastrophic world events / nuclear war or that sort of thing. Hopefully my work will eventually be important enough that someone will maintain it long after my passing and not leave it to rot on some piece of holographic media somewhere. Same can be said for film... Where would most film works from the 50's be now if not kept in properly climate-controlled conditions or even accidentally ideal conditions? Same can be said for data storage formats... Right now, I agree that there's no truly perfect archival method for digital media. But there is no such thing for analog either and I would say that for long-term storage, digital will be vastly superior. Every time an archive is re-visited and re-consolidated to new storage media, the data requirements are more and more trivial. Every copy is a perfect 1:1 representation of the original. That can't be said for an analog medium. As for support of codecs and formats, that information is easy to propegate as well and maintain for future use. It's all about information and the flow of it. If the information stops flowing and is allowed to stagnate on an intermediate format (placing an LTO tape on a shelf for 40 years), that's a problem... But so is placing a 35mm film reel on a shelf too.

[nobodySpecial]

I guess time will tell on this one. Like with revisiting masters and footage from now in say 50-60 years. Or 100 years. I say footage from now because no sort of long term, totally safe mastering format exists just yet. I would wager to say that in 50-60 years the specifics of digital/computer technology will be radically different, and the specifics of analog technologies will still be fundamentally the same. So, if given 2 masters to revisit in the future, which do you think you would try to work with first? I can imagine what hell it will be for people trying to revisit 4k masters from today... "I can't track down hardware that will run this codec...this doesn't have a SATA port so I need to find a box that has one of those...oh no the disk crashed." With analog formats, although it won't be easy by any stetch, I think that at any point it would probably be easier to track down and assemble the components to build a projector than say a video card with 4k output or what have you.

Uggh. We really don't want to get into that here. Sysadmins have been going around and around on the question of data retention and migration for years. It's a problem for more than just video. The general consensus is "backup and migration". Backup data in case current tech fails, and have a systematic data migration plan for future technology. This includes getting rid of data that is no longer useful. For instance, you may want to keep your 4k RAW for the next 20 years, but do you really need that ProRes intermediate that you did for your HD deliverable? Probably not. It can be tossed after the contractually obligated time.

You also need to keep track of the formats of EVERYTHING you store long term. If RED were to go out of business in 10 years, you wouldn't want to come along in another 15 years and realize that you can no longer get to that file. You would need to "migrate" it to a new format when the old is no longer supported.

The great thing about digital versus analog is that, if done right (lossless formats), you can migrate digital data indefinitely with no generation loss. That 70 year old film will deteriorate, and every time you "migrate" it, you will lose data.

Perhaps we will reach a point were the rate of change in computing diminishes and data migrations are a once in a lifetime event. But for now, you can reasonably expect to migrate all your data at least a half dozen times in the next 50 years.

[jonahlee]

I had been interested in the RED since it's first announcement, and my excitement had been building, but actually seeing the Peter Jackson footage, and the RAW footage of that shoot I am now a full fledged believer. I have never seen digital aquisition that so closely emulated the color and depth of field of film, except it looked better than film because there was no grain! I waited a full hour to see the RED, and it was completely worth it. I spent the rest of the show wandering around in a daze, with the lines "Film is dead, Long Live RED!!" repeating in my head over and over again.

Wow.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

There is certainly no need for nostalgia to be grainy. It's probably more interesting if it's not. :)


put it like this...
Grainy = your watching a film
4k = your in the film

[JCallahan]

put it like this...
Grainy = your watching a film
4k = your in the film

It's getting to the point where this is going to be true. However, I think that both of these things still have their places in cinema.

[JCallahan]

Uggh. We really don't want to get into that here. Sysadmins have been going around and around on the question of data retention and migration for years. It's a problem for more than just video. The general consensus is "backup and migration". Backup data in case current tech fails, and have a systematic data migration plan for future technology. This includes getting rid of data that is no longer useful. For instance, you may want to keep your 4k RAW for the next 20 years, but do you really need that ProRes intermediate that you did for your HD deliverable? Probably not. It can be tossed after the contractually obligated time.

You also need to keep track of the formats of EVERYTHING you store long term. If RED were to go out of business in 10 years, you wouldn't want to come along in another 15 years and realize that you can no longer get to that file. You would need to "migrate" it to a new format when the old is no longer supported.

The great thing about digital versus analog is that, if done right (lossless formats), you can migrate digital data indefinitely with no generation loss. That 70 year old film will deteriorate, and every time you "migrate" it, you will lose data.

Perhaps we will reach a point were the rate of change in computing diminishes and data migrations are a once in a lifetime event. But for now, you can reasonably expect to migrate all your data at least a half dozen times in the next 50 years.

All very good points.

Having read through my posts again, I think I have made myself look like sort of a closed minded jerk...definitely not my intention. I believe that "hybrid" will be the wave of the future. My real thoughts go something like this..

The process of making a film can be broken into a few basic stages..

Production
Editing/Finishing
Distribution
Archival

So far, I think that film wins in the production stage for the reason that it is a more mature technology. Microprocessors and the like have been used to capture images for only a few decades. Film has more or less been refined continuously over the course of a century. Red and similar projects are going to close this gap once and for all, but once it is closed I don't believe that one can ever be completely superior to another in terms of certain uses and intentions.

Editing and Finishing are kind of a no-brainer at this point. Everyone but Spielburg works this way...(exaggeration). It's very fast, powerful, robust and non-destructive. It has caught on for a reason I suppose. Like any tool, it is only as good as the person using it. Don't get me started on the "Avid Farts" phenomenon...it will annoy you to hear me babble about it.

Digital completely wins in terms of distribution. It's the ultimate distribution format that has ever existed in terms of fidelity and convenience. Sure it would be nice if everyone could have a projector in home to screen celluloid prints...it would also be nice to have a solid gold house and a rocket car. It's kind of unsettling to think of how much better future digital distribution will be than the pan and scan VHS that I'm sure a lot of us grew up with.

