OK... Film vs. RED

[Jannard]

We may as well get this out of the way...

1. Cost of equipment- advantage RED
New 35mm film camera system= roughly $150K-$300K depending on model and accessories.
New RED ONE system= roughly $25K
Used 35mm film system= roughly $25K-$100K depending on age, model and condition

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film
Film is roughly 13 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although we are working on improvement in this area).

4. Resolution- advantage RED
Every industry expert I spoke with at NAB said that our footage was equal to or greater than 35mm film in resolution. If you want to hold this one aside until there are side by side tests... no argument from me.

5. Grain- If you like it, advantage 35mm film. If you don't like it, advantage RED

6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

7. Pulling a key- advantage RED.
The lack of grain makes it much easier to separate a subject from green or blue screen.

One of the biggest advantages that 35mm film had over digital was that it is "filmic". The biggest compliment that we received at NAB was that the RED camera was the 1st digital footage they saw that "felt right". I won't name names, but they are hard names to beat. And most did NOT have reservations.

Please be clear that we are NOT saying we are a film replacement camera. We are saying that we are a film alternative. Choose what you want based on which advantages matter to you.

Jim

[Bachman]

Grain! Dude we can do that in post

And Jim, you forgot to add that Digital is better for the environment.

[Jay A. Kelley]

We may as well get this out of the way...

1. Cost of equipment- advantage RED
New 35mm film camera system= roughly $150K-$300K depending on model and accessories.
New RED ONE system= roughly $25K
Used 35mm film system= roughly $25K-$100K depending on age, model and condition

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film
Film is roughly 13-14 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although we are working on improvement in this area).

4. Resolution- advantage RED
Every industry expert I spoke with at NAB said that our footage was equal to or greater than 35mm film in resolution. If you want to hold this one aside until there are side by side tests... no argument from me.

5. Grain- If you like it, advantage 35mm film. If you don't like it, advantage RED

6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

One of the biggest advantages that 35mm film had over digital was that it is "filmic". The biggest compliment that we received at NAB was that the RED camera was the 1st digital footage they saw that "felt right". I won't name names, but they are hard names to beat. And most did NOT have reservations.

Please be clear that we are NOT saying we are a film replacement camera. We are saying that we are a film alternative. Choose what you want based on which advantages matter to you.

Jim

Jim, why oh why did you decide to open this can of worms?
:)

Jay

[Jannard]

Jim, why oh why did you decide to open this can of worms?
:)

Jay

Because this is open development. We have nothing to hide.

Jim

[Shawn Nelson]

We have nothing to hide.

Jim

Okay, so this is the swimsuit portion of Red showcase... :matrix:

[Bachman]

LOL, this post will be the longest

[Jay A. Kelley]

I know that, but this is an arguement you and I have already experienced on c.com.(We remember what fun that was!).. More importantly than that, it's COMPLETELY subjective. Impossible to nail down... RED is it's own look. It's a format unlike most others. Either people will like it and shoot it, or they won't. Same goes for film. To each his own.

Before everyone gets rolling here.. Just remember RED, 35mm film, 16mm, etc.. Are simply choices and there's no such thing as a "this one is the best". It's a matter of pick the shoes that fit you feet!

No one is saying RED IS BETTER. What they are saying is that RED is a good choice for those people it fits with.

At least that's what I HOPE they're saying.. Am I wrong Jim?

Jay

[Jannard]

No... I think we are better. :-)

Jim

[Jay A. Kelley]

No... I think we are better. :-)

Jim

You dweeb :biggrin: ... Ok I give up.. Every one stay in your coners.. At the sound of the bell come out fighting!

:bleh:

Jay

[Alexander Nikishin]

The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although we are working on improvement in this area)

So is this a confirmation that the release model of Red will have a dynamic range greater than 11.3 stops?

[Jannard]

This board just seemed too quiet for my tastes...

Jim

[Bachman]

How many pro stills Photographers switched from 35mm to Digital over the past 3 years?? Its a no brainer.

Useless info for you all....90% of photos in Japan are taken on Cell Phones...ekk!

[M Olsen]

Dear oh Dear Jim,

And so the great debate starts.. . did the little RED Devil tell you to go ahead and open this can of worms. Lol

[Jay A. Kelley]

I can tell.. You're jumping all over the figgin place posting like a mad man (Of course I seem to be doing to the same).

Wanna really get things hopping, how about sharing a story or two about your shoot with Peter Jackson.. I for one would love some behind the scenes stories.. There had to be some things you can talk about that would be cool to hear.

Come on Jim... Spill some beans.. Not about RED specifically, but just the experience of it.. What was it like when you saw this guys and suddenly realized you were shooting a world war I epic?!?!

TALK TO ME

Jay

[Teague Kennedy]

I am soooo glad there is an alternative to 35mm film.....

thanks, Jim.

Doesn't matter to me what's better, but I'm gonna use Red.

[Brook Willard]

Very cool... it's interesting to see it all laid out like that. I can't wait to see what happens in here... :)

[Alex Boothby]

8 - Long Term Archiving - advantage....???

Film is not just an acquisition format. Often forgotten.

[Brook Willard]

Good point, Boothba.

In my opinion, RED has the advantage there. Film can be kept in great condition over the years, but it requires a lot of work and protection. All RED will need is a long-term storage device. While the options available today are ok... they're not perfect. The beauty is that old RED data can bounce from drive to drive and storage system to storage system until the end of time without losing one bit of data.

[Drew Mylrea]

I really don't know what kind of competition this is. Being of the younger set / having shot digital since I was a kid and knowing an online NLE work-flow, film seems like a real legacy format that hasn't been abandoned because the people who grew up shooting it haven't died off yet. I feel like people often get really romantic with the format because all of their favorite films were shot on film, but in time that will change. And in time, the Hollywood system will hopefully become de-centralized thanks to online distribution and developments like the Red. And if it does, digital formats like the RED will be very important to the future of movie-making.

Neither the RED or any digital format is perfect. Digital has its own quirks that are unique to itself and that is fine. What it really comes down to (in my opinion) is the market... if digital distribution does change the way that films are made and theaters become less prevalent then movies will become more niche, make less money, but increase in quality because of sheer numbers. And, if movies are making less because of a re-defined distribution system then the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to telling your story won't be 1-2 gained stops of latitude, but price and familiarity.

And if the future is commanded by a bunch of young-guns, then they will be most familiar with digital, they will work around any quirks just as Hollywood filmmakers have been working around the quirkiness of film forever. Whats exiting is that possibly very soon the only factor determine a films success will be the talent and the quality of the storytelling (as apposed to the quality of a filmmakers contacts and marketing strategy). Imagine: in a couple of years our kids will grow up with 4k camera's that we pass down to them and are editing on our "old" 8-core Macs, uploading their features on iTunes and having showings at friends homes on mass-market 4k projectors.

Exited about the future.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Hi Jim,

I hope you are well rested after the ever long line of peolple thath you had to take care at NAB, fantastik show, I congratulate you and your Team.

I'm glad thath you feel RED is better, because is exactly how I feel.

I was looking for every option available and absolute best available quality was my main goal, no money issues here, I'm not a millionaire by any means, but I do have in off to invest in the best gear.

One of many once said, they say the graine look defaines film, by a vertue or difect.

I think He was sayng that maeby they can not get rid of so they embraced.

Personally I was very very impressed by the footage at NAB, and not just because PJ is my Idol but because RED showed me the best footage I have seen so far, maeby color was a little bit differente then my personal taste, but still stunning.

At end I can not stand still antill I get my RED's and make my statement about this camera telling my stories with it, and support you and your project all the way, and I can not shut up about it.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Jay A. Kelley]

Even though David Mullen doesn't like to bite on this sort of arguement, it's clear Jim did this for some fun spirited debate.. That said I hope David jumps into this nice and hard.. I want a pro film guy to slam his two cents in here.

Jay

Yeah.. I like RED too.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Very cool... it's interesting to see it all laid out like that. I can't wait to see what happens in here . . .
Hmmm . . . well, Brook, I actually don't expect much to happen here. Have you noticed the number of "mea culpas" and "softened" positions over at that other forum that have been posted, post-NAB? It's virtually a complete turnaround. Plus, this is RED territory. Few skeptics seem to venture here. At least this post readily concedes RED's capabilities, vis-a-vis film (latitude, grain, etc.). Jim laid everything out on the table. And there's little argument over most of those points. Of course, there's always gonna be that one die hard, off-topic poster who'll post, "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!"

[Jay A. Kelley]

You wanna make the arguement more interesting.. Let's look at the formats WITHOUT money as a consideration.

Here's the question: You have 10 million dollars, do you shoot RED or 35mm?

Can RED compete, and beat, film on a level playing field? (Helping Jim throw some gas on this fire)

Jay

[Jannard]

Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.

Jim

[Bachman]

Some History:

Film manufacture starts 1880 by George Eastman
Digital Camera Patented 1972 Texas Instruments, first commercial electronic camera Sony Mavica, 1981

Film has had approx 100 years development head start over Digital's meger 30 or so years.

Processor speed approx doubles every 2 years. Do the math!

What will RED look like in 10 years??

[Ralph Oshiro]

Now, maybe there's room for my ancillary film vs. video argument. I think Ted said it best in the Apple demo video. To grossly paraphrase his statement, "it doesn't look like video, and it doesn't look like film--it's something different." I think "something different" is just great! Completely noiseless, high-resolution imagery will enable new styles of motion video and motion graphics design. I say, it's time for us to break some new ground, visually, with this new tool.

[TimothyD]

Imagine: in a couple of years our kids will grow up with 4k camera's that we pass down to them and are editing on our "old" 8-core Macs, uploading their features on iTunes and having showings at friends homes on mass-market 4k projectors.

Exited about the future.

Forget the kids posting home movies, I'm excited that I'm going to be able to have this kind of quality available to me in the near future:wink:

Tim

[Paul Hazlett]

Me thinks Mr. Jannard, after 15 months of fighting EVERYONE except a few loyals, then proving his baby to be the real thing is going thru confrontation
withdrawl. hehheh.

I cannot speak of the advantages of 35 since I have never shot it myself, but this thread promises to be good with the likes of Mr. Mullen posting regulary.

[laguun]

This board just seemed too quiet for my tastes...
Jim

hey jim - any chance that you -might- show up in berlin the 6/28? that would certainly add >400 posters on reduser.com at once.

or ted or graeme (we would also accept kelly or noelle)... and "crossing the line" on a decent media which we could copy over to the 4k clipster?

there will be -plenty- off the german film!film!-tribe, there is a 4k projector, there is the oldest running studio in the world....
http://www.studiobabelsberg.com/
http://hdatwork.de/ (this link in is german only)

and we do have 3 airports here, btw, 2 of then have a cool landing approach (as you probably already know).

ah, and as you have already been bribed with whiskey - i would personally guarantee & supply -excellent- cigars.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.
YES! Absolutely, Jim. To me, RED represents the holy grail of digital motion picture acquisition . . . FINALLY! Finally . . . no more excuses! FINALLY . . . no more apologizing for what my images could have, should have, would have been. I can now reserve all my excuses for my often-weak story ideas instead!

[Alexander Nikishin]

3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film
Film is roughly 13 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although we are working on improvement in this area).

C'mon Jim spill it, are we looking at greater than 11.3 stops on the production model?

[Jannard]

C'mon Jim spill it, are we looking at greater than 11.3 stops on the production model?

We're working on it...

Jim

[Bachman]

hey jim - any chance that you -might- show up in berlin the 6/28? that would certainly add >400 posters on reduser.com at once.

or ted or graeme (we would also accept kelly or noelle)... and "crossing the line" on a decent media which we could copy over to the 4k clipster?

there will be -plenty- off the german film!film!-tribe, there is a 4k projector, there is the oldest running studio in the world....
http://www.studiobabelsberg.com/
http://hdatwork.de/ (this link in is german only)

and we do have 3 airports here, btw, 2 of then have a cool landing approach (as you probably already know).

ah, and as you have already been bribed with whiskey - i would personally guarantee & supply -excellent- cigars.

But we have sheep!

[Alexander Nikishin]

We're working on it...

Jim

If you can make that happen....Just.....WOW!

[Paul Hazlett]

But we have sheep!

uhm.....exactly for what purpose? shooting pastural setting with Red I hope.

[wshultz]

I got sucked in a couple of times on that "other" forum and it brought out the ugly in me. But it's become really quiet now since NAB and I have to give some folks credit for admitting they were wrong.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Okay, now back to the film vs. RED war . . . GO!

[laguun]

But we have sheep!


cigars & 4k projection & blondes > sheeps.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Here's the question: You have 10 million dollars, do you shoot RED or 35mm?
Now THAT's probably the better question. In fact, an even BETTER question would be . . . You have $100 million to make a movie. Which would you choose, RED or 35mm film? With only $10 million, you could easily argue to use the bulk of that money for sets, etc. With $100 million, the stock and processing cost becomes virtually inconsequential.

[Shawn Nelson]

Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.

Jim

Exactly!!

About three years ago I was shooting a scene wherein someone comes to the door and has a conversation with someone inside, without being let inside...because that's what my story needed. Well good luck trying to resolve that kind of contrast with an XL1s! We tried everything we could but it wouldn't look any better than this side of dog sh!t. So, I had to cut the scene, and thus compromise my story, because my camera could not perform the scene.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Of course it's all about the story, but who doesn't wan't to watch a good story over and over again when its freakin beautiful,:biggrin:

[Bachman]

cigars & 4k projection & blondes > sheeps.

down under humour

[Kyle Spicer]

I was thinking about this last night! Even if we had 4k monitors what would we use to push it? I think the Nvidia 8800 SLI will still only push 2k resolution. Nvidia just released the Quadro PLEX, but it says this

Display Resolution Support

Analog displays up to 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz
Dual-link DVI-I outputs - drive digital displays at resolutions up to 3840 x 2400 @ 24Hz
Native support for Sony 4K SXRD™ large venue projector
SDI Modes (Model lll only)

Transparent Mode – work with any existing application using clone and dualview modes
2 channel fill
8-bit
RGB 4:4:4
YCrCb 4:2:2 or 4:4:4
Extended Mode – integrate into applications using NVIDIA SDI API
4 channel fill or 2 channel fill + 2 channel key
8-, 10-, 12-bit
RGB 4:4:4
YCrCb 4:2:2 or 4:4:4
2x YCrCb 4:2:2 + 4:2:2
YCrCbA 4:2:2:4
RGBA 4:4:4:4 (8-bit only)

I may be missing something, but even if we had 4k monitors right now we would still be in the dark.?.?.

Oh yea sorry to throw a curve ball but 4k Blondes > Sheep sent me on a tangent :)

[Cail Young]

Now THAT's probably the better question. In fact, an even BETTER question would be . . . You have $100 million to make a movie. Which would you choose, RED or 35mm film? With only $10 million, you could easily argue to use the bulk of that money for sets, etc. With $100 million, the stock and processing cost becomes virtually inconsequential.

I haven't been through the process of trial and error that the film workflow requires before you can become a great film DP (at least, this is what I assume - I see no other way to get one's head around the effects of all the stages of the photochemical process without simply doing it a lot). More accurately I can't afford to.

So, given that, I would shoot RED because of instant feedback on set. But that's my perspective.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Okay, since no one wants to play, I'll argue with myself . . .

Me: RED's awesome, dude!
Anti-RED: RED sucks!
Me: Does not!
Anti-RED: Does too!
Me: Uh uh.
Anti-RED: Uh huh.
Me: Uh uh.
Anti-RED: Oh yeah, well what about your highlights burning out after x stops?
Me: Well, RED has more detail in the shadows. Like shooting reversal film.
Anti-RED: Well what about film's larger color gamut?
Me: Uhhhh . . . Graeme said he was gonna fix all that in post.
Anti-RED: RED sucks!

[Paul Hazlett]

Now THAT's probably the better question. In fact, an even BETTER question would be . . . You have $100 million to make a movie. Which would you choose, RED or 35mm film? With only $10 million, you could easily argue to use the bulk of that money for sets, etc. With $100 million, the stock and processing cost becomes virtually inconsequential.

....and the decision comes down to what look do you like better. with all things being equal, it comes down to a point now where its not a matter of
"its as good as film" but the difference between what look or texture your trying to achieve since not everyones tastes are the same. David Mullen made this point quite well on another thread, its like the difference between
driving a Bmw or mercedes, both are great cars but people have different tastes.

The real fun will come with the head to head.

[Sean]

Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.

[laguun]

i probably could write 7 books on film/digital.

however, when i (as a twen and buzzed&hyped filmmaker/producer) changed in 2002 to digital, there was -nothing- like red.

my opinion (someone who owned several arri 35 and sony hdcam, zeiss and angenieux lenses (and worked -years for that-) is...

... that red indeed made the promise of digital cinema a reality.

however - most of our industry is slowmoving (as any niche-market with expensive tools), conservative, and, sorry to say so, underinformed. so don´t expect red to change all this within a year.

[John Allardice]

Jim, I'm not sure why, but I'm getting the feeling that this board upgrade & associated delivery shift, isnt just to give us a little more latitiude on the sensor (particularly as you can only squeeze another 0.7 stops out of it before you hit your math limit)
You've got something to suprise us with, haven't you.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.
Now, THAT's the argument!

[Brook Willard]

Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.

Best point ever.

[Bachman]

Best point ever.

Ditto, but youll have to go out to film if you want it shown in town. And you cant do that yourself

[Paul Hazlett]

Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.

there my friends is your revolution

[C.H.Haskell]

RED vs Film?

Yes, great point Sean :)

Oil vs Acrylic, what ever it takes to paint the picture right? I suppose we will be able to judge this more accurately when the 1st units roll out...but would I still shoot 8mm film for a desired result, sure. Since many (if not most) theatres still project film, some of those making RED pictures for commercial release may end up printing to film. No? Not to get off topic.

Red vs Film

[Ralph Oshiro]

Since many (if not most) theatres still project film, some of those making RED pictures for commercial release may end up printing to film. No?
True. However, at least personally, I never plan to print to film. It's damned expensive for one thing. If I ever do get any sort of theatrical distribution, I would hope to project 100% digitally.

[Brook Willard]

Ditto, but youll have to go out to film if you want it shown in town. And you cant do that yourself

True, but lasering to film costs just as much from a DI or RED... so there's no difference between the formats here.

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

With the new 4k projectors coming out and their low (compared to the past) prices it will be a film projector anihilation in the next 2-4 years.

This will make the RED to FILM transfer step a non issue.

One more point for RED...

[Obin Olson]

Peter Jackson Story please.

[Shawn Nelson]

With the new 4k projectors coming out and their low (compared to the past) prices it will be a film projector anihilation in the next 2-4 years.

If Jim could do the same thing with projectors...that is: release a 4k projector for less than 10% of what anyone else is. Gee, that'd be a bigger revolution than even Red One! I would think you'd see entire chains of cinemas converting wholesale.

[laguun]

down under humour

down under beaches > german beaches.

ps.s however i am from france, and french polynesia beaches > all.

[Kjetil Haugen]

If anybody has the King Kong production diaries on dvd you should watch the "follow a roll of film" segment. Then come back here...

[Bachman]

True, but lasering to film costs just as much from a DI or RED... so there's no difference between the formats here.

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.

Absolutely.. projection is the last frontier of course

[Ralph Oshiro]

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.
Brook, are you saying that RED won't have a night vision mode? There goes my Paris Hilton short film idea!

[Ralph Oshiro]

If Jim could do the same thing with projectors...that is: release a 4k projector for less than 10% of what anyone else is. Gee, that'd be a bigger revolution than even Red One! I would think you'd see entire chains of cinemas converting wholesale.
Brilliant, Shawn! I see it now . . . a chain of RED 4K cinemas. Showing all RED-acquired films, 24-hours a day! It would be a RED Perma-fest!

[goldyprog]

Jim,

I think your original list of advantages, costs/benefits, etc. is going to expand. Over time, I think Red users are going to find many, many more advantages, benefits etc., particularly useability in unique environments, along with performance. Specifically, I think environments and conditions outside of what one can do with 35 or Imax is going to be an incomparable benefit-- kind of along the lines of that 'Red in Space' topic. In feature production, even commercials, longer takes, best res on the market, bang for buck, etc. The list not only goes on and on, these benefits are incomparable.

So excited about this camera......

[casey warren]

Now, maybe there's room for my ancillary film vs. video argument. I think Ted said it best in the Apple demo video. To grossly paraphrase his statement, "it doesn't look like video, and it doesn't look like film--it's something different." I think "something different" is just great! Completely noiseless, high-resolution imagery will enable new styles of motion video and motion graphics design. I say, it's time for us to break some new ground, visually, with this new tool.

Jim,

I think your original list of advantages, costs/benefits, etc. is going to expand. Over time, I think Red users are going to find many, many more advantages, benefits etc., particularly useability in unique environments, along with performance. Specifically, I think environments and conditions outside of what one can do with 35 or Imax is going to be an incomparable benefit-- kind of along the lines of that 'Red in Space' topic. In feature production, even commercials, longer takes, best res on the market, bang for buck, etc. The list not only goes on and on, these benefits are incomparable.

So excited about this camera......

I agree. I think that RED and will push the entire visual industry to the next level. I mean, to be honest, the images coming from most HD tv's looks like pixelated mush thats way to over-sharpened. For example, today I turned on my old slide film projector and looked through some old slides.....the images looked so nice when compared to the whole HD tv look, and the images (minus the grain) looked like the footage from RED, just silky smooth.

I think we will see, in the following year(s), will be a whole new realm of "home theater" where companies want to break out of the limits of HD, and move into true cinematic quality. And the RED team is leading the way in doing this.

I think the quality of motion graphics and visual image presentation will be completely pushed beyond the next level. I am so glad that this forum has been created for people to share and be a part in this revolution.

And, pertaining to "film vs RED" ...its clear that RED is the winner. Who really cares if film might have a couple more stops when you can Shoot, View (in real time), Offload, Edit and Present....in one continuous workflow that is so tightly integrated that ONE single person can do it..... That right there to me is the magic of RED - Quality. Simplicity. Efficiency.

[Jaime Vallés]

If I had the $100 million budget, I'd still shoot with RED. Clean images going straight into a hard drive, ready to be copied indefinitely and edited on-set while we shoot.

Edit while you shoot. Color grade while you light the set. The DP and the colorist work together on set. HD-DVD or Blu-ray dailies burned on the spot. Have a rough cut ready a few days after production wraps. The revolution is the melding of production and post-production into one step, with no compromise in visual quality.

[laguun]

Hmm French...I have french grandparents. Remember the Rainbow Warrior?


yes, we even made a documentary about this "patriotic" murders.
luckily, >95% of the french meanwhile are ashamed of what happened to the "rainbow warrior" and even more important - france most probably will never dare to test its nuclear warheads in the pacific once more.

from a dop pov however, nuclear tests are qute challenging when it comes to dynmanic range and lattitude *duck*

[Keith Alan Morris]

If I had a 100 million, I'd shoot with the Red too. Especially after seeing the PJ clip. The proof is in the pudding.

[Ken Corben]

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

Number 2 on Jannard's list is HUGE! Will buyers notice your feature was not shot on 35mm (looks like video)? If lit and shot professionally HELL NO would be my opinion.

I ran into an established indie writer/director at a park in West Hollywood today - we were both there with our 3 year old sons. I asked when he's doing his next feature - loved the last one. He said talent was signed and partial financing was in place just waiting on the presales to start filming. After listetning to the story pitch I asked him, "Heard of REDONE digital cinema?" After a moment of silence I gave him the RED DP pitch in plain English. I was then offered the DP job - the point being there's $300K+ that is not required to make the movie. A green light where there may have been none. This is the revolution that is Redcinema in my book. RED VS 35mm really comes down to the DP for the look - and if the script sucks just say you shot it with Cinealta.

The $100 million question:
If Bruckheimer and Bay ask you to shoot Armageddon:Orbital Return would you fight for Redcinema? I would. Imagine completing a difficult expensive scene. You can A) check the gate, move on and wait for tomorrow's dailies or B) while A-list talent is in their trailer getting a shiatsu massage and the crew is relighting for the turn around you can load the footage, add your saved "look" and view the takes real time and then probably have time left over to view the rough cut of the feature to check for continuity, pacing and ??????

[Tom Lowe]

Okay, Jim, I'm with you. But if you are so confident, then shoot something beautiful and amazing with the camera already. Prove it can hang with 35mm.

You guys have already said the PJ shoot was not under ideal conditions, with a camera barely functioning, stopped down to f/22, etc. As much of a marketing genius as you are, I am surprised you haven't turned this camera loose and gotten some breathtaking footage to silence the haters and inspire your followers.

[Jaime Vallés]

...and if the script sucks just say you shot it with Cinealta.

:) :clown2:

[David Mullen ASC]

A dose of reality here for a moment:

I get to the set... and I'm on my feet for the next 12 to 14 hours on average, with barely enough time to go to the craft services table or take a piss -- and I'm supposed to color-correct and edit on the set as well??? Ask the DP who shot Peter Jackson's short film how much spare time he had to do anything other than shoot, shoot, shoot. He barely had time to visit the tent where the main monitor was, from what I've heard. A quick meter reading and then he shot. He said that if he took the time to walk over to the main monitor, Peter Jackson would have already been rolling anyway.

Most films shoots are simply not that leisurely. Besides, these "advantages" (being able to cut and color-correct on the set) are not unique to the RED camera -- you could do that with any digital format. And even with a film camera, you can edit the videotap output to see how some shots cut together.

Editing and color-correcting on a feature are best saved for a more hospitable climate where you can concentrate on those aspects.

And I suspect that most people shooting with the RED are going to monitor on the set with HD monitors, so even there, you don't have a particularly unique advantage over a typical HD shoot. You aren't going to set-up a cinema-sized screen and project 4K between takes to double-check stuff.

The main advantages of the RED camera are COST and QUALITY. Other advantages are more in line with typical HD advantages over film in terms of not needing to wait for dailies before you strike a set, eliminating the middle-man in terms of the telecine transfer colorist, the instant gratification of seeing the shot to judge lighting, etc. You had those advantages before with something like the F900, but what you now have that's unique is the higher picture quality at a lower cost.

If I had 100 million dollars to shoot a feature with, I'd pick the format that best-suited the needs of the production and the look I was trying to achieve. If that meant dragging a heavy 65mm camera around the Grand Canyon, I'd consider that. If it meant doing a skip-bleach process to high-speed Super-16 stock, I'd do that. Whatever was the most direct path to the results I wanted to achieve. With that much money to spend, you have some options.

And as for logistical reasons, look at "300" -- shot against bluescreens in 35mm, mainly because half the time, the camera had to run at 150 fps, which ruled out most digital cameras.

[AshG]

When Jim presents it like this... there is not much to argue about. We are down to Ford versus Chevy. The ire we have seen has mainly been a counter reaction to the "film is dead, it was killed by RED" attitude many people who have never shot a frame of film were touting.

Film wont ever really die, it will begin to fade away but prolly not as fast as many think. What RED does, is gives us a real alternative with few compromises and just as many advantages.

We can argue all day about film cameras and such but one thing seemed crystal clear to me at NAB... the VIDEO camera makers are scared sh!tless by RED. I had some off the record conversations with several reps from all the major manufacturers and they all acknowledged RED had the potential to hurt them. One guy said that they will spend a record amount of money on R&D next year "playing catch up" to RED and the other 4K and highspeed cams out there.




ash =o)

[Ralph Oshiro]

I ran into an established indie writer/director at a park in West Hollywood today - we were both there with our 3 year old sons. I asked when he's doing his next feature - loved the last one. He said talent was signed and partial financing was in place just waiting on the presales to start filming. After listetning to the story pitch I asked him, "Heard of REDONE digital cinema?" After a moment of silence I gave him the RED DP pitch in plain English. I was then offered the DP job - the point being there's $300K+ that is not required to make the movie. A green light where there may have been none.
Holy shit! That's awesome! So, Ken ole buddy . . . uhhh, that second unit DP spot . . . ummm? Any ideas on who you may want?????

[Ralph Oshiro]

One guy said that they will spend a record amount of money on R&D next year "playing catch up" to RED and the other 4K and highspeed cams out there.
I would just LOVE to know who that was! Yeah, I was talking to some of the Viper guys at NAB. Sony's response to my F23 questions were almost comical! Everyone seemed to have the same, expressionless, deadpan look on their face when I brought up RED. Kinda like, "Shit, you know about RED too?"

[Jason Francois]

As others have said, with RED I now have an amazing tool to do projects, but more importantly just one more tool to use in telling stories. It may end up being my favorite tool, however. :)

90% of the projects I've been involved with have been on film, but after seeing RED I like the unique look that it brings to the table. Very much it's own.

I never thought that I would surrender to digital (I used to get very aggressive about it), but with RED it's going to be a bit hard to be too closed-minded about it.

[Desert Rune]

Great comparison Jim! I am in total agreement with you.


And there's little argument over most of those points. Of course, there's always gonna be that one die hard, off-topic poster who'll post, "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!"

Yeah, that statement annoys the hell out of me. The off-topic poster might as well shoot with a Fisher Price PXL-2000. "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!" LOL. :blink:

[Don Woods]

Wow jim thanks allot of good points. Allot I already knew or figured but It was good to hear it from you. I think you hit it right on the head. It is the first film alternitive. And I will chose to shoot with that Alternitive personally.

[Mardi_Gras]

Knowing Jim on these boards for his "message behind the posts" postings, I'm dead sure champaigne was popped a few hours ago... Red has finally cracked the code, latitude and dynamic stop-wise over film. I say, we hold our breath for a major announcement in a few more hours, maybe days.

Jim has thrown down the gauntlet, the can of worms has been re-opened. Those of us that dream of glory and having a worthwhile career in this industry might have just been handed the T (tool) part of the equation (borrowing Gibby's 3 Ts rule).

I say, spill the beans, Jim. You know you want to!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If I had a 100+ million dollars I would probably.... shoot.......... a motion capture movie like beowulf if it turns out like the early buzz indicates the quality might.

I would then take that profit and shoot a run and gun gritty 70million feature on the RED and experiment with printing to film and scanning back to 6k supersampled to 4k if I want a digital delivery. I like the film look what can I say? I still don't own a Digital camera. Good old Canon F1.

After that I would dissapear into obscurity for 10 years as I shoot a documentary in North Korea, Iraq and Africa. If I were still alive at the end of that I would try to create a new short format Science Fiction series where the best serial short story and comic book artists could be given a platform to try and create something new and interesting with little 25-40 minute half features.

btw to answer an earlier question: How do you push 4k? Through two video cards.

[laguun]

If I had a 100+ million dollars I would probably.... shoot..........
.... a mc gyver full feature...

and earn by selling the best ever shot "home-improvement" stock footage in the galaxy.

p.s. sorry, just an old producer joke.

[David Mullen ASC]

The funny thing is, given human nature, that if more and more productions were shot in 4K digital, some filmmakers would feel more incentive than ever to shoot film, particularly if they thought they would be the last people to ever get to.

I look back to 1950 when Eastmancolor negative was introduced and then 1955 when the 3-strip Technicolor cameras stopped being used (except for other purposes, lke sodium-mattes or Technirama). The studios jumped at the opportunity to use Eastmancolor (and Ansco over at MGM) as a way of saving money by processing in-house, and even printing color, rather than sign these co-production deals with Technicolor just to make color features. So that last year of 3-strip Technicolor credits (not talking about the dye transfer printing process that continued until the mid 1970's) were b-pictures mostly from the 2nd-tier studios like Republic, etc.

But the last few years of 3-strip also saw some wonderful looking movies like John Ford's "The Quiet Man" and "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". And if you count 1952, films like "Moulin Rouge" (one of the best-photographed color films in history) and MGM musicals like "Singin in the Rain" and "The Bandwagon."

So if I were a DP back then and knew that the future was Eastmancolor and that 3-strip would be gone by 1955, I probably would have wished I had gotten to shoot one of the last 3-strip pictures (especially since their b&w negatives haven't faded like early Eastmancolor movies have -- we're lucky that the first two decades of full-color movies used b&w film for the most part).

It's great to be cutting-edge and use the latest and greatest digital technology, but once everyone is using that technology, perhaps the only way to be cutting-edge will be to shoot on film before it's gone.

[Mark K.]

There are many reasons why Red is greater than Film, cost is the primary one, but this account of a disastrous screening here in Melbourne recently factors into it as well:


http://www.elroyonline.net/?p=99845703

"Attempting to see Sunshine"
Posted on the March 13th, 2007

Tonight started out to be quite a cool evening. Not only were we going to be seeing the new Danny Boyle directed, sci-fi flick, SUNSHINE, a month before it hits the cinemas in wide release, but following the movie Danny Boyle and one of the film’s stars, Rose Byrne, would be sitting down for a Q&A session with the audience.

Sadly though, about 40 minutes (maybe less) into the screening of Sunshine something happened that I can only describe as a right royal cluster-fuck. For a moment nobody was sure what they were seeing: A dream sequence maybe? After a few more moments the thought started to creep into the back of my mind that there was a very good chance that Danny Boyle and whoever the hell let him release this piss-poor attempt at emulating Stanley Kubrick needed to be lined up and shot.

So, what was really going on? Well, we were seeing what appeared to be the second last reel of the film… right after the first… and it was upside down… and, I kid you not, it was playing in reverse! Then, right before we got to the bit where the monkeys start whacking the monolith with their bones, the projection room finally woke up to the error and hit the lights.

After about 40 minutes we were told that they’d just discovered that the same problem was identified in the other reel, and so we would have to wait even longer before the film could commence again. At this point we were also informed that should we wish to leave that our tickets would be refunded. Having been extremely impressed with Sunshine right up until the point at which it had started playing backwards, we decided to stick it out.

We didn’t have to wait too long before the film started playing again. And then we didn’t have to wait long before a large portion of the audience erupted with shouts of “WRONG REEL!”. Yeap, somewhere in the mix up they’d skipped a reel or two and no-one had a clue what was happening. However, it has to be said that by the time that plug was again pulled on the failed screening (for the final time) we’d again been gripped by the action taking place on the screen.

By this stage the screening was written off as a total loss and the Q&A was started.

I wish I had more to say about the Q&A and the film itself, but there was very little in the way of quotable bites from either Boyle or Byrne. What we did get to see of the film was extremely gripping and dripping with the intensity that I’d hoped for.

Of the Q&A the one thing that is worth stating is that even though the two of them were probably extremely pissed off and probably even a little embarrassed by the debacle that the evening had become, they both handled themselves extremely well, taking the whole affair in their stride.

__________________________________________________ ___________

This would never happen with Red and digital projection.

[Joel Kaye]

The $100 million question:
If Bruckheimer and Bay ask you to shoot Armageddon:Orbital Return would you fight for Redcinema?

I'd fight for a better movie. :-)

I think Graeme's secretly working on realtime 4K film grain filters. Maybe he'll make a whole suite of filters called "Degradation Station".

[David Mullen ASC]

That incident has nothing to do with RED - it was a print projection problem that suggests the advantage of digital projection.

Any RED feature released on 35mm prints (which is how most of them will be released over the next few years) can potentially have the same problem.

And any movie shot on film released digitally would be able to avoid the same problem.

So it's got nothing to do with any advantage the RED camera would give you. They probably did a D.I. for "Sunshine" and could have opted to have a digital screening.

And it's not like digital screenings can't have their own mishaps. I saw "Chronicles of Narnia" projected digitally and every scene with white snow in the frame had a grid pattern of black specks over the image. I went to a screening using the Sony 4K projector where the top left quadrant was more magenta than the other three quadrants.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Opening night of Matrix Reloaded: 15 minutes of the film seemed to be only the green emulsion layer. Super dark and completely green.

I HATE film projection. The projectionist never seems to get the shutter sync just right. The focus is somehow bumped etc etc etc. Just put a really nice 4k projector in a clean room and get it set up perfect and don't fuss with it. Even in the newest of theaters there's also that little tiny bit of vibration in the projector.

Not to mention even when the projector is in focus the picture always feels soft to me. Then the scratches begin. I saw The Fellowship of the Ring at the end of its run when they tacked on the sneak peak at the Two Towers. By that point the FOTR reels looked like a VHS tape and the audio was worse. It was almost completely unwatchable.