The archival stage is perhaps where the benefits of a hybrid mindset would come in handy. Actively maintaining a two prong archival system is probably the best way to absolutely ensure that work will survive. If you can take the time to migrate your data every few years, I'm sure it's not that much more of a hassle to...make sure your analog media is still...sitting on the (climate controlled, cool, dry) shelf where you left it. At least as an insurance policy. Also, over time, as scanning processes and optics get better, new digital masters could potentially be created from the analog master that could then be reproduced with greater clarity than was previously achieved. More/better information can actually be pulled off of analog formats over time. Bits are just bits, you get what you have, so it's best to make sure you are happy with what you capture as you are capturing it. This is why I am so glad Red is closing this gap.

I kind of just wrote this for myself to organize my thoughts, and so I don't look like a complete ass on this message board. You can ignore me if you want, haha. I have to say though, it's great to be communicating with so many well-expressed and completely engaged people. It's inspiring.

[Tonaci Tran]

With digital, it just makes moviemaking more effortless. I can focus on creating good visual content. Having zero experience with film, I can't imagine shooting something without having the immediate ability to review what I just shot. Thats the thing I can't get my head around. I know veterans are so good that they can nail it all the time.. I am amazed you can do a shoot and not have any idea what it looks like until day(s) later after the film is transferred. I saw the earlier argument about how film disciplines you with being more meticulous with what you record..but I see this as more of a handicap..a severe one. Having the ability to shoot hours of footage.. I don't feel bottlenecked.. more filming=more chances to get the best take. more chances to get those moments that you wouldnt' otherwis ebecause you are too busy reloading your film. If I immediately see what I am shooting..and have instant playback on set, I can know right then and there if I got it right. Within minutes I can make that decision to reshoot. For these main reasons, for me..digital wins in the production category hands down.

[JCallahan]

It's absolutely a positive thing, but if you appreciate the benefits of film, it is a tradeoff that must be dealt with on a production by production basis. If the convenience of a complete digital workflow is more important to you than the (different but not necessarily better) qualities that film imparts on your work, then by all means, go for it. In a lot of ways, it seems that filmmaking is about choosing the correct compromises and tradeoffs to make on a situational basis. This type of compromise or tradeoff is going to be more difficult to deal with as time goes on.

[Tonaci Tran]

To clarify, not only the convenience..but quality (4k looks DAMN good), speed (record to red-drive. work on footage immediately) and cost (subtract film transfer cost).

If more people are exposed to footage..like Peter Jackson's RED demo, it will change their perception that film (grain) is necessary for that cinematic psychological/feel/look.

I think your points are extremely valid, but at the same time..this applies to the present perspective that filmmakers have in a film vs viper/cinealta environment. Film vs RED is a different ballgame. Film doesn't have the firm upper hand with RED as it did with viper/cinealtas.

With more perspectives from film guys like David Mullen saying "I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean." there will be a point when shooting film isn't worth the higher cost and slower workflow.

[Corrado Silveri]

There are many software utilities that can ADD grain in case you missed it.
I think about a quality work done (Furnace, just to name one).

Think about at the massive 3D production in the last 5 years... Anyone notice the lack of grain? Nope, because the grain was there.

So, what is the REAL problem?

[JCallahan]

There are many software utilities that can ADD grain in case you missed it.
I think about a quality work done (Furnace, just to name one).

Think about at the massive 3D production in the last 5 years... Anyone notice the lack of grain? Nope, because the grain was there.

So, what is the REAL problem?

If you want your work to reflect the attributes of a certain medium, and you are able to shoot on it, why not just shoot on it? Trying to add coloration after the fact is risky business. Just listen to some music recorded in the 80s...they used synths, recorded live sounds in completely dead environments and added fake ambiance with digital reverb. In the name of ease and convenience, all of the signals that they recorded were either synthetic or distorted in unrealistic ways. As a result of this, the music has aged poorly and it very strongly reflects the poor choices of the engineers that captured it. This is how I feel about fake grain and this sort of manipulation. I don't want to make something today and then watch it in a few years and say "Wish I shot that on film," or "I can't stand the look of that Pre-2009 fake analog noise!"

There is an adage from the film Wet Hot American Summer that I think sums this up nicely..."If you're gonna smear mud on your ass, smear mud on your ass...just don't lie about it."

[Corrado Silveri]

If you want your work to reflect the attributes of a certain medium, and you are able to shoot on it, why not just shoot on it? Trying to add coloration after the fact is risky business. Just listen to some music recorded in the 80s...they used synths, recorded live sounds in completely dead environments and added fake ambiance with digital reverb. In the name of ease and convenience, all of the signals that they recorded were either synthetic or distorted in unrealistic ways. As a result of this, the music has aged poorly and it very strongly reflects the poor choices of the engineers that captured it. This is how I feel about fake grain and this sort of manipulation. I don't want to make something today and then watch it in a few years and say "Wish I shot that on film," or "I can't stand the look of that Pre-2009 fake analog noise!"

There is an adage from the film Wet Hot American Summer that I think sums this up nicely..."If you're gonna smear mud on your ass, smear mud on your ass...just don't lie about it."

I'm completely agree with you.
I will not add grain to a REDONE's footage.
I'm just pointing the fact that is actually "possible", with realistics and credible results.
Just that.

[Tonaci Tran]

If you want your work to reflect the attributes of a certain medium, and you are able to shoot on it, why not just shoot on it? Trying to add coloration after the fact is risky business.

I haven't had a chance to see grindhouse..but in an earlier post quoting Robert Rodriguez "I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era."

Poorly executed film grain is one thing.. effective execution is another.

I think there will be a paradigm shift.. I agree that there will always be those like Speilberg who will stick with film until the end..and there will be situations where directors want film because of it's look...but.. in the next few years..feature films shot on film will become the minority and not the majority it is today. Not everyone shoots film because it's film. They shoot it because there hasn't been a viable alternative....until now.

[JCallahan]

To clarify, not only the convenience..but quality (4k looks DAMN good), speed (record to red-drive. work on footage immediately) and cost (subtract film transfer cost).

If more people are exposed to footage..like Peter Jackson's RED demo, it will change their perception that film (grain) is necessary for that cinematic psychological/feel/look.

I think your points are extremely valid, but at the same time..this applies to the present perspective that filmmakers have in a film vs viper/cinealta environment. Film vs RED is a different ballgame. Film doesn't have the firm upper hand with RED as it did with viper/cinealtas.

With more perspectives from film guys like David Mullen saying "I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean." there will be a point when shooting film isn't worth the higher cost and slower workflow.

It seems like we are "getting there" with digital, and I'm quite excited about the Peter Jackson footage. I think one of the big mistakes that the major film/analog apologists often make is to completely refuse to acknowledge that digital will come of age eventually (if it hasn't already). I still think that digital and film will always have their individual places, even if film one day shrinks to account for less than 1% of motion picture production. I still believe that no matter what, the manufacture of film should continue for (in order of importance) archival purposes, production and the undeniable nostalgia factor.

Maybe once I see the PJ footage I'll say once and for all, "That's it, we've arrived." Still, I will not see this arrival as a reason to outright ditch a well-refined and documented format that has dutifully served us for years. It will take more than that to completely push me over the edge about the usefulness of film, and the problem of archival formats is both difficult and extremely important. It must be standardized, refined, simplified and repeatedly verified. As of now, even if I've shot something that has been 100% digital, I'm still not ready to put all of my trust in one place in terms of preservation.

[Tonaci Tran]

In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't. As for viable digital archiving alternatives.. there have been quite a few discussed here that provide 20-30 years life. LTO has been mentioned. I spoke with Deanan at NAB and he told me that he made like 5 backup copies onto five different drives. 500gb drives cost around 150 dollars nowadays. With 5 harddrive backups..and add on hd-dvd and blu ray when prices come down..and burn several copies of each.. I'd say your data will be pretty safe.. the chances of all of your hardrives failing at once would be pretty slim.

[Jared VanLeuven]

I'm completely agree with you.
I will not add grain to a REDONE's footage.
I'm just pointing the fact that is actually "possible", with realistics and credible results.
Just that.

True enough, El. I'll be avoiding grain-in-post, as a cleaner image makes for a much more efficient compressed file.

Saw "Crossing The Line" 3 times (yes, I was a RED tent junkie), and each time I was more blown away. I got caught up in the story the first time, totally forgot about looking objectively at the screen, it was that good! The absolute frosting on the cake was the latitude in the exposure. My goodness me.

[JCallahan]

In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't. As for viable digital archiving alternatives.. there have been quite a few discussed here that provide 20-30 years life. LTO has been mentioned. I spoke with Deanan at NAB and he told me that he made like 5 backup copies onto five different drives. 500gb drives cost around 150 dollars nowadays. With 5 harddrive backups..and add on hd-dvd and blu ray when prices come down..and burn several copies of each.. I'd say your data will be pretty safe.. the chances of all of your hardrives failing at once would be pretty slim.

This covers preservation of the data very well, but it does not cover the ability of future hardware to read that data properly without having to actively and repeatedly migrate to new formats as they arrive.

[Tonaci Tran]

excellent point....i guess I'm just more optimistic about the lifespan of redcode raw. For example.. 4-5 years from now.. I'd imagine that thousands and thousands of footage will be stored in 4k red code raaw format. Just as I assume that Final Cut Pro will support red code for years and years to come, you are also assuming that future hardware will not be able to read Red Code and that it will eventually become obsolete to the point where we will need to migrate it. To me, it would be improbable that this much footage will be unreadable any time soon..and if and when that does happen..I also think that there will always be somebody somewhere who will write software to read Red Code raw due to demand... don't you see that red code will live forever?!! :)

[Alexander Black]

the purely theoretical idea of a digital signal does not degrade, but how many functioning 100 year old hard drives have you handled?

hard drives are expendables. until that changes you arguably have more work maintaining an archive of a all the full resolution data than you would an OCN - even with LTO in mind (since the machines are constantly changing and formats go out of style).

The only way to keep data safe right now is to keep it moving, to multiple places. It will be very nice when there is a more stable alternative to all this crap that's out there.

That said, if you're worried you can go DPX, which doesn't rely on a single company, and choke on the uncompressed frames :)

----

Also, I won't shoot stills digitally (once you use an XPan, you can't go back. it's like good tea. once you have it you can't drink lipton).. and I'm 100% geek, so you would assume I'd be all over D200s etc. I view the red as an alternative to 35mm production which also happens to be much cheaper (especially in post), but I don't view it as a _replacement_. I do think that over the next decade (not the next "few years") we will see 35 production slowly ramp down, and 2k/4k production ramp up. I think that will be driven by economics, not art. I don't think the issue of digital projection will be solved until the studios and the theatre chains make a cost sharing deal for the upgrade. We'll see..

_a

[jamesedwelland]

[QUOTE=Nathan Troutman;29770] Just watch a film from ten years ago and see how poor it looks

have you never seen a good copy of 2001? Shot 40 years ago and looks stunning.

Ths film/digital arguement is so tired....

what im interested in is good images however aquired

[jamesedwelland]

[QUOTE=tonaci;30266]In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't.

digital just fails completely! Tape and optical disks degradover time and disks fail. If film has a future oddly its probably in archiving..

[Tonaci Tran]

[QUOTE=tonaci;30266]In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't.

digital just fails completely! ..

Granted drives are prone to failure the solution is simple. Duplicate it on multiple drives, make extra backup copies on hd-dvd-bluray as it becomes cheaper.

"Lifespan The Blu-ray Disc format is designed to stay relevant for at least 10 to 15 years. "

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Section-13576/Section-13577/Index.html#2

Say I cut down the lifespan in half.. in five years. blu-ray or hd dvd burnign speeds will be superfast..where making duplicates will be trivial. I really don't see the big deal about drive failure fears when for the price of 35mm film transfer.. you could buy a ton of drives and discs.

"A feature-length transfer to 35mm can be as low as $20000 (75 min)"
http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm

vs redcode- 300gb- over two hours on a 100.00 drive?....hmm.

I'll pass on 35mm film.

[Mark Allen]

Well, Tarantino was convinced. Once these film purists realize that they can acheive ANY look they want digitally..why shoot film??

Tarantino shot Death Proof on film.

[Tonaci Tran]

Mark...
My statement is still correct. quote in it's entirety

"You tried to coax Tarantino, a film purist, into going digital. What was your argument? I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era. He said, "If you can do that, I'll be convinced." I took footage from Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, degraded it digitally, and mixed it with some music. I wanted it to look like a living graphic novel. I showed him the results, and he was blown away. He said, "All right. You win.""