[Scott Webster]

I look at it this way.

Can I buy a Genesis? No
Can I buy an Arri D-20? No
Can I buy the Dalsa Origin? No

Viper and F23? at the end of the day 2/3" HD cameras.
Want 35mm DOF on a 2/3" HD Camera? P+S Pro 35 US$27K
Little late in the game to start adding film cameras to our inventory.

What was the question again?

[David Mullen ASC]

I tend to see movies in the better theaters in Los Angeles, so I rarely see a projection problem. In fact, after a time when I sought out every digital screening I could, I stopped going because I got fed-up with the problems that these earlier DLP-Cinema projectors had with dark movies or bright movies. I saw "Signs" in DLP and it looked awful, with crushed blacks and odd compression artifacts. And I already mentioned the problems that "Chronicles of Narnia" had with white scenes. And I remember a conversation with Stephen Burum about the DLP-Cinema release of "Mission to Mars" and how the digital projector crapped out on the all-white limbo scenes at the end.

But recently I've been checking out more screenings using the newer 2K DLP-Cinema projectors and have seen a lot fewer problems. In fact, I saw "Superman Returns" in 35mm, DLP, and IMAX just to compare and I was pleasantly surprised at how close the 35mm and 2K DLP presentations looked.

[Stephen Webb]

Can I just ask, when you do side-by-side tests please don't pull the usual trick of using an old, fast stock that's been badly exposed and then putting it up against 4K and saying "Oh look, it's clearly no-where near as good".

Get someone to shoot the 35mm tests the best way possible and show us a real comparison. That's what'll make the Red look the most impressive anyways :)

[Stephen Williams]

True, but lasering to film costs just as much from a DI or RED... so there's no difference between the formats here.

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.

Hi Brook,

Only true if you need a DI.

Stephen

[Jannard]

I saw a filmout of Peter's movie (a short clip) in Prague yesterday. I was disappointed. It felt more film-like and everyone there thought it was very cool. But I missed the crystal clear feeling that I watched 100 times at NAB. I never thought it would happen, but it did. For those that wanted to see a "film", they got it. I was surprised that I wanted to go back and see it on a 4K projector.

We are in the middle of a big change... or should I say a "big alternative". The future will be very interesting in what the consumer chooses going forward. I'm sure that both will survive. But once you see 4K clean, it is a compelling choice.

Jim

[Desert Rune]

I saw a filmout of Peter's movie (a short clip) in Prague yesterday. I was disappointed. It felt more film-like and everyone there thought it was very cool.

That's the last straw for me. I'm putting an order for a Red tomorrow.

[David Mullen ASC]

Probably should shoot both a fast and slow stock. Fast because that's what a lot of people will use in real-world situations, but slow (and fine-grained) because if you want to compare resolution, you don't want people distracted by grain... because they confuse seeing a grainy image with it having less resolution.

[Mardi_Gras]

We are in the middle of a big change... or should I say a "big alternative". The future will be very interesting in what the consumer chooses going forward. I'm sure that both will survive. But once you see 4K clean, it is a compelling choice.

Jim

Cheers to the future <clink!>

[Shawn Nelson]

For me, the experience of seeing the PJ short in the Red booth was "hyper reality'...it was as 3d as a 2d image can be.

[Jannard]

Shawn... did I thank you for the gift yet? If not... thanks. Really nice.

BTW, I've always liked you. :-)

Jim

[casey warren]

I think the unique clarity that the REDONE provides enables people to have a greater flexibility in deciding how their film will look in post.

I always like having the choice to add grain, or add vignetted blur, etc in post. But I also love having the untouched crystal clear image to work with before hand.

Once again, RED provides a great choice and more flexibility than film in that respect. This is one of the key points at which it will drive consumers to choice it.

[casey warren]

I just need to find a way to convince my university to order some RED's. They seem to have put in place a buget to get two...but they need to do it SOON.


JIM, come to UW and show some 4K footage.

[David Mullen ASC]

4K projection is cool, whether or not you shoot 35mm or 4K digital. Despite some problems with the Sony 4K projector in terms of blacks, and getting those quadrants to be stable and match sometimes, it's just so darn clean, steady, clear, and sharp... that it makes 35mm print projection look like 16mm print projection. And I like 35mm print projection, but clearly to me, it's more like 2K projection... and 4K projection is sharper.

Once your eyes gets used to the digital version, it's hard to get used to the film-out. I spent weeks color-correcting the D.I. for "The Astronaut Farmer" using a 2K projector, and after that, I wished people had seen it in 2K projection because that's what I was looking at, so that's how I think it should look.

[REDHKSC]

We may as well get this out of the way...

1. Cost of equipment- advantage RED
New 35mm film camera system= roughly $150K-$300K depending on model and accessories.
New RED ONE system= roughly $25K
Used 35mm film system= roughly $25K-$100K depending on age, model and condition

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film
Film is roughly 13 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although we are working on improvement in this area).

4. Resolution- advantage RED
Every industry expert I spoke with at NAB said that our footage was equal to or greater than 35mm film in resolution. If you want to hold this one aside until there are side by side tests... no argument from me.

5. Grain- If you like it, advantage 35mm film. If you don't like it, advantage RED

6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

7. Pulling a key- advantage RED.
The lack of grain makes it much easier to separate a subject from green or blue screen.

One of the biggest advantages that 35mm film had over digital was that it is "filmic". The biggest compliment that we received at NAB was that the RED camera was the 1st digital footage they saw that "felt right". I won't name names, but they are hard names to beat. And most did NOT have reservations.

Please be clear that we are NOT saying we are a film replacement camera. We are saying that we are a film alternative. Choose what you want based on which advantages matter to you.

Jim

To me , no need to do direct Shoot-out, every picture tell a Story, and we just do our own story with our " TOOLS with PASSION " a little bit of sexy feelings with the Camera through our Blood Power.

You know what I am talking about ..............get connected to it .....

Enjoy.

Founder
Stewart Chong
REDHKSC.ORG
Greater CHINA

[Jannard]

David... you are always welcome to do a hands-on with RED when you have time. Everyone would love to hear your opinion. You are one person, across all boards, that everyone respects.

Jim

[Mardi_Gras]

David... you are always welcome to do a hands-on with RED when you have time. Everyone would love to hear your opinion. You are one person, across all boards, that everyone respects.

Jim

Second that. Infact, been asking for it.

[Bruce Allen]

If I had a 100+ million dollars I would probably.... shoot.......... a motion capture movie like beowulf if it turns out like the early buzz indicates the quality might.

I saw a rough cut of Beowulf a while back. It looked like it could indeed be excellent. Depends on how they finish off the eyes and mouths, of course! But is mo-cap viable for a majority of the stories we want to tell? Probably not yet.


I saw a filmout of Peter's movie (a short clip) in Prague yesterday. I was disappointed. It felt more film-like and everyone there thought it was very cool. But I missed the crystal clear feeling that I watched 100 times at NAB. I never thought it would happen, but it did. For those that wanted to see a "film", they got it. I was surprised that I wanted to go back and see it on a 4K projector.

We are in the middle of a big change... or should I say a "big alternative". The future will be very interesting in what the consumer chooses going forward. I'm sure that both will survive. But once you see 4K clean, it is a compelling choice.

Jim

Jim, we're looking forward to seeing those Red 4K projectors and trusting you to make a strong case with your products for digital projection being the better choice, convenience and quality-wise.

Lack of contrast and difficulty with saturated reds / yellows is my main problem with digital projection at the moment. The auto-iris thing they have is a bit of a cheat too - I saw a movie (Star Wars EP3 Attack of the Clones?) at the Arclight back in innocent days when I didn't know about the auto-iris and remember being taken right out of the movie, thinking "what just happened? Why did the black levels go so milky in that scene?". Not to mention the 2k screen-door effect (I could see the individual pixels) - but you have that covered, haha...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Deanan]

Once your eyes gets used to the digital version, it's hard to get used to the film-out. I spent weeks color-correcting the D.I. for "The Astronaut Farmer" using a 2K projector, and after that, I wished people had seen it in 2K projection because that's what I was looking at, so that's how I think it should look.

After being spoiled looking christie/barco 2k's and sony 4k for a while, it's hard watching a fresh filmout on a 4k film recorder and seeing the resolution drop down to less than 2k with added dust and schmutz. And then it's even worse once you watch stuff at the cineplex it's barely 1k.

Side comment: I wish kodak would drop the price of Vision Premiere so at least we'd be watch nice prints more often.

Deanan

[Shawn Nelson]

Shawn... did I thank you for the gift yet? If not... thanks. Really nice.

BTW, I've always liked you. :-)

Jim

You're welcome Jim! I enjoyed figuring something out I could get you that I knew you wouldn't already have :-)

[Andrew Benz]

David... you are always welcome to do a hands-on with RED when you have time. Everyone would love to hear your opinion. You are one person, across all boards, that everyone respects.

Jim

Damn, this selfish of me, But I offered David first hands on my camera after I come to RED an pick it up.:waaa: But... since you are selling me a $300,000+ (at least) for around $60,000 (that is fully equipped-primes,zoom,etc), I wil suck it up and eagerly look forward to the results. But, I still want to meet David, because he seems like a great all round guy who happens to be a great cinematographer. To me RED is as important a networking tool as it is a digital cinema camera...

Cheers

*edit* very first part said with fun loving sarcasm- As much as I enjoy and respect David's work, he was honestly worn out with all the bickering at###.com over RED. David had mentioned that he would like to get his hands on one so... I thought it was great opportunity to extend some RED goodwill. He deserves it for being so kind with his knowledge. Great thing is we all get to benefit much sooner. Just ribbing Jim a little...

[Jannard]

David is about as level-headed and knowledgeable a guy as there is that posts on these boards. We all look forward to his posts.

Jim

[Deanan]

We may as well get this out of the way...
...
6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

This one could also be under #6...

Time savings - not having to scan/telecine/ingest is added time
savings for editorial and vfx where there is increasing pressure
to get things done faster.

And one more...
Piece of mind - Knowing you can have multiple backups at the
end of the day.

[casey warren]

Yeah, the fact that you can take your footage directly from the camera....copy it and hand VFX/editorial a direct copy within a matter of an hour is awesome....streamlined fast workflow

[IAN SUN]

So much of what we like is a product of what we are used to.

After seeing "Crossing The Line" in in 4K from front row center and leaning forward watching for artifacts on the screen a few feet in front of me,
upon reflection I was surprised at how often I had to do a mental check and pull myself out of the movie.

My primary mission in traveling from Toronto to Las Vegas wast to look at some test footage from the proto RED ONEs in RED CODE RAW and watch like a hawk for compression or other artifacts.
I kept being pulled into the story. It was an experience that felt different than watching film, much like watching IMAX is different, but it was no less engrossing.

The RED 4K projection in fact felt more real than film because unless I've been up all night editing (like tonight) my vision is not usually grainy.
If there was one thing I would have changed about the projection that would have been to see it at a higher frame rate, again not necessarily "film like" but closer to reality, and certainly cinematic.
By cinematic I mean involuntary suspension of disbelief; which is certainly what I experienced.

Yeah I could get used to that, and I liked what I saw.

[Hrvoje Simic]

RED

1) I can take the camera & MBP and go on a shooting tour.
2) I can discover new techniques for no extra cost;
3) use ideas in real time;
4) shoot hours of footage;
5) delete unwanted scenes;
6) do editing in my lap while sitting outside in an inspiring scenery;
7) compose a background music and add it to video;
8) carry the footage on a portable media;
9) come back to the studio with edited footage ready for CC.
+
10) Compact, quickly accessible, powerfull workflow, which puts more power in less hands = very fertile ground for artist's creativity

Film

1) Nope.
2) Nope,
3) Nope,
4) Nope,
5) Nope,
6) Nope,
7) Nope,
8) Nope,
9) Nope.

aaand

10) Nope.




Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.



Would I sacrifice 2 stops for all of that ?
Without a doubt.

[Jannard]

1.7 stops... for now.

Jim

[Alexander Nikishin]

If I had 100 million dollars to shoot a feature with, I'd pick the format that best-suited the needs of the production and the look I was trying to achieve.

David, having viewed Red footage, what would you say is a fitting genre or movie you've seen that would prompt you to use a Red for that particular project?

[Alexander Nikishin]

1.7 stops... for now.

Jim

For now....hehehehe :devil:

[Álex Montoya]

Hey, Jim, either you go to bed really late or you are in Prague. If the latter, how does the production of "Wanted" go?
I am a big fan of the writer of the comic-book Mark Millar and the book itself and Timur seems a good choice for directing the movie.

[Bachman]

Jim dosnt sleep

[Jannard]

night...

[Bachman]

night....Jim bob

[Hrvoje Simic]

1.7 stops... for now.

Jim

heh heh


"...subject to change..."




night...

[Clint Johnson]

As things are right now for me, the film vs Red is an easy debate... I can't afford film while I can afford Red.

Now if it was a $100 million production then it is just as easy... if I had to, I would pay more to work with the Red One. The ability to know what you got on camera then and there, damn near making it through the entire shooting day with only one “reload”, working with a camera kitted out to weigh 25lbs not 45lbs, light using a 30” monitor (how soon for the Red 4k?) and seeing what it looks like as you change the shutter angle and gain... uh, change the exposure time and ISO? Hell, if we have that kind of a budget then we'll get a really good DoP running the A Red camera and I'll throw #351 up on my shoulder as the B camera and do serendipitous coverage!

David is right in that most of this is applicable to HD as well... but we get it with an image that is oh so sweet and clean! And no editing or colour correcting on set though... no time for that. But if there was some of that magical “down time” then it might be nice to drop it into REDCINE and push it around to see if your settings are optimal for where you want the image to go in post.

But I will learn to use it better and quicker than I ever could with a film camera. I'll be able to learn by shooting as much material as I want. If I am just shooting it to learn the camera then I don't need to save very much of the stuff I shoot. Once I have my camera I will be able to shoot ten hours a day for as long as I want just by formatting the drive. Not only will this allow me to learn my camera inside and out, it will make me a better cinematographer as well. It is the same thing that happened when I switched from a 35mm still camera to a digital SLR, I've probably taken well over twenty as many pictures as I would have in the last five years and I am a much better photographer because of it. If I want, I can spend more time shooting with the Red camera in the first two months – than all but a handful of film cinematographers have in the last ten.

The only reason I see to stick to film is if you are an old dog who is brilliant with celluloid and who doesn't want to set film aside to learn the new digital tricks. Hey, if you're getting all the work you want and are creatively happy I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong.

Even if you are. <g>

[Alexander Nikishin]

And no editing or colour correcting on set though... no time for that.

That's what LUT's are for. :biggrin:

[dalemccready]

A dose of reality here for a moment:

I get to the set... and I'm on my feet for the next 12 to 14 hours on average, with barely enough time to go to the craft services table or take a piss -- and I'm supposed to color-correct and edit on the set as well???

I'm with you David, I can barely hold a conversation with the rest of the crew on some days, when so much info is flying around my head regarding the current set-up, the next set-up, the schedule, the weather, the grumpy hung-over grip, the lighting assists that move so slowly sometimes I swear they are moving backward in time, the fact that the director is showing manic/depressive tendencies yet hired a child actor with attention deficit disorder, and the fact that my lunch break (when I really need to take a piss) is going to be taken up entirely by meetings that don't really concern me but require my moral support...:biggrin:

Let's not add grading to that mix, and besides, I like sitting in a comfortable room away from the crowd, preferrably with a cute receptionist asking if I need a coffee and what I'd like for lunch while the colourist and I sit and do nothing but look at the shots, and get to make them better.

But that aside, I think that being able to get these shots in the can at less expense might just mean that there might be a little more time in that schedule, and that to me would be Red's revolution over 35mm film.

[Jason Ing]

Just my two cents...

For me, Film vs REd is not about technology nor is it about quality (it's evident both look great); but rather it is about a moment in the not too distant future when I will be walking out of a theatre with a smile on my face or tears in my eyes because I just watched a great "movie".

It could have been shot on film... but it was shot on Red.

It could have been made by the rich or elite (studios or A-list director)... but it was made by a "poor" unknown artist... maybe me... maybe one of you.

And it could have been shot in the artist's lifetime despite the prohibitive costs of film... but perhaps not.

Perhaps it would have never existed if not for one man's vision... Jim.

So saying "Film Vs Red" is like saying, "Fantasy vs Dream".

A fantasy is something you wish for but it will never happen.

But a dream is something you can work hard to make a reality by...

..saving every god-damn penny you earn before your Red reservation comes up in December!!!

[Gunleik Groven]

AS others have posted, this triggers the speculation game on:

What happened with that new board of yours? -;)

13 stops?
150 fps@4k to xxx (fill in here)?
What else have been requested?

Coming from a country where 2 mill$ is a fairly well funded film, Red has always been a no-brainer in the price/value department.

One of last years best gossing movies, was shot on a Sony FX1.
Interlaced HDV! -;) It' s maybe not the "story wins" example, but is a good example nevertheless, as it was produced by one of Norways most higly profiled producers/directors. Has his own studios. Could shoot 65mm if he so chose.

What did this leave him with?
A nice stash of $$$ to produce more for.

So looking from a purely $$ perspective and putting the finger a bit in the ground asto the market potential department, Red is, was and will be a no-brainer.

When Red nailed down the post part, like they did with Apple, I almost started flying -;)

As to film-outs.

You'll need a post-grading master of a 35mm, even without the DI.

The price argument isn't really there in any perspective.

I'm really anxious about the specs, pricepoint and market-thinking around the projector. My guess is that Sonys behaviour @ IBC triggered that development, but the idea of a new chain from aquisition to projection is fantastic for countries like Norway.

So if Red has an internet3 idea up their sleeve for distribution of features between their 4k cinemas with multiplexed streaming to the theatres, there's gonna be a big shakeup... again.... and again...

To me, the finer technical parts about film vs digital, are already non-issues, as long as digital holds reasonably well up.

Red does that, and then some, and then some, and then some.