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/robert.html

Quentin was "convinced" by Robert that he could produce the film effect to satifactory results. Quentin's choice to shoot film therefore, was not due to quality issue, but perhaps his comfort level with shooting film vs digital which may be foreign to him. This doesn't mean that Tarantino won't ever shoot digitally. If he is blown away by robert's tweak with Sin City and From dusk til Dawn, I wonder what he would think of Peter Jackson's red demo.

[Billy Summers]

You know, it' s funny how things work out. Couple years ago I had just come off a 35mm feature film that won some great festival awards such as best cinematography and best narrative feature to name a few. The film garned pat's on the back and enough festival awards to sink a ship but really didn't "do" anything in the market place.
The film I worked on immediately after was shot digitally and didn't even make it into some of the same festivals as the prior movie. It won no awards whatsoever, but it got a "deal" and struck indie movie oil as far as distribution goes.

...Funny how things work out...

[david farland]

Alan...yeah, I kind of agree with you on the technology front.
It's only when technology gets pushed against a wall i.e. human requirement are over met that prices go down.
Take disk drives 10 years ago (or maybe it was my pocket!), they felt expensive, now they're common place and other factors can now be taken more into account i.e. raid for speed & redundancy.
As for higher resolutions, yes they creep slowly up.

But in these threads most of us love technology more than ma & pa in the lounge and most of us look out for picture quality more than them also. So what...it's our job!

I guess in the 'real world' other factors trump leading edge technology.

To put things in proper perspective my favourite image is this one:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/48_1177029287.jpg

So go back 70 years and realise folks like us were having the same thoughts and arguments we're having, albeit in a television space on delivering quality etc, i.e Marconi vs Baird.

Still back to in 1936, but onto film, I think they began production on Gone with the Wind. We've enjoyed this on the big screen and in standard definition television formats.

What were the factors contributing to our enjoyment of this movie beside story, actors, settings.

I saw a list reputably from these (http://www.imagingscience.com/) people that said the most impostant aspects of picture quality 'IN ORDER' were:

1) contrast ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio)
2) color saturation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_saturation)
3) color accuracy
4) resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_resolution).

Have a problem with the order?....go back to 1936 and Gone with the Wind!

Cheers

Dave,

[Chris Kenny]

This covers preservation of the data very well, but it does not cover the ability of future hardware to read that data properly without having to actively and repeatedly migrate to new formats as they arrive.

People overstate this issue. Yes, if you're using some obscure proprietary format, this might be a problem. But if you archive to standard, widely used formats, it's really a complete non-issue. The world is never going to forget how to read JPEG2000.

[David Mullen ASC]

Mark...
Quentin was "convinced" by Robert that he could produce the film effect to satifactory results. Quentin's choice to shoot film therefore, was not due to quality issue, but perhaps his comfort level with shooting film vs digital which may be foreign to him.

Having seen "Death Proof" it didn't take me long to see why Tarantino shot 35mm, if only for the entirely practical issue of strapping a bunch of MOS cameras to a car performing stunts. No one would risk a Panavision Genesis camera in those conditions when a cheap 35mm Arri-2C would do the job better.

Plus Tarantino has a romantic attachment to film, just as he does to these old movies.

And I though the day exterior work in "Death Proof" looked pretty good anyway, so why did he need to shoot it digitally if he didn't have to and didn't want to?

[JCallahan]

People overstate this issue. Yes, if you're using some obscure proprietary format, this might be a problem. But if you archive to standard, widely used formats, it's really a complete non-issue. The world is never going to forget how to read JPEG2000.

You say I overstate the issue, I say you are underestimating the rate at which technologies change. Think of how foreign it would be at this point to try and interface a modern computer with an Apple II or extract meaningful data from its 5.25" floppies. They were widely used. Zip disks were widely used. DAT tape was widely used. I am not going to forget how these formats were used, but I don't know how well that translates to actually being able to use them this many (few) years down the road. Think of how many fundamentally similar image formats came before JPEG2000 that are incompatible. Think of how many will likely come afterwards that are similar but incompatible.

Perhaps this will be less of an issue than I have made it out to be, and more of an issue than you have made it out to be. I suspect that without frequent migration there will be at the very least, a fair number of unforseen headaches.

[Ace]

JC,

The internet has changed all of this. If you want to revive an old format, download an emulator or the relevant drivers. Data =! Hardware.

For example, I am somewhat of a Super-Nintendo fan, but the physical hardware and and game cartridges are no longer available and are very hard to comeby. Soloution? I run a software emulator which runs the various ROM games that have been transcoded to software (from the hardware cartridges). If thats possible after 25 years, Im sure the hardware/format obsolesence issue is, well, a non issue.

[JCallahan]

And I though the day exterior work in "Death Proof" looked pretty good anyway, so why did he need to shoot it digitally if he didn't have to and didn't want to?

Exactly...if you like it, and you can afford to do it, why not?

[JCallahan]

JC,

The internet has changed all of this. If you want to revive an old format, download an emulator or the relevant drivers. Data =! Hardware.

For example, I am somewhat of a Super-Nintendo fan, but the physical hardware and and game cartridges are no longer available and are very hard to comeby. Soloution? I run a software emulator which runs the various ROM games that have been transcoded to software (from the hardware cartridges). If thats possible after 25 years, Im sure the hardware/format obsolesence issue is, well, a non issue.

I still think that calling it a non-issue is a bit optimistic. It also depends on a lot of factors and technologies that don't exist yet. It's based on the the assumption that when a completely new platform/type of computing is commonplace, someone will write an emulator for old architectures and everything will just outright work, no fuss. Although it is definitely encouraging, I still say it's not enough to justify all eggs going into the digital basket. At least not yet, not with out some real concrete insurance.

[Tonaci Tran]

Having seen "Death Proof" it didn't take me long to see why Tarantino shot 35mm, if only for the entirely practical issue of strapping a bunch of MOS cameras to a car performing stunts. No one would risk a Panavision Genesis camera in those conditions when a cheap 35mm Arri-2C would do the job better.

Plus Tarantino has a romantic attachment to film, just as he does to these old movies.

And I though the day exterior work in "Death Proof" looked pretty good anyway, so why did he need to shoot it digitally if he didn't have to and didn't want to?