The only thing I'm worried about right now, is my general dislike for monopolies. -;)

Gunleik

[Tony Lorentzen]

SNIP - long list of pros and cons of film vs. RED

You know - for me it's never been a question of film vs. digital (in this case RED). For me it's more a matter of natural evolution. Still photographers have gone digital a long time a go and it's only a matter of time before most of the movie industry moves to digital instead of film - and it's also a matter of time before we get the same dynamic range as film has. A lot of movies are already done on digital cameras and graded afterwards. Sure - the trained eye will still be able to see the difference between the two even if you grade it like film and add grain and sure - a few will propably still be doing film in 20 years from now.

I've said it before, but I see film vs. digital just as CDs vs. vinyl. Some people still want the analogue sound of vinyl (scratches and all) and some want it clean. Some artists even add the sound of scratches and dust on a record because they like the analogue "feel".

You can do the same with RED - add all the grain you want.

Artistic preference, guys.

[Mark L. Pederson]

I suspect when people start shooting feature films with the RED one - they are also going to really respond to "efficiency" and "reduced man power".

If you have ever supervised the production of an action film with two 35mm cameras, believe me, you know what I am talking about.

IMHO - Whatever the budget, $500K or $100 million - as a producer, I want my director to keep his or her focus = less downtime between takes and set-ups = less distraction = "better film" - yeah, I know, very subjective stuff, but when you see a director who has a vision, who can get the camera moved to where he wants efficiently, and keep rolling ... without three guys swarmed around his camera ... it's a beautiful thing. I suspect there are many folks on this website that understand what I am talking about.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

The last time I used film we lost more than reel, due to lab problems, camera problems, stock problems. And this isn't just a low-budget issue,of course. I don't know that Red will be foolproof in this regard, but I'll feel safer than with film. And at least I'll be able to check the 'negative' on set. Bliss.

I don't care whether film is dead, but Red is alive and well, and that's all that matters to me. The audience will love what we can give them with Red, I'm sure.

[Gunleik Groven]

This is BTW a rather common sentiment from my film-friends

"Lab screwed up, had to re-shoot 2 weeks later"

Or

"Camera - fill inn f-up here - had to re-shoot 2 weeks later"

But I think we're gonna hear much more of:
Harddisk f'ed up - have to re-shoot in 2 weeks,
the next couple of years.

Gunleik
Already HD-based, with a backup -;)

[Paul Hazlett]

to throw this OT for a sec, sorta, there is another advantage.

If Red One can shoot on mirrored drives or dual capture like red ram and hard drive the problem gunleik describes goes away.

I know Red cannot do this now....or can it? heheh

[Petr Dvorak]

I saw a filmout of Peter's movie (a short clip) in Prague yesterday. I was disappointed. It felt more film-like and everyone there thought it was very cool. But I missed the crystal clear feeling that I watched 100 times at NAB. I never thought it would happen, but it did. For those that wanted to see a "film", they got it. I was surprised that I wanted to go back and see it on a 4K projector. ...

Jim

Jim, just wonder was that filmout burned in 4K or 2K?

[Sanjin Jukic]

1.7 stops... for now.

Jim

Tomorrow maybe is 1 stop, or 0,5 or even 0 [ZERO].

Then RED is not an alternative to film.
It is the same to shoot as a film.
But much CHEAPER and FASTER.
Then RED would be digital cinema 4K acquisition with the same Dynamic Range like a film.
Or Dynamic Range would be equel for both.

Then the FINAL RACE between Film and RED can start and we have to watch in a near future who is the winner.
I will bet for the RED.

[Tonaci Tran]

Jim,

You have made it very clear that Red One is an alternative (not replacemnet) to film..but one cool quote that still sticks in my mind that you posted awhile back (if I remember correctly) on dvxuser was "The future of film exists without film."

I know the market will decide the outcome..but you can't help but think that with RED being a great alternative (if not better for some folks) to film, RED could likely be what the Canon Mark I/II was to still photography.

[Jason Murphy]

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

I still see these two as the major advantages of RED. Not to mention that #6 will also open new doors, artistically speaking. For example: 'Russian Ark' It was a film shot in the Hermitage in one single 95 minute steadicam take. Absolutely breathtaking. It was, as far as I know, shot on a CineAlta recording HDCam. And they required a major setup to even pull that off: the DP/Operator had a pretty bulky recording system attached to him; his rig weighed about 80 pounds, and by the end of the 90-odd minute take, he had developed a hernia.

So, while technically the doors were already open here, I'm pretty sure getting a stripped down RED system onto a steadicam rig is going to weigh significantly less than 80 pounds, not to mention that you can make a 2 hour shot on the Red Drive without a ridiculous recording setup tethered to you. Which means less abuse for your steadicam operator (though I suppose any 90 minute shot would constitute abuse on some level).

Also, I think it's safe to assume that 4K Redcode RAW looks significantly better than HDCam.

Obviously, I'm not saying that everyone should go out and do ridiculous sequence shots now, and of course, most won't. It's grueling work no matter what technology you're shooting with (though the payoff is usually well worth it). But for some directors (like Bela Tarr, the great Hungarian filmmaker known for his incredibly long tracking shots, who once joked that Kodak's decision to package 35mm in spools that would only run for 11 minutes amounted to censorship) this could be a real boon, and I'd be interested to see what, if anything, comes of it.


Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.

All equipment has limitations, even the RED. We may not know all of the limitations at the onset, but everything does; we'll have to shoot around these limits no matter what we use. Film's limitations are very obvious and well known, because people have been shooting it for over 100 years. Limitations aren't necessarily a bad thing, just a fact of life. The way RED gets around some of the limitations of film is great. But trust me, once people get shooting on a RED in real-world situations, they WILL come up with a laundry list of limitations. Many of these may just be the limits of what is physically feasible with today's digital imaging technology in general, but limits they still are.


In my opinion, RED has the advantage there. Film can be kept in great condition over the years, but it requires a lot of work and protection. All RED will need is a long-term storage device. While the options available today are ok... they're not perfect. The beauty is that old RED data can bounce from drive to drive and storage system to storage system until the end of time without losing one bit of data.

Under ideal circumstances, you may be right, Brook. However, ideal circumstances just don't happen. There are no reliable 'long-term storage devices.' Things are going obsolete at a ridiculous rate (technologies, codecs and file formats, operating systems, etc), and unless people put huge amounts of capital into digital archiving solutions that can future-proof this stuff, digital imaging may have to go back out to film for the time being. Also, it's all well and good if you want to archive something for 10 years. But 25? 50? 200 years? When Rob Hummel of Dalsa says that film is still the best archival medium hands down (as he did a few months ago at a 4K test screening I went to), I would imagine he's probably right. Archiving to 3-strip Technicolor is still the way to go if you can do it.

Not to mention that wars happen, earthquakes happen, etc. And here is where film has the advantage: it's physical. You can pick it up, look it over and know what it is. This has always been film's real ontological advantage over digital (unsung by most except maybe avant-garde filmmakers and archivists). Some archaeologist from the future can find a reel of film, not knowing anything about the technology, and if they do even a small amount of problem solving, they'd be able to figure out what it was for, and probably how to use it. They would probably even be able to build a projector to project it. All that is inherent to film. It's not inherent to digital. Someone finds an old hard drive buried in a recently excavated city, and even if it DID work, the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec (or can bypass digital encryption issues, etc.)

One of the greatest silent films, "Passion of Joan of Arc" was thought lost in WWII, and rebuilt from outtakes (which would also likely be lost in digital archiving) until a pristine print of the film was found almost 40 years later, in 1981, in a closet in a Norwegian mental institution. Nobody knows quite how it got there, though there is conjecture, but the point is, this sort of situation is completely unthinkable with digital storage at this point in time.


The off-topic poster might as well shoot with a Fisher Price PXL-2000. "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!" LOL. :blink:

You may laugh, but some really stunning short films/videos have been made with a Pixelvision camera. It's got quite a unique look, which if used right is really beautiful. Obviously, you're not going to use one (if you can even find one now) to shoot a major blockbuster, or even an indie feature, but it's nothing to scoff at. Any tool, when used well, can make for great art. The best tools used badly, or used in service of a screenplay or a production that sucks still make for a sucky final product. Recent case in point: Norbit had some of the most cutting-edge, technically impressive make-up work ever. Anyone here care? I thought not.

Trust me, we will be seeing a lot of crap shot on the RED over the next couple of decades. But hopefully, we will also be seeing some incredibly beautiful cinema shot on the RED as well.

One of the best movies to come out this past year, Pedro Costa's 'Colossal Youth,' was shot on consumer-level DV cameras. It was clearly DV-originated, was not trying to be film, and showed up many of the limitations of DV. However, it was beautifully composed and lit, and the (admittedly highly elliptical) story of immigrants in Lisbon, Portugal was haunting. People who see it will remember it long after they forget which major blockbuster led the box office this weekend.

[Gunleik Groven]

to throw this OT for a sec, sorta, there is another advantage.

If Red One can shoot on mirrored drives or dual capture like red ram and hard drive the problem gunleik describes goes away.

I know Red cannot do this now....or can it? heheh


It can - sorta, if you can live with HD-SDI to RAID or SR deck -;)

Gunleik

[Tonaci Tran]

However, ideal circumstances just don't happen. There are no reliable 'long-term storage devices.' Things are going obsolete at a ridiculous rate (technologies, codecs and file formats, operating systems, etc), and unless people put huge amounts of capital into digital archiving solutions that can future-proof this stuff, digital imaging may have to go back out to film for the time being. Also, it's all well and good if you want to archive something for 10 years. But 25? 50? 200 years? When Rob Hummel of Dalsa says that film is still the best archival medium hands down (as he did a few months ago at a 4K test screening I went to), I would imagine he's probably right. Archiving to 3-strip Technicolor is still the way to go if you can do it.

Not to mention that wars happen, earthquakes happen, etc. And here is where film has the advantage: it's physical. You can pick it up, look it over and know what it is. This has always been film's real ontological advantage over digital (unsung by most except maybe avant-garde filmmakers and archivists). Some archaeologist from the future can find a reel of film, not knowing anything about the technology, and if they do even a small amount of problem solving, they'd be able to figure out what it was for, and probably how to use it. They would probably even be able to build a projector to project it. All that is inherent to film. It's not inherent to digital. Someone finds an old hard drive buried in a recently excavated city, and even if it DID work, the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec (or can bypass digital encryption issues, etc.)

I really do not see the big deal of having to re-archive. Diogn film-outs are so expensive..why not use some of that money towards making digital backup copies. Earthquakes and wars? "the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec. " If an archaeologist did find a film reel.. it could very well be decomposed by then (depending on how long we are talking here). I agree it is nice to have my project last for a million years..but this reason alone is not going to hold me back from going the digital route.

[Gunleik Groven]

Have to agree on the archival side of things, analogue beats digital hands down for the "reconstructability" of analogue. It's far easier to understand the pattern of moving images on a roll, than the zeros and ones on a HD.

Did anyone mention dead-sea rolls?

And I think that's the way it's gonna have to be...

Some art survive because it's being copied and transferred to new formats and in hinsight only a few will be remembered anyway.

Palestrina, Bach, Mozart & Haydn and Beethoven were not the only great composers at their time - arguably not even the most popular ones, but their work have been archived and systematized and despite changes in tonality, change of instruments and chambre tones - their work have been adapted to the times that came.

What I mean?

Probably someone will feel the need to take care of great art and let it live through the centuries

Time is the most brutal cencor/judge for the rest. - Fairly or unfairly.

Gunleik

[Fix]

Trust me, we will be seeing a lot of crap shot on the RED over the next couple of decades. But hopefully, we will also be seeing some incredibly beautiful cinema shot on the RED as well.


I think anyone that buy a camera for more than 17k total realize you can make crap with even a 35mm. Maybe some in the consumer marked will be shocked by a comment like that... But of course I agree with you. It would be madness not to.

I do hope we will see alot of good footage from the camera in a early stage. I can imagen people want to rush out footage clayming "Im first in this, that" and so on. That could abviously mean that we will see alot of "so so" footage. Than again that do not justify the camera IMHO. Keep in mind that PJ shoot/cliped/graded in a couple of weeks. I do not underestimate the rest of us not able to do the same...

[JD Holloway]

I'm hoping RED can help re-kindle english-speaking Canadian films.
We are swamped by American and British films, and produce large numbers of films for those markets, but canadian cultural stories are depressed.
Amazingly, French-Canadian film is healthy.

I consider this an first prioriy, call it artistic nationalism if you will, but our culture is under a-kind-of attack.

As for 35mm resolution...an independant reviewer tested theaters across north america and found an average of 550-800 lines of resolution was the maximum you could expect in the "average theatre". I will try and find the link.

[TimothyD]

Just beam it into space with the codec and OS embedded between each "reel";)

[Stephen Webb]

We are swamped by... British films

Well I'm glad someone's getting to see 'em, 'cause they never get released over here!

[MarkJLyon]

perhaps the only way to be cutting-edge will be to shoot on film before it's gone.

Thank you, David! I think you're quite right.

This discussion raises a number of reactions for me:

-) I tend to prefer the aesthetic of film to digital images. I think it comes down to being aware of the art form while I'm simultaneously aware of the story. Grain is one aspect of this--it calls your attention to the imagery in each frame. Film's less transparent in that way. I tend to like that. Folks who prefer a more transparent, "real" look might prefer digital.

Another aspect of it is the 24fps frame rate. Remember when video guys used to say "24P looks stuttery! 30 frames interlaced looks so much more real"? Exactly. If I'm after "real," I'll shoot video. But if I'm after something else, something heightened, I might want film.

On the other hand, there's "Sin City."

I think it depends on the subject matter, and the stylistic choices you make as an artist in response to that subject. To me, those choices are a lot more interesting than the choice of capture technology that stems from them.

-) Red vs. Film as Polyester vs. Cotton
I talk to clients a lot about choosing film or video for a shoot, and this often comes up. Polyester is lighter, stronger, and cheaper than cotton. And it's waterproof! So why aren't you wearing polyester jeans? It might come down to how it feels.

-) I shoot a DSLR for stills. Simply because of workflow and convenience. But when I shoot film stills, I pay more attention, and make better shots. But I think the DSLR is better for my learning curve. I imagine Red will be the same way. Both are cool. Both are choices.

-) I have more fun shooting film than I do shooting video. Perhaps it's the heightened attention that comes from burning money and not knowing exactly what you're getting! ;-) Seriously, though, I think that having more fun translates into doing better work.

-) I'm a commercial director, but I shoot a lot of my own film too. I tend to prefer Super16 for the work I do (mostly real people/heartfelt work) because of its filmic texture, and the small scale of the cameras. On my little projects, film and processing costs are really a small part of the puzzle. Getting the look in telecine is the big budget hit.

-) Are most Red users planning to become colorists? I don't have anything against this, and will do it myself. It reminds me of the whole desktop design revolution, when getting a mac suddenly qualified you to be a typesetter. A lot of horrible type was set (including a lot by me). But we learned along the way, and now it's just the way it's done. To many eyes, though, our cultural standards for quality also went down.

-) If we do go DIY on grading, I hope we do a good job of it. Part of that will be learning from the folks who do it for a living.

Okay, thanks for letting me join the discussion. Great group! I love how Red has opened up their process. That's the real revolution, in my view.

Best of luck on your projects.

--Mark Lyon
Mighty Max Films

[Sean Michael Johnston]

I look at it this way.

Can I buy a Genesis? No
Can I buy an Arri D-20? No
Can I buy the Dalsa Origin? No

Viper and F23? at the end of the day 2/3" HD cameras.
Want 35mm DOF on a 2/3" HD Camera? P+S Pro 35 US$27K
Little late in the game to start adding film cameras to our inventory.


What he said - I can own it, which makes all the difference.

[Jay A. Kelley]

David... you are always welcome to do a hands-on with RED when you have time. Everyone would love to hear your opinion. You are one person, across all boards, that everyone respects.

Jim

This is cool.. I am so damn proud of the people on here.. I hope I get the chance to meet you someday Jim.

David, I KNOW we'll meet. I don't know why, but I have no doubt we will

Jay

[Steve Gibby]

Overview
Is RED One a viable alternative for film? In my opinion, the answer is “yes!” This thread has chewed through all angles of that question. An observation: In this narrative cinema centric thread, what has been overlooked is that not only is RED One a viable alternative to film, but also RED One is a viable alternative choice for a vast array of other cine style, non-narrative cinema genres which have traditionally used film: commercials, music “videos”, etc. Beyond that, RED One is a viable alternative for a vast array of non-hardlined EFP and hardlined EFP production genres – all in one camera system! The bottom line? RED One will be a workable, logical, and function alternative for just about any motion media project. Will your skill sets and mind set match the flexibility and capability of RED One? That’s the bottom line…

Here is a paste of a post I made 16 months ago, on 12/17/05, on both the DVX User RED forum and the DVi RED forum. Keep in mind that this was posted right after the first announcement of the RED One camera system, and before any of the actual development on the camera system was started:

"In the mid-90's the introduction of affordable, small form factor camcorders (DV, DVCAM, DVCPro formats), and cost-effective NLE systems, combined to thoroughly revolutionize and democratize the television and video production industry. The "gatekeepers" (programming executives) at networks had to change their thinking and acceptance criteria, progressive producers adopted the technology, and the industry polarized into two distinct pods: large networks and small boutique production houses that use 1099 Misc. freelancers - very little "middle class". Bottom line: affordable tools placed in the hands of seasoned pros and newcomers alike radically altered the dynamic and status quo of the television and video production industry.

Then:

The introduction of affordable 24p (DVX100, etc.) signaled the first assault on the sacred sanctuary of filmmaking. Media convergence was placed into overdrive! Traditional filmmakers were forced to learn video technology in order to compete on increasingly limited budgets with a ravenous horde of indie filmmakers armed with 24p video camcorders and desktop NLE's that enabled a "film look" using electronic technology rather than a manual/celluloid paradigm. Film crews learned about CCD's, electronic menus, new posting technology, etc., while TV/video crews learned about using prime lenses, depth of field, and editing 24p. Affordable 24p video technology had effectively converged the film and video camps into one large tent - video electronics, mated with film lenses and techniques. Then media convergence jumped into warp drive: George Lucas shoots "Star Wars" with a convergence camera (F950), Walter Murch edits "Cold Mountain" using Final Cut Pro, Steven Soderburgh shoots "Full Frontal" in DV, and a myriad of other examples of convergent projects. Simultaneously, scores of indie "films" (though no film was ever used in the workflow) were created by DVX-armed "filmmakers", and were flooding indie film festivals worldwide. The floodgates were open and the flow was irreversible...

Fast forward to 2003-2005. New technology, affordable chips, and increased storage possibilities spark a new generation of techno-geeks to attempt to create relatively affordable digital cinema cameras to address the creative desires of hungry indie filmmakers, wannabe HDTV producers, and disassociated film industry crews. The large equipment manufacturers struggle to protect their "upper end" lines from the techno-onslaught, while broadcasters and few large production houses that are still left bury their heads in the sand in an ostrich act justified by "protecting their legacy investments". The well-intentioned indie camera manufacturers are hamstrung by fiscal shortfalls and a resultant lack of access to materials and R&D.

Enter the RED camera. Charles Darwin was right in many respects. Humankind evolves - and so does their tools. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to recognize that the evolution of media convergence of the film and video industries has opened the barn doors to the next incarnation of digital cinema cameras. Is there an industry need for an affordable 2540p/4k/2k/1080p/720p "Swiss Army Knife" of a digital cinema/HDTV camera? Yes! Will the traditional large equipment manufacturers produce such a camera, and in the process cripple their higher end offerings? No! So- there's a huge demand for a product like that, and zero supply of such. Along comes Jim Jannard and RED. They recognize the demand, see that nobody will or can fulfill the product need, assess their possibilities to create a product to fill the need, decide that they can, start R&D, gather together some of the best engineers, programmers, shooters, and marketers they can find, and here comes the RED camera!

Post script: If the RED camera meets its specs, is affordable, and is marketed effectively, it has the potential to revolutionize the convergent film/video industry in the same way that the cost-effective DV/DVCAM/DVCPro cameras and desktop NLE's introduced in the mid-'90's, and affordable 24p (DVX100, etc.), enabled massive convergence of film and video. Now that film crews and TV/video crews largely and progressively use the same technology, the time is right for such a tool as the RED camera. Earlier adopters of progressive technology greatly enhance their creative and fiscal competitiveness in the marketplace. Slow adopters and the "I'm not changing, I've always done it this way" resisters have effective programmed themselves for professional extinction - and they don't even realize it. Buying a new paintbrush doesn't automatically make you Picasso, but if you have the talent and experience to bring to that new brush, great results are inevitable. If the other artists in your competitive sphere have equal experience and talent, but they are using outdated, worn, expensive brushes, their paintings simply have a lesser chance of competing in price and quality against the others. As artists we all want to create the masterpieces we've dreamed of. Artistry is a right brain function. Planning and budgeting are left brain functions. The stark reality is that without going left brained enough to face the fiscal realities of the evolving film/video marketplace, the majority of artists will sadly never realize their dream productions. It's time for a left brained reality check folks. If the RED camera meets it's specs, is affordable, and is marketed correctly, you've probably then found the convergent paint brush that will take you to the next level, enable you to realize your creative dreams, and allow you to compete and financially survive in an increasingly competitive media marketplace.

In professional Darwinian terms, what's it going to be for you - evolution or extinction?"


-----------------------------------------------------


Postscript
I’m old enough (58) to have experienced the classic films of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s first hand, sitting in theaters. (Heck…I’m even older than Jim Jannard!) I’m a still photography veteran of 4 decades and a motion media veteran of 3 decades. I’ve seen a lot of change over those years. Do I respect film and enjoy its aesthetics? Definitely. Have I evolved to enjoy and respect the aesthetics of digital cinema, as exemplified by RED One? Definitely. Is RED a viable alternative to film? Definitely. Do I now prefer the look of RED 4k footage to that of 35mm film? Yes. Will the viewing public? IMO yes. As a producer/director of features, HDTV programming, commercials, and a multitude of other genre projects, will I use RED On in lieu of 35mm for almost all those projects? Yes. Why? For the reasons that Jim Jannard summarized, and many more. Am I a “fanboy”? No, I’m a highly-experienced professional that knows how to balance the need for effective aesthetics with fiscal realities of the marketplace.

Contrary to popular opinion, age has no bearing on one’s inclination to embrace change in the workplace. An open mind and willingness to learn knows no upper or lower age limits. I’ve readily embraced useful changes in the image creation industry throughout my career. RED One isn’t a “young gun” camera system – it’s a “progressive gun” camera system. Its not age or experience, but rather an open attitude that enables someone to see RED One as an alternative to film - and an alternative for about every other professional motion media camera system on the planet, depending on the lens and accessory package used. IMO narrow minds, unions, legacy investments, resistance to change, and a myriad of other factors will cause some to ignore RED One’s capabilities.

IMO RED has laid out all the pieces of an end to end 4k workflow that is a viable alternative to film and television production: camera, accessories, lenses, software, editing workflow, 4k displays, and the final piece – 4k projection.

The last line in my December 2005 post quoted above is still a good closer for this post:

“ In professional Darwinian terms, what's it going to be for you - evolution or extinction?”

[I Bloom]

What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.

I'm interested to see whether most could tell the difference. I really don't know the answer, I'd love to take the RED challenge myself.

As into the RED as I am, film still has my heart, it'd be nice if that wasn't nagging at me considering the financial advantages to shooting digital weigh in so heavily.

IB

[redhead]

But I think we're gonna hear much more of:
Harddisk f'ed up - have to re-shoot in 2 weeks,
the next couple of years.
More likely, have to run Spinrite (http://www.grc.com) for two hours without having to re-shoot.

[Jarred Land]

this thread is gonna be one of those epic "should be published" threads pretty soon...

[Jarred Land]

What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.

I'm interested to see whether most could tell the difference. I really don't know the answer, I'd love to take the RED challenge myself.

As into the RED as I am, film still has my heart, it'd be nice if that wasn't nagging at me considering the financial advantages to shooting digital weigh in so heavily.

IB

we actually just did this....

but a more public test is a good idea, when we have time.

[Gunleik Groven]

As a BTW, apparently some guy in Prague have seen something - according to Jim, earlier in this thread.

And what about that date in Berlin?

Gunleik

[S. Um]

When I first became interested in Red 15 months ago, I was just looking for a low cost 2/3 inch HD video solution. Now everyone's comparing Red to film, and it's a foregone conclusion that Red is better than pretty much every other video camera. That's nice.

[Ace]

What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.

I'm interested to see whether most could tell the difference. I really don't know the answer, I'd love to take the RED challenge myself.

As into the RED as I am, film still has my heart, it'd be nice if that wasn't nagging at me considering the financial advantages to shooting digital weigh in so heavily.

IB

Ahh eek.. Great minds think alike brother! I just posted the exact same comment on another thread heh heh

[Shawn Bannon]

But the last few years of 3-strip also saw some wonderful looking movies like John Ford's "The Quiet Man" and "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". And if you count 1952, films like "Moulin Rouge" (one of the best-photographed color films in history) and MGM musicals like "Singin in the Rain" and "The Bandwagon."

Also the nitrate prints on some of these films is insane, never seen anything quite like nitrate. awesome.

[Craig Schober]

Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.

Jim

it's all about story when you're writing, shooting and editing. as of now everyone here has probably already written with red in mind but has not shot or edited yet with red. right now it's all about production budgets, compromises, who's camera is bigger, etc. until we get releases (i couldn't make it to nab) with redone, it's still film vs. hd.

[Adrian T.]

But I think we're gonna hear much more of:
Harddisk f'ed up - have to re-shoot in 2 weeks,
the next couple of years.

In order to minimize loss in case of a HD failure, I suggest not to shoot the whole day on a single RED DRIVE. Swap them as often as possible and let the 2nd AC (or someone else) create dual backups on two separate drives before erasing the RED DRIVE in order to use it again. At least two RED DRIVES (or RED FLASH/RAM units) are needed for this process. Better have one spare.

My golden RED backup rules:

Swap drives often
Create dual backups right on the set
Never ever strike a set or call it a day before dual backups of every shot have been made
Store the two backups at separate places, transport them in separate cars
Make more backups after the shoot


If you follow these simple rules, you should be much safer than with film.

[Shawn Bannon]

maybe red can come up with some clever recovery software, just in case.

[Rune Hansen]

At least two RED DRIVES (or RED FLASH/RAM units) are needed for this process. Better have one spare. My golden RED backup rules:

We all need to remember that the Red Drives have harddisks inside, and these almost certainly will fail at some point. It's easy to get overly confident with harddisks, but I think verifying them often and also replacing them could be essential to prevent that.

I would consider adding this to your list:


Verify drives 100% before/after shoots whenever possible (full surface scans, check SMART status, etc.)
Use flash disks whenever possible on handheld/rough shots
Buy new Red Drives often!


-Rune
Mexico

[Álex Montoya]

There's more than enough recovery software out there. None of it is very useful when a real crash happens.

[Greg Voevodsky]

When Jim presents it like this... there is not much to argue about. We are down to Ford versus Chevy. The ire we have seen has mainly been a counter reaction to the "film is dead, it was killed by RED" attitude many people who have never shot a frame of film were touting.

Film wont ever really die, it will begin to fade away but prolly not as fast as many think. What RED does, is gives us a real alternative with few compromises and just as many advantages.

We can argue all day about film cameras and such but one thing seemed crystal clear to me at NAB... the VIDEO camera makers are scared sh!tless by RED. I had some off the record conversations with several reps from all the major manufacturers and they all acknowledged RED had the potential to hurt them. One guy said that they will spend a record amount of money on R&D next year "playing catch up" to RED and the other 4K and highspeed cams out there.




ash =o)

Film will be dead much like the moviola and flat beds hanging from the ceiling in some production houses (at least in the USA) in less than a decade.

It will end when movie theaters no longer have film projectors (replaced by digital - already being done) and when the studios no longer release their movies on film (too expensive).

Hey, VHS will never die either... well... when was the last new Hollywood film that you saw on VHS? VHS is on life support right next to the old record.

FILM just got hit by a big RED TRUCK and is now heading to the hospital.

And unlike us old timers, the young independent filmmakers in film school today (who mostly don't shoot film) will be growing up shooting RED in their low budget features in a few years. They won't miss not using film like VHS and records.

[Tom Lowe]

What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.

I'm interested to see whether most could tell the difference. I really don't know the answer, I'd love to take the RED challenge myself.

As into the RED as I am, film still has my heart, it'd be nice if that wasn't nagging at me considering the financial advantages to shooting digital weigh in so heavily.

IB

Pepsi Challenge - I agree.

I think they should bring in a top ASC guy and shoot something impressive with RED and 35mm under ideal, controlled circumstances.

I realize that most of the guys who post here are DPs and camera guys, but keep in mind that producers, directors and studio people will also have a major hand in deciding which format they will shoot their next feature -- RED, Genesis, 35mm, etc.

Shooting charts might impress camera nerds, but if you want to inspire directors and producers, shoot something more interesting!

[Brook Willard]

Shooting charts might impress camera nerds, but if you want to inspire directors and producers, shoot something more interesting!It'll be very exciting to see what sort of footage starts appearing after the first cameras make it out there. This is actually the very reason why the NAB footage was so exciting to me. I'm sure there were one or two people who wanted to see a chart instead of Crossing the Line... but I sure wasn't one of them!

[Joe Carney]

Ok, been waiting. Film can be shot > 24p at full resolution. Red still can't do those incredible slomo shots in '300'. (The Oracle was shot with a model in a water tank in front of a blue screen at > 240fps).

No 2 frames of film are ever quite the same. It's one of those things that can't be done effectively in post, at least with todays tech. I remember people talking about when Kodak released high quality fine grain film in the 90s, and most thought it was too realistic. I'm sure attitudes have changed, espcially since the elite no longer have a monopoly on quality.

Neither of the above is going to save film though. But it will continue to have it's advocates and uses for a long time. But I am firmly in the RED camp, just not anti anything.

Once I get the OK from the director, I'll talk about my experience the past 2 weekends being a pa on a film being shot with 2 panavised F900s. Be a long time before I don't wince when the term 'video village' is mentioned, as in having to move it several times. I finally volunteered my pickup truck to save our backs.
(But I did have a blast, it is a great crew and fun actors, no divas to be found).
Have 2 more weekends to go on it too.


I can't think of anything else, but JJ asked.

[Fix]

Ok, been waiting. Film can be shot > 24p at full resolution. Red still can't do those incredible slomo shots in '300'. (The Oracle was shot with a model in a water tank in front of a blue screen at > 240fps).



hehe you made me laugh.. you got to be kidding right? Im very disepointed that Red cant shoot 1000fps... Think im going to wait for RED TEN.

[Antoine Fabi]

No... I think we are better. :-)

Jim

Oh boy...he hee...., The art of putting self pressure...since the beginning of the project by the way...

Or... you found something new...??? improvements ?

In any case, after viewing the footage twice at NAB, i am more than happy to have my reservation.

Again, thanks Graeme, you convinced me to make a reservation last year! What a great advice!

Cheers to all the team for your attitude !!!!! ATTITUDE

[Clint Johnson]

I'm hoping RED can help re-kindle english-speaking Canadian films.
We are swamped by American and British films, and produce large numbers of films for those markets, but canadian cultural stories are depressed.
Amazingly, French-Canadian film is healthy.

I consider this an first prioriy, call it artistic nationalism if you will, but our culture is under a-kind-of attack.

(Rant Mode On)As an English-speaking Canadian I'd like to say that I don't care if any more "Canadian cultural stories" ever get made. I want great stories that speak to me and I don't care if they come from Africa, China, Russia, the UK, America or Canada. I don't want stories that speak to a self appointed elite at Telefilm Canada.

I don't think that the French-Canadian film industry is healthy, I think it is a stunted industry that uses legislation and cultural pressure to artificially limit competition. The films are tiny fish in a minuscule, netted in section of a small pond.
(Rant Mode Off)


What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.
IB

What I'd like to see is Red get hold of the beam splitter rig that Zack Snyder used in 300 to get the same shot with three cameras... put the Red in one beam, an Arri 435 on a second and the Sony F23 on the third (if the thing isn't too big). Of course you want fans of each system setting them up as best they can be set up.

Grade them to match, split screen the three and then project the results on a 4k projector as well as a film out. There are theatres with both digital and film projectors so there would be an amazing opportunity to compare and contrast the cameras and the delivery media very quickly... not THAT'S a test.



-) I have more fun shooting film than I do shooting video. Perhaps it's the heightened attention that comes from burning money and not knowing exactly what you're getting! ;-) Seriously, though, I think that having more fun translates into doing better work.


Time and the other costs of production conspire against great, the cost of film is one more thing to make me settle for that frustrating "good enough".

[Tom Lowe]

It'll be very exciting to see what sort of footage starts appearing after the first cameras make it out there. This is actually the very reason why the NAB footage was so exciting to me. I'm sure there were one or two people who wanted to see a chart instead of Crossing the Line... but I sure wasn't one of them!

True.

Once the those cameras hit the streets I bet stuff starts popping up here pretty quick in 1080p.

[Fix]

True.

Once the those cameras hit the streets I bet stuff starts popping up here pretty quick in 1080p.

Its going to be amazing! :) and thats from a camera we compare with film.

[I Bloom]

Pepsi Challenge - I agree.

I think they should bring in a top ASC guy and shoot something impressive with RED and 35mm under ideal, controlled circumstances.

I realize that most of the guys who post here are DPs and camera guys, but keep in mind that producers, directors and studio people will also have a major hand in deciding which format they will shoot their next feature -- RED, Genesis, 35mm, etc.

Shooting charts might impress camera nerds, but if you want to inspire directors and producers, shoot something more interesting!

Hmmm... I wasn't thinking of charts, I was thinking more beauty shots, say a nice closeup, a sunlit landscape. Push the limits a bit with the dynamic range, but otherwise make it easy and just show the ability to match a film look and thus a film feeling. More about the end result than the technical details.

But make it like and experiment, so we know the exact stock, processing and post pipeline on both sides. I guess the point would be if you can't tell the difference its very hard to argue for film.

IB

[krd]

A few simple observations, in response to the rampant intoxication on this board:

1) aesthetic qualities are not a function of format. Poorly shot 35mm (or Red) will look better than poorly shot VHS, but the difference, in most cases, won't represent the difference between success or failure. All else being equal, both will fail.

2) probably the best American independent feature of all time is Charles Burnett's "Killer of Sheep", a student thesis shot in 1977, on 16mm B&W for less than $10,000. In the succeeding 30 years, and despite (or because of?) the loving attention of industry "professionals" (from Robert Redford to Christine Vachon or James Schamus), there are no world-class American independent films to point to, on ANY format -- from Pixelvision to Hi8 to 35mm, all of which have been in full play, for years. How will a high quality sensor alter this crisis of mediocrity?

Indeed, if a cheap acquisition format were all that were required to make a high quality dramatic film (with or without a sustained visual aesthetic), there would be thousands of masterpieces in the marketplace, dating from 8mm film cameras.

Similarly, the most profitable non-pornographic independent film of all time -- "Blair Witch" -- was shot, for the most part, with a $600 Hi8 camera (cruelly returned to the store for a refund when the shoot was over).

So when somebody here writes:

"What's exciting is that possibly very soon the only factor determine a films success will be the talent and the quality of the storytelling (as apposed to the quality of a filmmakers contacts and marketing strategy)"

you have to wonder. The fate of a dramatic film has ALWAYS been determined by the success with which it makes its case to mass audiences. For outsiders, the odds may be marginally better if the project is shot on Red rather than (say) DVX100 (all else being equal), but the difference is slight, perhaps even insignificant, short of nature photographyl.

Every year, the Sundance Dramatic Competition represents tens of millions of dollars, utterly down the drain, in unreleaseable movies. Most of these films have relatively high production values. A fair number have Hollywood or TV stars in the cast. In the end, it doesn't matter. The films lack the aesthetics and intelligence of the foreign arthouse circuit, and don't have a hook for the mass-market. They claim to satisfy the demands of both art and commerce, and fail at both. Shooting them on Red, instead of on film or tape, wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Wanna try a highly instructive experiment? Show an intelligent non-movie professional Godard's "Breathless". Then ask your guinea pig if he/she noticed anything peculiar about the way the shots were put together, the use of sound or the overall look of the thing. In most cases, you'll draw a blank. In other words, a film which violates every established movie convention, one which flagrantly ignores 50 years of film grammar, doesn't disturb viewers in the least (to the extent they even notice), for the simple reason that they can can still follow the story, and the actors are interesting to watch.