First off. welcome to reduser David. I really appreciate your presence here.

Good point about the camera strapping. The Genesis would definitely not be very practical on a stunt vehicle.

If money is no object..yes.. shoot anything you want. Coming from a non film background, I have a different perspective on how things are done. My primary point in bringing up the grindhouse example was due to how Robert was able to convince Tarantino..that the look (which Quentin previously thought could ONLY be acheived by film) could be produced digitally to his satisfaction.

The film vs digital argument.. is getting less and less dependant on quality..but more for the "love of film, the attachment, the style of movemaking with film, the smell..etc".. okay.. I am understanding film purists better now.

[Deanan]

In terms of long life archiving.. film degrades.. digital doesn't. As for viable digital archiving alternatives.. there have been quite a few discussed here that provide 20-30 years life. LTO has been mentioned. I spoke with Deanan at NAB and he told me that he made like 5 backup copies onto five different drives. 500gb drives cost around 150 dollars nowadays.slim.

2 copies from the original mag were made on set.
2 copies were made from the first copy at night in the hotel.
(one for Jarred and one to go to post).

The editor (rockstar Jabez) made a copy on the second day
and got a drive of the third day at the airport.

On the way back to LA we made two more copies (one for Jim
and one for myself) so we could start working on the plane
without touching the original master backups.

Oops. That's seven copies, not five. A bit excessive but it
was trivial to manage and do. Because the data rate is
quite sane, it enabled us to start working with the original
4k footage right away and without huge data management
headaches if we'd shot uncompressed 4k. 500GB vs 6TB

Deanan

[der4]

The big change that I see in using film is economics. The studios and producers do care about the bottom dollar. If film continues to be much more expensive and the digital format is very close in quality of image, then many DP's will find themselves shooting digitally. I personally like the digital production workflow from beginning to end. It gives me a sense of freedom. But I am more director minded. What I hope happens is that Red and future high end digital cameras will bring the cost of film down.

Another thing to consider is the theatrical world. I was at Show West. Eventually all theaters will project digitally. When this happens the studios will like the idea of saving post production cost on digital distribution. The cost of distributing film prints is sometimes more then the productions budget. And the executives at the studio want more money for marketing. (Not like they don't have enough.) This especially applies for the indie films.

Film will be more difficult to justify if the digital cameras produce similar results unless the price of film drops.

[Martín Yernazian]

I wonder what happend to David's Mullen post?

[Tonaci Tran]

2 copies from the original mag were made on set.
2 copies were made from the first copy at night in the hotel.
(one for Jarred and one to go to post).

The editor (rockstar Jabez) made a copy on the second day
and got a drive of the third day at the airport.

On the way back to LA we made two more copies (one for Jim
and one for myself) so we could start working on the plane
without touching the original master backups.

Oops. That's seven copies, not five. A bit excessive but it
was trivial to manage and do. Because the data rate is
quite sane, it enabled us to start working with the original
4k footage right away and without huge data management
headaches if we'd shot uncompressed 4k. 500GB vs 6TB

Deanan

thanks for the clarification Deanan.

[Chris Kenny]

You say I overstate the issue, I say you are underestimating the rate at which technologies change. Think of how foreign it would be at this point to try and interface a modern computer with an Apple II or extract meaningful data from its 5.25" floppies. They were widely used. Zip disks were widely used. DAT tape was widely used. I am not going to forget how these formats were used, but I don't know how well that translates to actually being able to use them this many (few) years down the road.

Everything you mention above would be trivially easy to recover. Sure, you can't walk into a BestBuy and get a 5.25" floppy drive anymore... but there are places which specifically stockpile stuff like this, in order to offer data retrieval services.

And remember, sticking something on media and abandoning it for a few decades is not going to be the normal archival process. Increasingly, the archival process is going to consist of storing all material on actively maintained and upgraded storage clusters. Corporations that manage data this way already have information kicking around their systems that's decades old.



Think of how many fundamentally similar image formats came before JPEG2000 that are incompatible. Think of how many will likely come afterwards that are similar but incompatible.


Sure, there are lots of obscure formats emerging and disappearing, but it's obvious when something rises above the fray, and turnover at the top isn't that high. The vast majority of images on the web are in either a 20 year old format (GIF) or a 13 year old format (JPEG). The desktop publishing world has been using TIFF continuously for a couple of decades. AIFF (19 years old) is still widely used for audio data. QuickTime can still play back pretty much any file created with the bundled codecs, even the original demos Apple distributed 16 years ago with 1.0. And the ASCII text format turned 40 this year.

Even when new formats do emerge, old ones typically don't go away, because there's often little or no expense involved in continuing to support them.

[David Ronan]

My first post. Just got back from 5 days of NAB (including the Sunday morning Apple FCP seminar). The mere mention of the Red Camera on Sunday brought a huge round of applause. Last night at the Final Cut User's Group Supermeet, Red Crew showed the camera and got a standing ovation from the 1000 members at the meeting. Everywhere you went, people were talking about having seen the booth or going to and many were talking about plans for projects that the camera inspired. I ran into all kinds of folks at the booth including the producer of the "Rush Hour" movies. Lots of interest in the camera. Even today (Thursday), even though the convention center parking lot was only 2/3 full at 11AM, the Red Booth had a line around three sides of the booth with people waiting to see the footage.

Spoke with the Steadycam operator of the Peter Jackson demo who came over from Melbourne, Australia (guess there was no Steadycam Op in New Zealand?) to see the footage. I was interested to talk to him as he is one of a very few people who have actually used the camera. He said it was similar in feel to the Sony F900 (a little lighter than the Sony, he thought). He called the Genesis camera a boat anchor. Overall, was happy with the Red camera as an operator. I asked him if he found anything unusual about it and he said, "It worked like a camera," which to me means, everything he needed was there and it worked which is all I wanted to hear.

What I found especially remarkable was standing in awe with other Red reservation holders in the Apple booth where they were demoing the Redcode and had a clip from the Jackson movie on a Final Cut timeline. There, you were able to stop and start the footage yourself. Every frame was crystal clear - detail in blowing blades of grass under an airplane. No artifacts. And presumably, we were looking at a 2K proxy frame. Amazing.

Congratulations, Red Crew!

[David Mullen ASC]

anyways, im sure speilberg will be in the minority of people clinging on to 35mm film. but to each their own. I just find it amusing when some resist change for quirky reasons.

What you call "quirky reasons" other people would call "art". If Van Gogh wanted to rhapsodize over a particular shade of cyan, that's his choice -- it doesn't have to make logical sense to other people. If I said I preferred blondes to brunettes, do I have to have a logical reason? Personal taste plays a big factor in artmaking, at all budget levels. Movies aren't made by engineers or robots -- you have respect and accept a certain level of "quirkiness" if you're going to let artists make movies.

I shoot a lot of Fuji film on features when most people shoot Kodak. Why? Well, one reason is that most people choose Kodak and therefore I not only question common wisdom just out of healthly contraryism, but also because if I shoot Fuji in a world of Kodak users, my work may have a (slight) distinctive edge. So as more and more films are shot digitally, you may see more and more people "cling" to film -- if they can afford it -- just to make a visual statement that is contrary to popular trends.

So there is an illogical side of art that is natural and driven by personal aesthetics and has to be factored in when having these discussions. What seems so obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another because that other person operates with a different aesthetic sensibility and arguing over it would be like arguing over whether apples tasted better than oranges.

[Martín Yernazian]

Also I wanted to say:

I love that red has done it for all of us makers, I honestly can afford to own one, I will love to rent it out to test it and to make a great story with it.

For the Film vs digital discussion I have to say, Guys enough is enough from both sides this has become really anoying, from both websites (cinematography.com and here)
Trust me I try to put an end to it and I got Banned from it for 30 days
( welll actually the ability to post ), my language was rough but come on you or them are not sissys and I was so tired of it..... I propose that instead of fighting lets make better projects that we been seeing for the past years...... Lets make outstanding projects that our peers will admire.... stop the pointless bickering that take us nowhere... trust me" is not the camera that makes the film, but the filmmaker himself"

To those lucky bastards hehe that bought a Red cam.... show off your abilities as storytellers , show to the world that Jim has given you an amazing product to make amazing films.... dont understamate your current power of surprise..... go BIG!

This is from sombody that still loves the look of Super 16 and just bought his first film camera, and old Eclair NPR...., for his next feature.

I beg you if you want to think yourself us a new and better kind of "makers" don't be ignorant and talk pointless nonsense

Film has a span of life and is coming to it's final years, we know it..... let it go

Digital is coming, correction digital is here! who knows next year what red is going to come up with and what this years project are gooing to dictated...

Long live "GreatMaking" ( film, digital, paper maché, what ever!)
People have forgotten the great part of it

Best to you my creative Brothers!

[Tonaci Tran]

and arguing over it would be like arguing over whether apples tasted better than oranges.

You summed it up very well here. I realized as the discussion went on..that I will always perceive things differently. thanks for the input.

[der4]

Many films have limited budgets and with a 4K digital image a lot of tweaking could be done. I can't wait for the day that I can make a choice based on art instead of finances. If I want to shoot 35mm just shoot it. I guess I am speaking more from an indie point of view. Do you think that in the future digital cameras we'll be able to create the look of art that the majority of cinematographers crave from 35mm?

[Alexander Nikishin]

I don't understand how anyone can think that 35mm is dead.....

Film has a very distinct look that Red doesn't....some call it organic, I call it grainy. But, that grain sometimes lends itself to the look of the film.

For instance, would Aranofsky's Pi have been the same without that grainy 16mm stock? Would Seven have been as "gritty" if shot on Red?

You hear people talk of digital footage being treated in post to have the same look as film, but I've yet to see it come to light.

The best example of digital mimicking film IMO is Zodiac or Flyboys. Yet even those still have a distinctly digital look to them.

My outlook on Red is not that it will kill film, rather, it will give cinematographers a new stock to shoot on. An ultra clean, high resolution, dynamic and extremely affordable stock. It resolves as much if not more than 35mm, but has a very distinct visual quality that 35mm does not.

Will it become the more popular stock? In due time digital will be the leading medium, but for now, it is just a new, very promising and exciting tool that we cinematographers can hone.

[David Mullen ASC]

One creative possibilty, if a transfer to film is planned, is to transfer the digital file to camera negative stock rather than intermediate stock, to get a grain texture. You could go even further and do tricks like a bleach-bypass to the film for more "texture".

I once did an experiment with the help of the folks at Swiss Effects transferring some 25P PAL footage to different film stocks -- most were a little disappointing in that I felt I could have just digitally color-corrected for that look, but the most interesting was when I transferred the footage to 35mm color-reversal and then cross-processed it into a negative. I got sort of a high-contrast saturated look like some bizarre version of Kodachrome, with an off-color bias.

Only trouble with this approach was that the look was so unique that the only want to distribute the move later for home video would have been to do a telecine back to video. Hence why most people want to "bake" these unique looks and grain textures into the original digital master.

Everyone talks about how easy it is to add film grain in post, but I was talking to Matthew Labitique (DP of "Pi") about his photography of Aronovsky's "The Fountain", shot on push-processed 35mm Expression 500T for a strong grain texture, and he had to shoot the greenscreen stuff with un-pushed stock at the request of the efx people, who said they could then later match the look of the final composite to the pushed footage -- but in the end, they couldn't so the movie has some shots that are grainier than others.

Adding noise is not the same as adding film grain.

[Manfred Lopez]

Adding noise is not the same as adding film grain.

David, very interesting post. One question though... Do you think that Super 16mm is still a viable origination format whose look can't be replicated somehow in post? The reason I ask is because I have an A-minima and I would hate for it to become irrelevant.

[Martín Yernazian]

that would be awfull, I love the look of Super 16, even if you can only canned to 2k-3k tops

[Jason Francois]

I think both film and digital will be around for many, many years together. As David and others have said over and over again, it really is personal preference and really project dependent. If somebody is using the exact same look, wether it be grainy or crystal-clear, on every project they do, I would argue that they are creatively limting themselves. Different looks help to tell different stories.

After seeing what RED can do I truly believe that RED has changed the landscape of digital cinema, but it is still ultimately just a tool of storytelling. A very cool and important tool, but a tool none-the-less.

[JCallahan]

David, bravo on apples and oranges.