So yes: an apparently high quality and relatively cheap camera like Red could lead, in the right hands, to films with aesthetic qualities which would have been difficult or impossible to achieve in prior video formats. But the main difference will be large number of high resolution but fundamentally lousy independent films, instead of large numbers of poorly resolved, fundamentally lousy independent films. There are structural reasons why non-Hollywood filmmaking is so mediocre in the U.S. An improved sensor does not address these deficiencies.

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

[JustinGD]

8 - Long Term Archiving - advantage....???

Film is not just an acquisition format. Often forgotten.

But RED is not an archiving format, you can easliy archive RED footage on Film, so neither has an advantage here in my oppinion.

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

[Gunleik Groven]

(...)

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

Thanks.
I'll keep that in mind -;)

G

[Antoine Fabi]

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

that's a good point.

...speaking about lattitude.

[Tom Lowe]

There are structural reasons why non-Hollywood filmmaking is so mediocre in the U.S. An improved sensor does not address these deficiencies.

For all the times I have seen this posted here, I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone here claim that the sensor will improve their sets, script, actors, etc. This is a strawman argument we have seen a billion times here needlessly.


In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

Yes it does matter worth a damn. With all other factors being equal = acting, lighting, sound, script... a motion picture shot on RED will be far more impressive than one shot on an HVX, for example. DOF and image quality do matter.

[Ralph Wong]

Red versus 35mm film?

If I had a budget of $10 million dollars, at this point I would still go with film. From the stills and footage I have seen, film looks better than RED. In fact, I have spent many hours taking RED images and adjusting them in photoshop to get that film look I like so much. So why not shoot film?

BECAUSE IT'S FREAKIN' EXPENSIVE!!!

This is the whole point of the RED revolution. The idea of bringing the cost down so an independent can shoot movies with a great image quality without breaking the bank. I don't have $10 million dollars. I don't even have $100,000 dollars. But RED is making it possible so that I can still shoot a movie without having to compromise the image. The RED footage is very close to 35mm. Yes there are also things like cinematography, set design... etc. But if you write a story that doesn't require big sets and take special care with lighting, you can make a movie look as good as some of the big boys. I saw a movie shot with a Varicam on a limited budget, and it looked like a professional film.

So right now, I don't even consider shooting 35mm because of the cost. The only thing I care about is can RED deliver the pleasing image quality I am looking for. So far so good.

[jbeale]

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

Hi KRD, welcome to Reduser. I don't think everyone agrees with your proposition regarding image quality as far as resolution, dynamic range, etc. Have you tried to market a feature shot on SD to a HD cable channel recently?

[krd]

"With all other factors being equal = acting, lighting, sound, script... a motion picture shot on RED will be far more impressive than one shot on an HVX, for example. DOF and image quality do matter."

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences. Look at the handful of "independent" films which have been modestly successful over the past 20 years or so. Nearly all of them had pretty terrible production values, by "professional" standards. Some were downright painful to watch ("Clerks?" "Chuck and Buck"?). The few others were made by corporations with 7 figure budgets (e.g., sex lies and videotape).

As for my "strawman" argument, that an improved sensor won't make for good films ("For all the times I have seen this posted here, I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone here claim that the sensor will improve their sets, script, actors, etc. This is a strawman argument we have seen a billion times here needlessly."), I specifically quoted a member here, who made just that claim -- the notion that a high qualty format will somehow be a democractizing factor in dramatic filmmaking. IThe trouble is, people have been saying the same thing for years (16mm, Hi8, DV, DVPRO, etc.).

Besides, whether the claim is made explicitly or not, the enthusiasm for technology says much the same thing, over and over again. For how many people will this camera really make the difference between success and failure?

Anyway, if the argument has been made before, you'll have to forgive me: I'm new to the board, and started with this thread.

[Gunleik Groven]

A few simple observations, in response to the rampant intoxication on this board:

1) aesthetic qualities are not a function of format.

Sorta agree, and then not -;)
Some qualities are dependent on format - if you want to shoot high-detail shots in bright daylight - like in Kurosawas RAN, you need something to resolve that information.

Agreed, you'll need a couple of 1000 extras and 10.000 dolls, but that's beside the point, as I understand this to be a technical and not aestethic debate - I might be wrong, though...


In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....


Well, sorta again.
Because Red has addressed some of the main technical headaches (or riddles, maybe if you ask Graeme -;) those being:
cost vs technical quality with a survivealble workflow without throwing all current knowledge about optics etc off the boat

One is left with less riddles. A film still won't make itself or be good at itself. Agreed.

I won't go into a debate about how the current Sundace movies fare. Haven't been there. Don't care if I ever will.

And the Goddard example is ... good, but kinda besides the point again, as it has no relevance to Red vs The Rest.

What has some relevance to me, though - being mostly a hired hand for totally meanlingless productions - mostly working for ad-agencies, is to be able to offer a better technical product (than f. ex the varicam) at a better pricepoint.

I truly look foreward to comp'ing Red footage and tweak it in Shake! - But then again, I'm partly geek.

I totally agree. You won't insult me!
This does not make me a worthy filmmaker - but my job is mostly to offer a "production" which can be used in the "cinema to web" category of delivery. And I currently live pretty well.

Being able to offer extra technical production value, is a great win for both me and my customers.

The point of this rant?

Let's remember which hat we wear when we discuss and whitch thread we're in.

The discussion about crappy porn or indie or even big league films in 4k is a relevant one, and I'll be happy to preview all the mentioned categories and then come out disgusted -;)

The discussion about technical feasability and cost vs technical potential is a totally different one - and as far as I have understood - the current.

The answers from one of these discussion does totally NOT exclude the answers from the other. They are parallell and not interleaved.

Edit after reading your last post:
Welcome to the board! We're here to discuss! -;)

Just my 2c.

happy shooting!

Gunleik

[Jay A. Kelley]

"With all other factors being equal = acting, lighting, sound, script... a motion picture shot on RED will be far more impressive than one shot on an HVX, for example. DOF and image quality do matter."

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences. Look at the handful of "independent" films which have been modestly successful over the past 20 years or so. Nearly all of them had pretty terrible production values, by "professional" standards. Some were downright painful to watch ("Clerks?" "Chuck and Buck"?). The few others were made by corporations with 7 figure budgets (e.g., sex lies and videotape).

As for my "strawman" argument, that an improved sensor won't make for good films ("For all the times I have seen this posted here, I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone here claim that the sensor will improve their sets, script, actors, etc. This is a strawman argument we have seen a billion times here needlessly."), I specifically quoted a member here, who made just that claim -- the notion that a high qualty format will somehow be a democractizing factor in dramatic filmmaking. IThe trouble is, people have been saying the same thing for years (16mm, Hi8, DV, DVPRO, etc.).

Besides, whether the claim is made explicitly or not, the enthusiasm for technology says much the same thing, over and over again. For how many people will this camera really make the difference between success and failure?

Anyway, if the argument has been made before, you'll have to forgive me: I'm new to the board, and started with this thread.

You write well. Your points are well thought out.. While some may not agree, Jim STARTED this mess with the intention of a healthy debate.. Glad to see you have stepped up to the plate, as long as we're all respectful, I say "HAVE AT IT!!"

Jay
:)

[JD Holloway]

(Rant Mode On)As an English-speaking Canadian I'd like to say that I don't care if any more "Canadian cultural stories" ever get made. I want great stories that speak to me and I don't care if they come from Africa, China, Russia, the UK, America or Canada. I don't want stories that speak to a self appointed elite at Telefilm Canada.

I don't think that the French-Canadian film industry is healthy, I think it is a stunted industry that uses legislation and cultural pressure to artificially limit competition. The films are tiny fish in a minuscule, netted in section of a small pond.
(Rant Mode Off)


1) Fine. I do and I care. So do the Inuit and every other underrepresented segment of society who don't have access to capital and want to tell a story.

2) A agree on Telefilm. I will add the Toronto international film fest Inc. for that matter.

3) I disagree, while Franco cinema limits competition it does so to restrain mega media marketing departments. It worked very well for the canadian music industry. Sad to say the little guy needs help.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hey Jim any chance we could see a 4k scan of that film-out? Just to show it is possible to create a filmic output from red if that is the desired look.

[Tom Lowe]

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences.

If this was true everyone would be shooting their features on $150 VHS-C handycams. The fact is that -- with all other factors being equal -- shooting on a superior format will result in a superior looking film, both to the filmmakers and the audience.

The way in which RED "democratizes" features films is by allowing a director with a $500k budget to shoot a feature that looks just as good (in terms of DOF, lenses, resolution) as an established guy who is shooting his $1 million feature on 35mm.

And yeah, it gets a little old for people to show up here and lecture us about how a better chip is "not going to make your actors or script better." Yeah we know that. Anyway, like you said, you're new here, so I'm sure you will have a chance to see hundreds of people showing up here over the coming months making sure we all know that that 12-megapixel camera is not going to improve our set design. :wink:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Funny how everyone who shoots daily on film thinks it's fine for everybody else to shoot on DV but the moment anything digital gets compared to film the quality difference is unacceptable.... hmmm intriguing.

Having shot on filim I can say: Film will make your cinematography look better. It's soooo much harder to shoot really ugly film. Shooting really ugly digital is as easy as turning it on and pointing it at...just about anything. Red seems to be remedying that.

[Storyline]

Speaking as a Sundance documentary veteran, many small budget movies have gone on to very successful theatrical release and beyond - especially in the past 5 years. To put squarely into the realm of indy documentaries the aesthetic qualities of 35mm at an affordable (and logistically feasible) price should give our movies the look we wished we had all along to accompany the stories and settings we've labored to render for our audiences - without asking forgiveness for dicey technical issues.

--Dan
(Ballets Russes was the last movie we had at Sundance, in 2005 - DSR500 to HDCam for Sundance - and to anamorphic DigiBeta to 35mm filmout theatrical release - didn't look bad, but it sure could have looked better. And then there's the matter of 35mm prints once they've been beaten up for a while......)

[Gunleik Groven]

Besides, whether the claim is made explicitly or not, the enthusiasm for technology says much the same thing, over and over again. For how many people will this camera really make the difference between success and failure?


Good point.

My guess?
What you'll see is more boys with big toys -;)
So what?

Let us have fun with our new toys! -;)

But as with all the other technologies you mention (16mm, hi8, DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO HD and even vhs or 8mm) the accesability for new groups to "superiour" technology - have gived some gifted the shot they didn't have at an earlier stage.

As you suggest, current technology is only superior for so long, then it moves on. That's exactly what makes some of us technology geeks (Hey - I'm soon to be 40 and I still think it's fun! -;)
Even though I must admit that my geekness is in a pretty layman way -;)

To unleash the potential of let's say a Dalsa to the masses, is of course "hit and miss". But so is unleashing the potential of wordprocessing. You don't neccessarily get more good books. But you might get other good books.

I like that.

Cheers!
Gunleik

[Thomas Mathai]

Exactly!!

About three years ago I was shooting a scene wherein someone comes to the door and has a conversation with someone inside, without being let inside...because that's what my story needed. Well good luck trying to resolve that kind of contrast with an XL1s! We tried everything we could but it wouldn't look any better than this side of dog sh!t. So, I had to cut the scene, and thus compromise my story, because my camera could not perform the scene.

Using Red won't stop the compromises.

Shooting a film is all about compromising with what you see in your head with what you can do realistically.

Even with a blank check budget you can't get everything you want.

[Shawn Bannon]

There's more than enough recovery software out there. None of it is very useful when a real crash happens.

actually thats not true. if you do it properly you can repair almost all crashes. my company has some of the software you speak of, but some jobs over the years are just too difficult so we send them off, and we have always been able to recover the info.

I trust solid state, but will not trust striped hard-drives. thats where all of our problems happen with those Lacie striped hard-drives. I'll definitely shoot with the red hard-drives, i'll just back it up on set.

[vovin]

No... I think we are better. :-)

Jim

I love you, and I want to have your children o_@

[Thomas Mathai]

i probably could write 7 books on film/digital.

however, when i (as a twen and buzzed&hyped filmmaker/producer) changed in 2002 to digital, there was -nothing- like red.

my opinion (someone who owned several arri 35 and sony hdcam, zeiss and angenieux lenses (and worked -years for that-) is...

... that red indeed made the promise of digital cinema a reality.

however - most of our industry is slowmoving (as any niche-market with expensive tools), conservative, and, sorry to say so, underinformed. so don´t expect red to change all this within a year.

Slow moving in certain aspects, but look how fast digital post production has taken over.

For most of the industry, it's about delivering a product consistantly without too many unknown variables.

Zodiac being the FIRST studio data driven digital film from start to post is considered a milestone, especially since it just happened.

Film workflow is something the exhibitors, bond and insurance companies know works. When you present to them something that is too new and experiemental, they will hesitate.

Indies have more flexibility as you guys know, to push the boundaries.

Don't expect the studios to be at the forefront of everything, just because the risk/reward ratio may not be in their favor.

[Thomas Mathai]

Ditto, but youll have to go out to film if you want it shown in town. And you cant do that yourself

Why?

Do you have a theatrical distribution deal in place?

I say just make an HDCAM SR master of the final version.

Make festival dubs to whatever format is needed.

If a distribution deal comes along for theatrical, just use the original high rez for a filmout.

Otherwise use the HDCAM SR master for video distribution.

It's all coming from the same source.

[Fix]

Indeed, if a cheap acquisition format were all that were required to make a high quality dramatic film (with or without a sustained visual aesthetic), there would be thousands of masterpieces in the marketplace, dating from 8mm film cameras.

Similarly, the most profitable non-pornographic independent film of all time -- "Blair Witch" -- was shot, for the most part, with a $600 Hi8 camera (cruelly returned to the store for a refund when the shoot was over).


And blair witch 2 floped, made with 35mm if i dont remember correct. I agree that you cant 100% depend on the camera if the movie is going to be a success or not. But you cant eliminate the fact that looks do have a certain meaning to the common viewer.

Blair Witch (dogme like) did something rarely seen in big screen movies. A documentary with a scary but real feel to it, perfect for horror. But there is other movies with hugh sucsess made by dv also. Like Breaking the wavesand The Celebration. So those people who want to make Dogme like movies can by all means do that if they want to.

My point is. Most people do realise that Red One is only a tool (repeating my self). But its a chain-saw not a wooden axe. And I think alot of us want to taste that sweet cake of 4k/12bit/raw with interchangeable sugarloaf on top. So lets see what we havent seen yet. thousands of people dealing with a camera that was unthinkable for a year ago.

[Thomas Mathai]

True. However, at least personally, I never plan to print to film. It's damned expensive for one thing. If I ever do get any sort of theatrical distribution, I would hope to project 100% digitally.

Unless your film is getting a major release, it's possible to have a 100% digital release now.

[krd]

If this was true everyone would be shooting their features on $150 VHS-C handycams. The fact is that -- with all other factors being equal -- shooting on a superior format will result in a superior looking film, both to the filmmakers and the audience.

If you intend to market films based in large part on production value, and/or if there is a market which demands high production values, which we'll understand here to mean "resolution" since we're discussing RED vs. SD , then you are right. Red will grant access to a realm previously forbidden. No argument.

However, production value has often proven to be irrelevant in the marketing of "festival" type films and non-Hollywood films in general. Most people *could* shoot on VHS-C, and the outcome would be exactly the same. You may remember the early Dogme films -- they made a point of using 1-chip consumer cameras. Some made real money, and Lars von Triers' best film is easily Medea, shot (I believe) on what was then consumer video (and quite poor by current standards of consumer video). What these guys didn't advertise was that these films had budgets of $1-2 million. Some fat kid in Ohio with the same camera couldn't do it.

As for the "lecture" I'm alleged to have delivered to the benighted equipment community -- well, as I say, I'm new to the board and didn't have the leisure to read through 30,000 previous posts. There was no sign of skepticism in what I *did* read, so from my POV my comments were new, original, startling (maybe I exaggerate a little).

Finally, I agree with the poster who claimed the camera could be a revolution for reasonably well funded documentary filmmakers. There, you do get significantly improved production values, for a relatively small premium. I don't know that it would make any marketing difference, but (given adequate funding), why not?.

But, frankly, I think I've had about enough. I won't persuade you that improving the look of films won't alter their fortunes in the marketplace, and you won't persuade me that buying or using this camera will change anything, in a country whose non-Hollywood film financing model is based on the same principles which motivate real estate or pork belly investing, despite the endless and expensive evidence that this mercantile model doesn't work.

[Thomas Mathai]

With the new 4k projectors coming out and their low (compared to the past) prices it will be a film projector anihilation in the next 2-4 years.

This will make the RED to FILM transfer step a non issue.

One more point for RED...

Exhibitors are the homes dragging their feet, not the studios. They don't want to spend the $$$. Their equipment is paid off.

The big chains will change over faster, the small ones will consolidate or die off.

I heard anywhere from 10 to 12 years.

[Lucas Wilson]

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences.

Of course it does... the mass-audience just doesn't have the technical vocabulary to desribe *why* what they are seeing looks better. Talent is always the final arbiter. If someone doesn't know what they're doing, it will look like crap no matter what the tool is.

But with all else being equal, the mass-audience knows it looks better and that does matter to them - they just don't know how to describe it.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA.

[Graeme Nattress]

Exactly that happened on UK TV, where Dallas used to be sent to the UK as film prints, which would then be telecined at 25p for broadcast. Then they started sending standards converted tapes, and there was a flood of protests to the BBC. Now, if I remember, nobody said why they didn't like what they saw, but they knew they didn't like it.

Similarly, when BBC drama Casualty tried on a rather crappy de-interlaced film effect, there was a lot of complaints. I was one of them! I still have the letter from the producer apologising. I guess that's one of the things that drove me to write a nice de-interlacer :-)

Nevertheless, the general public can tell the difference, even if they don't have the words to describe it.