People really seem to want film to go away. Even if the merits of digital are completely rock solid, which some of them seem to be, film is film and digital is digital. Preference. I don't think it's going away and I would prefer to have it around as a production format and an archival format, at the very least.

I'll bet that even the people at Red still have a fondness for film, although due to the nature of their work I doubt too many of them would exactly be eager to step up the plate an defend its continued usefulness.

[Martín Yernazian]

InsanityFW

you made an intelligent point there, I think Red is great and it would allow some serious filmmaking

[Alexander Nikishin]

Here's a good article on making digital into film from Harris Savides...

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/April2007/Zodiac/page1.php

[Hrvoje Simic]

The strength and weakness of high-res digital cinema is that it doesn't seem to have any inherent texture (this isn't quite true, but it's more true now than before). It's grain free, and there are no visible pixels or compression artifacts. The lack of texture can make things look strangely hyper-real, but one can texture (or not) the image any way one likes. It means that a filmmaker has more control of this tool, but my guess is that most won't take advantage of it.



With hyper-real picture in the start, as well as all the 12 bit color data, artists basicaly get a pure canvas to add the texture they choose and by that "the feel" of the picture.
Once you told the story - as you woud have told it with film (little bit harder, though) you get another creative freedom in post to an extent which couldn't be reachable with a predetermined factors of film.

There lies a whole new world in post, with films like "Sin City" and "300" although brilliant - barely scratching the surface.

I think RED will lead a significant role in the evolution of this fairly new artform of picture manipulation.

[Andrew M.]

Talking about film look and feel, wanted to remind you what Graeme's main business is.
http://www.nattress.com/
We are very lucky that Graeme is on RED team, his plug-ins among many, can add different effects to the movie.
Once camera sensors will have sufficient dynamic range and bit resolution, it will be relatively easy to design profilers to add different film look of different film stock to the digital data. After processing digital film through such profiler, only experts that knows what to look for, will be able to recognize film from digital in terms of origination of the material. Remember at this moment, most movies that we see in the cinema, are scanned with 4K sensors and some distribution copies in the film format are originating from fully digital cameras. So the process of presenting the digitally processed movies has already started few years ago. Sure once you watch masters it will be easy to see the difference but on final copy that goes to the distribution channels of the movie theaters even experts will have trouble to see the difference.

[Hrvoje Simic]

What you call "quirky reasons" other people would call "art". If Van Gogh wanted to rhapsodize over a particular shade of cyan, that's his choice -- it doesn't have to make logical sense to other people. If I said I preferred blondes to brunettes, do I have to have a logical reason? Personal taste plays a big factor in artmaking, at all budget levels. Movies aren't made by engineers or robots -- you have respect and accept a certain level of "quirkiness" if you're going to let artists make movies.

I shoot a lot of Fuji film on features when most people shoot Kodak. Why? Well, one reason is that most people choose Kodak and therefore I not only question common wisdom just out of healthly contraryism, but also because if I shoot Fuji in a world of Kodak users, my work may have a (slight) distinctive edge. So as more and more films are shot digitally, you may see more and more people "cling" to film -- if they can afford it -- just to make a visual statement that is contrary to popular trends.

So there is an illogical side of art that is natural and driven by personal aesthetics and has to be factored in when having these discussions. What seems so obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another because that other person operates with a different aesthetic sensibility and arguing over it would be like arguing over whether apples tasted better than oranges.

Everything you said undoubtfully stands.

But you have to admit that there are emotional elements here also. An artist tends to stay devoted to his/hers tools, which has to be respected. As art is influenced by emotions, emotions also have an influence on artist's choices.
Also, many times it's like creativity is the one that "clings on" to a certain tool, as if your expressive mental workflow is used to specific elements and any change creates a disturbance in that mental workflow.

What I like about digital is that the artists get a choice of unlimited tastes, and not only it goes far beyond "apples and oranges" example, but allows the creation of infinite number of "fruits".

In digital you can get a totally unique distinctive edge. It just puts that unlimited choice at the end, in the post - as oppose to choosing the type of film in the start.

[Andrew M.]

What I like about digital is that the artists get a choice of unlimited tastes, and not only it goes far beyond "apples and oranges" example, but allows the creation of infinite number of "fruits".

This unlimited choice of fruits is what makes me recognize film still photographer from digital film photographer when I am watching art photography.
Digital photographers are using different techniques that digital post allows them to use.
However more and more often I see that film photographers do scan their work and use the same tools in the post that digital counterparts use. Then the only way I can recognize the film versus digital art work is the content and only if I know the artists.

[Hrvoje Simic]

The "user base" of the NAB trade fair has a wide gamut and for many of the attendees it is simply about paying the bills. Many of the folks on this forum approach this work as something that means a bit more. Are we delusional? Maybe, but please don't pinch me.

The RED booth does seem to somehow exist in its own dimension on the show floor. Walking around with my RED reservation holder badge and even my Titanium R around my neck has been an experience.

IMHO people who belittle the RED either lack imagination or see RED as a threat to their livelihood. I suppose the elitist viewpoint would be that they should take a bigger bite out of life. The more charitable view is simply to pity the waste.

In any case, I have found my personal interactions at NAB with many of the folks that I only knew from this forum to be soul stirring. Passion, imagination, excitement, intelligence, humanity and most of all humor. I feel lucky to call myself a REDhead, to be a dreamer, to question paradigms and to be able to enjoy the company of this group - even if it usually just cyber.

I raise my glass to you all.


And 6000 miles away a glass is risen to you, fellow dreamer.

[Hrvoje Simic]

This unlimited choice of fruits is what makes me recognize film still photographer from digital film photographer when I am watching art photography.
Digital photographers are using different techniques that digital post allows them to use.
However more and more often I see that film photographers do scan their work and use the same tools in the post that digital counterparts use. Then the only way I can recognize the film versus digital art work is the content and only if I know the artist.

I share the same impressions on that. For me, the important thing is that the post doesn't affect concentrating on the content, although there are applications where content becomes a secondary issue.