Graeme

[Phil Becque]

Well back to Jim's original statement for moment and speaking as a self funding production company on a severly limited budget:

1) I can't afford film - I can afford RED

2) I wouldn't know where to start with a film camera - I think I can learn how to get a good image with RED given either natural light - or some ancilliary lighting (I'm the proud owner of $2000 lighting kit - I'll have you know)

3) With RED - if I'm careful and all the planets line up I 'could' make a Buddhist film worthy of cinematic release in terms of content and image quality. I can't honestly see that happening in Hollywood in the next Kalpa (that's Buddhist jargon for very long period of time) or two.

4) I like reality (as opposed to reality TV which sucks) and I think the RED camera has a more realistic quality than film (which I can't afford anyway). I want to experiment with higher frame rates as I can see flutter at 24-30 fps on any system which a right royal pain in the arse.

5) I don't like film quality as it appears in any theatre I've ever been too - in fact I hate it: the noise, the grain, the judder, the cigarette burns, the streaks - it's all horrible! RED actually (potentially) offers something much better IMO.

6) I agree that just having more resolution or better image quality doesn't make better film - but then if you have all the problems people have alluded to before - then it would just cost more money to shoot the same thing in film. The point being that one has more freedom to make 'mistakes' and learn more rapidly from them with RED. Plus I get to see my mistake in a matter of minutes. That's worth a lot to someone like me who only learns by doing.

7) The PJ footage wasn't perfect - but it was pretty good and we know Jim knows that; and that he is, by nature a perfectionist. He wants this camera to be good enough for his own purposes and he sets a high bar. I'm willing to bet that when I get my RED one I'm going to very happy with it.

I realise there are a lot of extremely talented and probably much 'better' film makers than me on this forum and I do repect all of the opinions expressed. But I also have to say that there is an awful lot of 'twaddle' mixed in with some of the most strident posts - the "I am right, you are wrong" mentality - it really doesn't help move the discussion forward.

An independant film maker - and this board is riddled with them - is - determined, tenacious, creative, single minded, stubborn, self opinionated, well organised, resourceful, technically literate, able to influence people, financially astute, numerate, artistic, energetic, devoted, truculent, self confident, and generally finish what they start. So it may be worth bearing those qualities in mind when we address each other.

Warm regards, Phil

[Thomas Mathai]

There are many reasons why Red is greater than Film, cost is the primary one, but this account of a disastrous screening here in Melbourne recently factors into it as well:


http://www.elroyonline.net/?p=99845703

"Attempting to see Sunshine"
Posted on the March 13th, 2007

Tonight started out to be quite a cool evening. Not only were we going to be seeing the new Danny Boyle directed, sci-fi flick, SUNSHINE, a month before it hits the cinemas in wide release, but following the movie Danny Boyle and one of the film’s stars, Rose Byrne, would be sitting down for a Q&A session with the audience.

Sadly though, about 40 minutes (maybe less) into the screening of Sunshine something happened that I can only describe as a right royal cluster-fuck. For a moment nobody was sure what they were seeing: A dream sequence maybe? After a few more moments the thought started to creep into the back of my mind that there was a very good chance that Danny Boyle and whoever the hell let him release this piss-poor attempt at emulating Stanley Kubrick needed to be lined up and shot.

So, what was really going on? Well, we were seeing what appeared to be the second last reel of the film… right after the first… and it was upside down… and, I kid you not, it was playing in reverse! Then, right before we got to the bit where the monkeys start whacking the monolith with their bones, the projection room finally woke up to the error and hit the lights.

After about 40 minutes we were told that they’d just discovered that the same problem was identified in the other reel, and so we would have to wait even longer before the film could commence again. At this point we were also informed that should we wish to leave that our tickets would be refunded. Having been extremely impressed with Sunshine right up until the point at which it had started playing backwards, we decided to stick it out.

We didn’t have to wait too long before the film started playing again. And then we didn’t have to wait long before a large portion of the audience erupted with shouts of “WRONG REEL!”. Yeap, somewhere in the mix up they’d skipped a reel or two and no-one had a clue what was happening. However, it has to be said that by the time that plug was again pulled on the failed screening (for the final time) we’d again been gripped by the action taking place on the screen.

By this stage the screening was written off as a total loss and the Q&A was started.

I wish I had more to say about the Q&A and the film itself, but there was very little in the way of quotable bites from either Boyle or Byrne. What we did get to see of the film was extremely gripping and dripping with the intensity that I’d hoped for.

Of the Q&A the one thing that is worth stating is that even though the two of them were probably extremely pissed off and probably even a little embarrassed by the debacle that the evening had become, they both handled themselves extremely well, taking the whole affair in their stride.

__________________________________________________ ___________

This would never happen with Red and digital projection.

Are you sure it would never happen??

I don't know what you're experience with Murphy's Law is, but anything can happen.

I was going to a Pirates 2 digital presentation last year and was turned away because the server crashed. Technical problems happen, technology can't stop human error.

[Thomas Mathai]

That's what LUT's are for. :biggrin:

What do you use to build LUTs?

[Tom Lowe]

I still think this whole strawman-style, so-called "reality check" that a better camera won't make your actors and script and sound better is a total red herring. No one here makes that claim, or if they do, they will be quickly set straight.

What we are excited about is the ability to shoot 35mm-quality features (in terms of lenses, resolution, DOF, look, etc) for smaller budgets. As most people here like David Mullen have pointed out over and over again, at this point, RED really benefits the low-budget features from around $200k to $500k the most, where film stock, lab costs, etc, really add up for an indie production. A $200 million dollar blockbuster will not benefit much from saving $100k on film stock, but a $1 million indie would.

It's also very silly to claim that with all other factors being equal, viewers don't prefer a film shot on 35mm compared to VHS-C. Ridiculous.

[krd]

Nevertheless, the general public can tell the difference, even if they don't have the words to describe it.

Graeme

Okay, one last time. Given the choice between a great look and a poor one, any producer who preferred (or permitted) the latter would be out of his mind (and, we hope, out of a job).

But posters to this board are asserting that RED will deliver to them production values that they couldn't otherwise afford . In other words, they're not funded by HBO or the BBC or Dreamworks. They're struggling to pay for basics, and don't have the money for film.

For these unofficial productions, with small production budgets, and no stars, audiences do not look for (or demand) high production values, even assuming we agree that audiences notice (or care about) the difference (which I would dispute!). Rather, production value is the element *least* likely to predict the success of these films, because it's a given that the projects cannot compete with Hollywood on Hollywood terms, including production value. They have to offer something else.

So, yes. Some audiences may note some differences, some of the time, and some may note differences all the time. And if you can deliver great looking productions values with little money, by all means do so. The question is , what difference does it make in the real world? In my view, very little, unless the visual aesthetic realization of the project is inseparable from its success as drama -- something which is quite rare, since most movies, independent or otherwise, are photographed stories, carried ultimately by the performances and the serviceability of the script. Anyone ever seen a Pixelvision short or feature? It can be quite effective, and is more than capable of carrying a story forward.

Even material wholly dependent on visual realization may not require much in the way of resolution.

Where does that leaves us? One way or another, I fear we'll end up where we started. Some people have money to make movies, and some don't.

[Thomas Mathai]

I really do not see the big deal of having to re-archive. Diogn film-outs are so expensive..why not use some of that money towards making digital backup copies. Earthquakes and wars? "the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec. " If an archaeologist did find a film reel.. it could very well be decomposed by then (depending on how long we are talking here). I agree it is nice to have my project last for a million years..but this reason alone is not going to hold me back from going the digital route.

How many projects have you been re-archiving?

That's the thing, to keep re-archiving means either you pay someone to do it for years, or you do it yourself and be willing to do it consistantly.

[Tom Lowe]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

[Thomas Mathai]

For all the times I have seen this posted here, I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone here claim that the sensor will improve their sets, script, actors, etc. This is a strawman argument we have seen a billion times here needlessly.



Yes it does matter worth a damn. With all other factors being equal = acting, lighting, sound, script... a motion picture shot on RED will be far more impressive than one shot on an HVX, for example. DOF and image quality do matter.

Matter to who??

What 16-36 year old average male is going to notice?

Give the audience what they want and they won't notice the crappy paint job.

[Thomas Mathai]

Hi KRD, welcome to Reduser. I don't think everyone agrees with your proposition regarding image quality as far as resolution, dynamic range, etc. Have you tried to market a feature shot on SD to a HD cable channel recently?

Actually if you run SD material through a Teranex box, it holds up nicely in HD. It's not the same as shooting HD, but still isn't bad.

[krd]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

I swore the last one would be the last one, but here goes: they shot on film and performed a DI because they had the money to do so.

Had they not succeeded in raising sufficient funds for film, but had all the other elements in place, any number of $5000 cameras would have done just fine, offering a full account of the drama.

I am NOT advocating that anyone shoot on an inferior format. I'm asserting that the perceived differences between formats -- once a reasonable standard of quality is satisfied -- is of far less importance (all else being equal), aesthetically and commercially, than people here want to admit.

Finally, "Half Nelson" didn't make much money, film and DI notwithstanding. And there is no evidence that video origination hobbles a film's likelihood of release. As I've noted in previous post, some pretty ugly and poorly shot films have succeeded in getting national releases, while any number of $1-$5 million fiascos have never seen the light of day.

[donatello b]

"Look at the handful of "independent" films which have been modestly successful over the past 20 years or so. Nearly all of them had pretty terrible production values, by "professional" standards."

IMO "handful" is the word ... yes the general public will watch a movie with bad production values, so so image, bad lighting etc BUT they are not going to go out to the cinema and watch one of these every week ... i pay $10-12 and i expect to see quality and yes i'll put up with a few bad images(films) but not film after film - hey on free TV i'll take a look but if i'm paying then show me something that at least looks GOOD ...
ie: the movie Tadpole was shot on a hand size DV camera .. had big star in it -IMO it wasn't a dv type project .. they shot it as if it was 35mm ... why didn't they just shoot 35? they had the names - it looks OK on TV but on big screen it falls apart ... GIVE me a REFUND ...

[Tom Lowe]

And there is no evidence that video origination hobbles a film's likelihood of release.

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

[Gbabymogul]

Filmmaking
Giving filmmakers the choice to use all of their art - 35mm DOF, DR, color, movement range is the difference between a DVX100 and RED. That's real choice.

Biz
If i walk into a distributors office with a DVX100 feature or a 65mm feature (with all else being equal) you can be sure there's a difference.
If my film screens at a fest and the artifacts take the audience out of the story because i tried to tell a 35mm story with a SD camera, you can be sure
the storytelling isn't as effective.

Audience
The audience will tell the difference depending on the story you intend to tell. This is the reason why most digital films at that level have a specificity of story. If your trying to sell them with aesthetics that don't compliment the story then it's counterproductive and wasting money. Just as you wouldn't hire your kid brother to play Henry the 8th, you wouldn't shoot a story that demanded 35mm aesthetics with a handycam.

I've yet to see an SD film that tried to mimic 35mm aesthetics be effective, no matter how good the story. Where those films work is when the format fits thematically with the story.

Do you think that Lawrence of Arabia would have been just the same corker of a film if it was shot on the DVX100 ? I don't.:-)

[PaulClements]

One of the big bonuses for me with Red vs Film is the opportunity to learn via trial and error. No respectable DP, cameraman, AC or whatever you are, or want to be, should ever believe they know it all. That ability to spend days and weeks shooting absolutely nothing and be able to see what works and doesn't work is an invaluable asset that film simply cannot offer because of it's cost. With Red you are less limited by the capabilities of the camera as you would be by a prosumer camcorder and less limited by the costs than you would be by current digital cinema cameras. The result is that you can harness techniques and skills at a higher level.

Interestingly, the skills learnt through the adoption of RedOne will help people to work with film. For instance a film school with a hundred students can shoot endless amounts of footage using lighting, lenses, accessories and so on and gain an understanding of the process that can easily be applied to shooting with film.

Strangely, RedOne then becomes a tool that could actually benefit Film.

[Thomas Mathai]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

Why did they bother shooting 28 Days later ON an XL1??

Did they have a lot of limits going into multiplexes?

[Gunleik Groven]

Ok Jim.
You did it!
The worms are out -;)

Have fun!

Gunleik

[Thomas Mathai]

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

Maybe because they are shooting more with DVX100s?

[krd]

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

I'm not sure you're actually reading my posts. We're talking here about the films likely to be made by participants in this forum -- people who aren't being financed by national distributors, cable TV or Hollywood studios, and who have no money to spare.

On a project like Memento (comparatively low budget though it was), film stock and processing was not a decisive cost. I believe C. Nolan *could* have shot on a lesser format, with equal success (assuming a good film transfer), but there was clearly no reason to do so. He and his investors had a choice, and they made the obvious and sensible one, given their much larger investment in production and cast.

Conversely, Robert Rodriguez thinks HD is the last word in acquisition formats and has nothing but scorn for film -- which I suspect many people here would laugh at or bewail. But, obviously, his choice of HD, with maybe half the effective resolution of film, has absolutely no bearing on his commercial success, apart from reducing his production costs.

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.

[David Mullen ASC]

A couple of points I want to randomly make...

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care. Generally audiences want to be entertained, they want to be wowed, impressed, emotionally engaged, intellectually tickled, etc. There really isn't one type of movie experience, one type of film goer, one type of movie.

But in general, people go to be entertained by filmmakers who know how to entertain them -- i.e. people who know what they are doing. And in order to know what they are doing, they generally have to know more about their field than the average audience member. When I buy a house, I don't have to care as much about architecture or construction as the people who built it, but I expect them to care about such details. If I get an operation, then the surgeon better care more about the art & science of surgery than I do. Audiences don't care because they don't have to care -- they expect US (the filmmakers) to care, to care about whatever is important for that particular production and the viewing experience it is designed to deliver. Maybe that's a high level of technical polish, but maybe not. "Clerks" didn't have to look like "Lawrence of Arabia", in fact, it might have been detrimental to its charm if it did.

My other comment is that you guys can argue as logically as you want regarding why RED is a better choice than film, but movies are made by flawed, emotional, sometimes illogical human beings with a wide variety of tastes, eccentricities, prejudices, passions, etc. Movies aren't made by robots and accountants. Not everyone is going to come to the same personal conclusions as to what the right choice will be for them, particularly if they have some freedom to try different formats for different projects.

Look at Super-8 and how it's still hanging on, despite DV, HDV, etc. Can you say that it's a logical choice of format to work in? Probably not, but some people have an emotional investment in that little format.

[Desert Rune]

My other comment is that you guys can argue as logically as you want regarding why RED is a better choice than film, but movies are made by flawed, emotional, sometimes illogical human beings with a wide variety of tastes, eccentricities, prejudices, passions, etc.
Respectfully, there hasn't been much choice other than film.

It's only been in the last couple of years that digital cinema has progressed to a point it can seriously challenge film.

[Gbabymogul]

A couple of points I want to randomly make...

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care. Generally audiences want to be entertained, they want to be wowed, impressed, emotionally engaged, intellectually tickled, etc. There really isn't one type of movie experience, one type of film goer, one type of movie.

I agree completely ,David. As a writer/director i look to have the script/story tell me what it needs, regardless of the marketplace, the audience, or the tech etc... I'll do my best to serve it to the best of my ability. Rarely have the same story demands been the same twice, which is why i find it perplexing that some people would assert that one shoe can fit all beneath a certain budget.

And your artist statement is true enough. Just to prove it - Paraphrasing Jarred about this forum "we're all bananas". I think it's part of being creative.

[Tonaci Tran]

How many projects have you been re-archiving?

That's the thing, to keep re-archiving means either you pay someone to do it for years, or you do it yourself and be willing to do it consistently.

discs still have a decent 5-10 year lifespan (blu-ray is like 10 yrs). even if we have to pay someone to re-archive.. its still way cheaper than film:

"For short films, about $350/minute for 35mm; sound, negatives, and print all included. $250/minute for 16mm. A feature-length transfer to 35mm can be as low as $20,000 (75 min) or $13,000 for 16mm (75 min). Also see our prices page, and try our JavaScript rate calculator."

Either way you look at it..not all of us can afford to shoot film, nor backup on it. Even when the time comes when I can afford, I'd rather opt for digital option..rather than film.

Mike Curtis discussed had this quote on his blog:

"“You walk into a film archive, and what you smell is the image coming off the print,”

....and then went on to advocate for lossless digital backups, with a schedule for migrating that data, checking that data for problems, etc:

Sun’s motion-picture archiving model is based around an enterprise-class tape library with a front-end server and disk drive. A studio would maintain two complete libraries in different locations, and each library would include two complete copies of each movie. The library would comprise components that would be changed out on a regular schedule – every five years for the computers and disks, every 10 years for the actual tapes (with an audit of each tape to be conducted every six months to keep on top of any developing problems), and every 20 years for the library systems. Data would be stored in an open tarball data format; as it’s copied from tape to tape, it can be recorded in whatever file format the current tape system uses. Content would be kept in the clear (unencrypted) and uncompressed for maximum readability in the future. The archive would have no network connectivity."

Newer and better long term digital archiving solutions will continue to come out like this.

[Thomas Mathai]

I really don't know what kind of competition this is. Being of the younger set / having shot digital since I was a kid and knowing an online NLE work-flow, film seems like a real legacy format that hasn't been abandoned because the people who grew up shooting it haven't died off yet. I feel like people often get really romantic with the format because all of their favorite films were shot on film, but in time that will change. And in time, the Hollywood system will hopefully become de-centralized thanks to online distribution and developments like the Red. And if it does, digital formats like the RED will be very important to the future of movie-making.

Neither the RED or any digital format is perfect. Digital has its own quirks that are unique to itself and that is fine. What it really comes down to (in my opinion) is the market... if digital distribution does change the way that films are made and theaters become less prevalent then movies will become more niche, make less money, but increase in quality because of sheer numbers. And, if movies are making less because of a re-defined distribution system then the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to telling your story won't be 1-2 gained stops of latitude, but price and familiarity.