[Yash Keough]

We've really got a lot of great discussion going on here! I attended a D-20 workshop about a month ago at a rental house and during it, they showed a film where I believe the director of the ASC (correct me if I'm wrong) orchestrated a shoot funded by Disney comparing all the new cameras, from the F900 (may have been F950) to the Dalsa Origin, Genesis, D-20 and more. Like some have brought up here however, the conclusion he seemed to have come to after testing all the cameras was that digital and film each have their very own uses where one does better than others. A good example was from a shoot that they showed after the tests in Winnipeg by the DP doing the presentation. They had shot a darkly lit room with wood paneling and on the D-20 footage, the wood looked much more rich and vibrant. On the film footage however, the wood wasn't so nice. Yet there are also many cases where film will perform better. I guess it really just depends, like David Mullen suggested, on what your needs are. Tarantino needed to do crazy stunt shots for Death Proof so he shot film where I'm assuming he didn't have to worry too much about the cameras themselves. Anyways, really cool stuff this discussion is quite informative! :w00t:

[zak forrest]

Tarantino shot Death Proof on film.


nice..

[zak forrest]

Mark...
My statement is still correct. quote in it's entirety

"You tried to coax Tarantino, a film purist, into going digital. What was your argument? I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era. He said, "If you can do that, I'll be convinced." I took footage from Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, degraded it digitally, and mixed it with some music. I wanted it to look like a living graphic novel. I showed him the results, and he was blown away. He said, "All right. You win.""

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/robert.html

Quentin was "convinced" by Robert that he could produce the film effect to satifactory results. Quentin's choice to shoot film therefore, was not due to quality issue, but perhaps his comfort level with shooting film vs digital which may be foreign to him. This doesn't mean that Tarantino won't ever shoot digitally. If he is blown away by robert's tweak with Sin City and From dusk til Dawn, I wonder what he would think of Peter Jackson's red demo.


NICE. i think quentin might say it didn't look like film. i wonder if he would ever use red, i could see him taking a long time to switch, or perhaps never. i could be wrong, im just saying the whole thing of things being comfortable for someone goes a long way, possibly the only way.

[David Mullen ASC]

Everything you said undoubtfully stands.
What I like about digital is that the artists get a choice of unlimited tastes, and not only it goes far beyond "apples and oranges" example, but allows the creation of infinite number of "fruits".

In digital you can get a totally unique distinctive edge. It just puts that unlimited choice at the end, in the post - as oppose to choosing the type of film in the start.

But since most film is scanned to digital these days, you have all the same tools for film images as you do with digital ones, and often you're working with an original that contains more exposure information to start with than most digital cine cameras can deliver. So with film, you have all the advantages of film plus all the advantages of digital in terms of image manipulation. The main advantage that digital gives you is lower cost plus the speed of moving it into the digital post environment.

So I don't buy this notion that you have more creative possibilities in digital post with digitally-captured images versus film-captured images.

[jonahlee]

Doesn't matter what format Tarantino shot Death Proof in, the movie is terrible any which way.

[TedSikora]

I'm a bit late, but I've been sick. First time poster. Love RED guys. Blog excerpt from my NAB review below.

www.herotomorrow.blogspot.com (http://www.herotomorrow.blogspot.com)

The biggest buzz came from the RED Digital Cinema booth. Those who attended the Digital Production seminar at the Cleveland Int. Film Fest will recall that I was suggesting that RED will change the industry as we know it. After sticking my neck out on that one I feel completely vindicated after having experienced their booth.

Until NAB 2007 the Red One Camera was a concept and promise. The concept was based on the premise that - if we have digital still cameras that can create 11 megapixel images that are superior to 35mm, why can’t we take that same technology and apply it to sequencial video frames? It's important to note that they didn’t set out to make something as good as 35mm - they set out to make something better.

This year they were promising to show actual footage. And not just any footage – this was ‘12 minute short film shot by Mr. Peter Jackson starring Kevin Dillon’ footage.

The line to see the film really felt like the wait at an amusement park for the hot new ride. People from all over the globe waited hours to see what this small company from the U.S. of A (that’s right, America) developed. (Cap would be so proud.)

When I finally saw it I can tell you honestly that I was FLOORED. It has well over 4 times the pixels/definition of most current hi-def cameras. I couldn’t believe I was watching digital video, AND it gets even better because this footage was shot with a prototype camera that had NO internal settings and only one shutter speed. Much of the film was shot in the daylight and bright sun which is always the worst condition for digital video, but somehow these bastards actually pulled it off. Don’t take my word for it. Check out still frames and footage on their site.

This is a really hip company, and they really care about keeping this stuff affordable. The price point on the camera is around 18k - I don't know how they can do that. They're also in the process of developing the world's first mini-professional video camera ("not prosumer, mind you") as well as a 4k digital projector. I spoke briefly with company spokesman Ted Schilowitz at a Final Cut Users Group, and basically thanked him for what they are doing for us indie guys.

To date this is probably the most powerful tool digital filmmakers have ever seen. The camera comes out later this year and the worlds of 35mm and digital are about to level out considerably.

God bless you Red people.

[Desert Rune]

I love that red has done it for all of us makers, I honestly can afford to own one, I will love to rent it out to test it and to make a great story with it.

For the Film vs digital discussion I have to say, Guys enough is enough from both sides this has become really anoying, from both websites (cinematography.com and here)

Actually, I don't mind the film vs Red discussions. To me, it means Red is on to something. I'd be more worried if no one was debating Red vs film. As long as personal attacks are left out of discussions, I embrace them!

[Kyle_Doris]

I don't understand how anyone can think that 35mm is dead.....

Film has a very distinct look that Red doesn't....some call it organic, I call it grainy. But, that grain sometimes lends itself to the look of the film.

For instance, would Aranofsky's Pi have been the same without that grainy 16mm stock? Would Seven have been as "gritty" if shot on Red?

You hear people talk of digital footage being treated in post to have the same look as film, but I've yet to see it come to light.

The best example of digital mimicking film IMO is Zodiac or Flyboys. Yet even those still have a distinctly digital look to them.

My outlook on Red is not that it will kill film, rather, it will give cinematographers a new stock to shoot on. An ultra clean, high resolution, dynamic and extremely affordable stock. It resolves as much if not more than 35mm, but has a very distinct visual quality that 35mm does not.

Will it become the more popular stock? In due time digital will be the leading medium, but for now, it is just a new, very promising and exciting tool that we cinematographers can hone.

good post, that's basically how i feel exactly.