And if the future is commanded by a bunch of young-guns, then they will be most familiar with digital, they will work around any quirks just as Hollywood filmmakers have been working around the quirkiness of film forever. Whats exiting is that possibly very soon the only factor determine a films success will be the talent and the quality of the storytelling (as apposed to the quality of a filmmakers contacts and marketing strategy). Imagine: in a couple of years our kids will grow up with 4k camera's that we pass down to them and are editing on our "old" 8-core Macs, uploading their features on iTunes and having showings at friends homes on mass-market 4k projectors.

Exited about the future.

There will always be young guns in the future looking to mix things up.

Remember Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Lynch, Scorsesse, etc were film school young guns who took on the industry.

Now they are the mainstream. The industry adjusted to them and brought them into the fold.

The industry will adjust itself even more as digital cinema takes off.

I can see the film industry moving to a broadcast workflow, faster and shorter production schedules on smaller budgets. More product released for a one week or less depending on how good the numbers are.

With digital delivery, an exhibitor can replace a movie easily if it's not filling seats.

Sure everyone talks about bypassing the theaters and bringing content to the consumer directly online. The telcos own the backbones and know this will happen and want their share of it.

While there will be $200 to $300 million films being made, I think a majority of films will be cheap.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are regional filmmakers, those who do well in a particular market and just stick to that. Less headache and risk than trying to break out nationally.

[Thomas Mathai]

consistently...but not necessarily frequently. discs still have a decent 5-10 year lifespan (blu-ray is like 10 yrs). even if we have to pay someone to re-archive.. its still way cheaper than film:

"For short films, about $350/minute for 35mm; sound, negatives, and print all included. $250/minute for 16mm. A feature-length transfer to 35mm can be as low as $20,000 (75 min) or $13,000 for 16mm (75 min). Also see our prices page, and try our JavaScript rate calculator."

Drives will getting cheaper. Newer and better long term digital archiving solutions will continue to come out.

What are the long term digital archiving solutions?

[Tonaci Tran]

i guess it depends on how you define long term. To reiterate, I'm not saying digital archiving is "better", I just think its more cost effective and is really my only option..as I can't afford to archive on film. Additionally, archiving might be a "inconvenience" but so is forking 20,000-100,000 dollars. As always, if money is no issue.. back on on both if thats the case.

Below is a possible option I read on Mike Curtis' blog.

"Mike Curtis discussed had this quote on his blog:

"“You walk into a film archive, and what you smell is the image coming off the print,”

....and then went on to advocate for lossless digital backups, with a schedule for migrating that data, checking that data for problems, etc:

Sun’s motion-picture archiving model is based around an enterprise-class tape library with a front-end server and disk drive. A studio would maintain two complete libraries in different locations, and each library would include two complete copies of each movie. The library would comprise components that would be changed out on a regular schedule – every five years for the computers and disks, every 10 years for the actual tapes (with an audit of each tape to be conducted every six months to keep on top of any developing problems), and every 20 years for the library systems. Data would be stored in an open tarball data format; as it’s copied from tape to tape, it can be recorded in whatever file format the current tape system uses. Content would be kept in the clear (unencrypted) and uncompressed for maximum readability in the future. The archive would have no network connectivity."

the lto option by quantum:
"Easy to Deploy - With its included gigabit Ethernet interface and built-in FTP, A-Series data tape drives can be easily attached to any network where they become instantly accessible to every workstation and server through Windows Explorer and standard browsers. The system can be used in stand-alone, rackmount and table-top configurations and the new SuperLoader 3A can be integrated into the full range of robotic tape libraries.

Flexible - The data tape format of the A-Series data tape drives includes a file system on the tape, making any cartridge readable anywhere, anytime. Traditional video archiving uses proprietary management software, which dictates that tapes must remain locked in a library system in order to restore any data. Quantum's Super DLTtape II cartridges are free from this restraint; they can be easily moved between libraries, stand-alone drives and even video facilities. With this flexibility, A-Series drives are ideal for serving the full range of video applications -- from hand-carrying video content out to a truck for live production to a facility-wide, long-term and secure archive.

Secure Yet Accessible - Quantum's Super DLTtape II data cartridges have a robust 30-year archival life that ensures the longevity of precious video content. At the same time, the A-Series is an ideal solution for archiving content because the files remain easily accessible. The A-Series enables partial restores of subclip files by timecode or even metadata with an ease unlike any other data tape solution – establishing a new level of accessibility in data tape that defines "working storage."

Unmatched Performance and Capacity - At a native 36 MB/s, data transfer is many times faster than real-time, even in HD. At a native capacity of 300GB per tape, a single tape can accommodate more than six hours of 100 Mb/s HD content.

Cost-Effective - In addition to its file-based, faster-than-real-time access to HD, SD and data assets, the A-Series data tape drives are a much more cost-effective storage solution than video tape. Because it is built on Quantum's popular, industry-leading DLT platform, the A-Series platform benefits from significant economies of scale."

[I Bloom]

I was watching a DVD extra on Bamboozled and it was described how Spike Lee talked to his chosen DP, Ellen Kuras, about what she thought of shooting on DV. And she replied that she didn't think about it. It was her choice to shoot 35mm, but as we know the film was shot on DV.

Even though you can make a case that Ellen Kuras pushed her career forward by being willing to shoot on DV and make it look more like film, she had no love for that format. So what's interesting to me is that this discussion, mostly by DP's I'm presuming, gives the pretense that format is really our choice. I think most of the time we shoot on the best format we can convince people to let us shoot.

So in the context of RED, the discussion of film vs. Red is a mute point for me. Once all the bugs are worked out and people feel they can trust the format and the workflow, producers are going to love RED. Only a select few are going to choose film over a digital competitor, and if you are working with them it's probably going to be luck. Most producers tell me what format we are shooting before they even interview me.

Film is better, I love it, RED can't touch it, really don't kid yourselves, I don't care how much grain you add in post. I've also forgotten all about film, if Kodak came out with Vision3 stocks I wouldn't even care. Because nobody is going to spend the money in the market that I work in. So whether you like RED or not, learn to love it and start calling Jim "Big Brother". Because if it works out as well as they are saying it is, for the price they are offering it, its either RED or an HVX for narrative filmmaking. Forget about film and for that matter forget about the Varicam, the Cinealta and the F23 (unless you are getting one for free).

IB

[Ralph Oshiro]

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care.
EXACTLY! In my narcissistic, self-centered, ego-driven fantasy world of personal creative filmmaking, the FIRST person I need to please is ME! And as hard a critic as I am on myself, I'm sure if I'm pleased, I just KNOW my mom will like it too!

[Tom Lowe]

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.

Again, if this was the case, all movies would be shooting on f900s right now, because according to you, no one sitting in a multiplex could tell the difference. Then why isn't this happening? Shooting digitally has many advantages, including budget, but also the ability to do immediate playbacks in full res on set, etc. The answer: Because film still looks a whole lot better than F900s. Depth of field and dynamic range are two cited differences.

The point we are trying to make, that you seem to be skirting (except admitting that it would make a difference for documentaries ?)... is that with all other things being equal, a filmmaker working in the $200k - $500k range could make a picture on the RED for far less money than 35mm that will still have the same image-quality -- ie, lenses, DOF, color, etc. What part of that don't you understand? If your budget is $400K, and you save 50 grand on film costs, guess what? That's 50k you can spend feeding the crew, buying wardrobe, location scouting, doing post sound, etc.

On the one in a million chance that the RED shooter actually makes a great picture for $400k, it will also be easier to distribute in multiplexes, and will look glorious living its on HD DVD and HDTV.

No person on this board has ever claimed that having a RED will make you talented. It is simply a way of achieving something close to a nice 35mm cinema look for a lot less money and hassle.

[Ralph Oshiro]

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.
Not sure what your point is. But it's a little like telling a fine art photographer that he should shoot with a point-and-shoot, instead of a 4x5 view camera, since photography is really only about composition anyway. Or telling a painter, he should really use Sharpies instead of acrylics, since it's really only about color and form. In art, the medium does matter. Your arguments may be more appropriately directed toward first-time director/writers/producers, looking to make a financial decision. But many of us are image-makers, and to us, image is important.

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, if it was up to krd, all the top photographers on Flickr would have to trade in their 5Ds for $200 point-and-clicks.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Not that you can't make great art with a point-and-shoot. Or that you can't make a cool-looking film shooting super 8. But you guys know what I mean.

[david farland]

Krd,
I think what you're really saying when it comes to the success of a film/video, technical production techniques factor quite low in the scheme of things and regardless of your budget, do not ensure financial success i.e. Waterworld.
And I expect your above the line elements would far outweigh the below the line ones.
Compelling story, truth in acting, creative designs and other above the line elements have a far greater impact on the success of your film/video than technical visual/audio elements.
In essence, I think everybody agrees with you and others much more qualified than myself have partly addressed the reason for technical skills.

But what are you saying anymore than this?

That we’re misguided and wasting our time and really shouldn't expend all our energy on these technical elements?….we should rebalance or redirect our energies?
That our amount of technical fervor doesn't fit into the scheme of a human storytelling paradigm?

What’s your point?

Cheers,

[Tom Lowe]

Not that you can't make great art with a point-and-shoot. Or that you can't make a cool-looking film shooting super 8. But you guys know what I mean.

Very true. But it depends on the type of shot you're taking. For example, I have taken some of my favorite landscape shots with a point and click, because I got lucky with a nice location or sunset, and with a wide-angle landscape shot the more depth of field, the better. If you are trying to shoot a portrait for the cover of Vogue, though, a point and click aint gonna cut it.

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason I don't like these arguments that say we should care more about the story than the technical issues is that it's a false choice -- we don't proportionally expend more effort in one area at the expense of the other. It is possible to care about both.

However, I do agree that in narrative work, the story should drive everything, every choice, etc. But it is possible to think about what filter to stick into the mattebox without short-changing story concerns...

The problem I see sometimes with indie filmmakers sometimes is the whole cart-before-the-horse syndrome. They first look for a camera and then look for a story to tell with it. That's a little like buying a washing machine first and then looking for the right house to buy where it will fit. Owning a camera doesn't make you a filmmaker -- making films makes you a filmmaker. Owning a camera just makes it easier but it doesn't mean a whole lot in itself if you don't start doing something with it.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Hey, before all this RED stuff started to happen, I was SERIOUSLY considering buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used Aaton A-Minima packages.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

I think that once you get past a certain quality threshold, in terms of dynamic range, resolution and depth of field characteristics, what you do on set is more important than the camera. There is so much ugly 35mm film being shot these days. I think Red gets over the quality threshold. Used well, a good Red project will look better than half the crap coming off the Hollywood conveyor belt. Of course, people are free to shoot crap Red footage as well. But there's enough quality here to be better than a lot of 35mm out there.

[Graeme Nattress]

Technologies give rise to new story telling possibilities, and stories drive new technology - it's the happy cycle of art and storytelling. One thing I love about video, film and photography is that it IS a blend of science and art, and art informs the science, and science informs the art.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

I've just been out taking photos of the moon. If I didn't have the technology (500mm lens 1.4x and 2x extenders) I don't think I could tell the photographic story. Science enables stories. Stories drive science.

Graeme

[Ralph Oshiro]

The problem I see sometimes with indie filmmakers sometimes is the whole cart-before-the-horse syndrome.
Wow, David! That's my whole screenwriting and production methodology! My real name is actually Ralph Cart-Before-the-Horse Oshiro. From an economic standpoint, writing backwards helps me maximize my production value. First, I scout my locations, figure out what I can steal, then write to those locations. I remember buying a hi-hat before I even owned a fluid head. I bought a $1,500 B-stock Anton Bauer charger from Bexel for only a grand, and I didn't even own any batteries! And then there was that whole key grip-hostess tray debaucle!

[Ralph Oshiro]

That's a little like buying a washing machine first and then looking for the right house to buy where it will fit.
Oh yeah, like I'm the ONLY one that does THAT!

[Jason Murphy]

OK, to jump to KRD's defense here a bit, most of your replies seem to misunderstand his main point in all of this.


I am NOT advocating that anyone shoot on an inferior format. I'm asserting that the perceived differences between formats -- once a reasonable standard of quality is satisfied -- is of far less importance (all else being equal), aesthetically and commercially, than people here want to admit.

He's clearly not arguing that art photographers should use a point and shoot digital instead of a 4x5. Or the cinematic equivalent. However, he IS arguing that the format in which a film is shot makes less overall difference in terms of its artistic and (often) financial success than most people on this board seem to think it does. And he's right about this. Great technology won't make great art, though it may occasionally enable new aesthetic possibilities that great artists can exploit.

And he's also right that the mass commercial film audience at large really doesn't care what a film was originated on. Some movie lovers will, but most people won't, as long as the movie doesn't look like absolute crap. Blair Witch was a huge success, so the standards for what people think looks like absolute crap are pretty low here.

People with money in the industry who are able to finance films WILL obviously care what a film looks like, and how image acquisition happens (as they well should). But they also usually don't care about this as much as doing things by a tried and true method. It will take powerful players in the industry to push something like RED forward, because it's an unknown quantity thus far. Now with people like James Cameron, David Fincher and George Lucas all pushing digital acquisition (not to mention that Peter Jackson seems to be impressed with RED), the shift away from film may happen relatively quickly. But don't expect for an entire industry to be dismantled and rebuilt particularly quickly, no matter how major a breakthrough the RED is.

Anyway, if people put as much artistic energy into shooting movies on the RED as they put energy into being excited about the RED, we'll be in for some great movies. But, as excited as I am about the RED (and I'm pretty excited, as any of my friends who have talked with me recently will no doubt attest), I gotta side with history and say I'm not holding my breath for movies to get that much better.

Edit: So, while I was writing this, it looks like a bunch of people responded in ways that made much of what I said redundant. Apologies. Pick anything out from what I've written that's useful to you.

[Ralph Oshiro]

So we go to Home Depot and find the LAST TWO front-loading Samsung washer/dryer models left in Los Angeles county on sale in that cool Titanium color. It was last year's discontinued model. They deliver it to the house--and guess what? DOESN'T FIT into the washer dryer closet in the house!!!

[Ralph Oshiro]

He's clearly not arguing that art photographers should use a point and shoot digital instead of a 4x5. Or the cinematic equivalent. However, he IS arguing that the format in which a film is shot makes less overall difference in terms of its artistic and (often) financial success than most people on this board seem to think it does. And he's right about this. Great technology won't make great art, though it may occasionally enable new aesthetic possibilities that great artists can exploit.
Yes, but it's OFF-TOPIC. It's stating the obvious. And it's repetitive. And, it's OFF-TOPIC. It's like those incessant, "It's all about story," posts. Not arguing with your post, or you, for that matter, Jason. I'm in general agreement with what you said.

[Jason Murphy]

Yes, but it's OFF-TOPIC. It's stating the obvious. And it's repetitive. And, it's OFF-TOPIC. It's like those incessant, "It's all about story," posts.

It doesn't particularly seem off topic in a thread about the relative technical, artistic and workflow merits of film vs. RED. And given the level of excitement seen in some of the posts on this forum, it doesn't seem particularly obvious to a number of people here (not the majority, but certainly a few).

But it IS repetitive. Granted.

PS. Also not trying to argue with you either, Ralph. That Aaton looked pretty sweet as well. I've wanted an Aaton for a long time. But now that RED is cheaper than an Aaton...

[Ralph Oshiro]

Technologies give rise to new story telling possibilities, and stories drive new technology - it's the happy cycle of art and storytelling. One thing I love about video, film and photography is that it IS a blend of science and art, and art informs the science, and science informs the art.

Graeme

Leave it to Graeme to say something neat.

[Graeme Nattress]

Sorry Ralph, did I spoil the discussion. I like this one I said above "Science enables stories. Stories drive science." I think I've got a new .sig

Graeme

[Ralph Oshiro]

At least krd stirred up the thread a bit. Was getting kinda pedestrian in here. Kinda miss those turbulent days now at that "other" forum!

[Ralph Oshiro]

Sorry Ralph, did I spoil the discussion. I like this one I said above "Science enables stories. Stories drive science." I think I've got a new .sig

Graeme

No, no, no! I thought what you said was really cool! I loved that post! I don't think anyone wants to hear more stories about my oversized washer/dryer, do they? So . . . anyway (how off-topic is THIS?), now I gotta re-frame the damned washer/dryer closet by about a foot. In fact, I may just demo the whole damn closet and make a washer/dryer cabinet instead. (Where is krd when you need him?)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If the LOTR was shot on DV the story would have suffered. No question in my mind.

It's the quality of the picture the exciting dramatic vibrant image on the giant screen which made my heart race. The vfx people would have had crappy obvious mattes eveywhere. It just wouldn't have felt nearly as real as it did in HD.

Resolution and quality sell tickets. When I first got discovery HD I was willing to watch just about anything. "NEXT: The sun rising over a pond." Wowwww... pondddddd.

When I'm watching a Dogme film I just sit there wishing they had spent money on lighting and film. It's just so ugly. Sure the story is good, but it's not visually exciting at all.

People like pretty attractive images. We have for thousands of years. RED and Film enable much prettier and attractive images to me. DV does not. It pulls me out of the story because it's ugly.

What if Lawrence of Arabia has been shot on SD and the skies were all blown out and shadows were crushed. I don't think it would be the "classic" it is today. Quite honestly that's a really boring movie when watched on a 13" TV off of VHS . And now... more people walking across sand... more sand... more sand.. I think those might be people I can't tell.

[Tom Lowe]

.. he IS arguing that the format in which a film is shot makes less overall difference in terms of its artistic and (often) financial success than most people on this board seem to think it does. And he's right about this. Great technology won't make great art

Uh, yeah, all of us here already understand this, and we don't need another lecture letting us know that "buying a great camera won't make you more talented." We get it. Thanks for coming out.

[Ralph Oshiro]

When I first got discovery HD I was willing to watch just about anything. "NEXT: The sun rising over a pond." Wowwww... pondddddd.
Wow! I know what you mean about DiscoveryHD! I recently bought a 720p 50" plasma set, and just watched "The Astronaut's Wife" (1999) on HD cable last night! OH MY GOD! Not the greatest film ever, but OH MY GOD! Allen Daviau's photography was absolutely STUNNING (even highly compressed). Not to mention a younger, hotter Charlize Theron. Allen did these close-ups of her . . . full-screen shots of her lips, eyes, etc. Many close-up beauty shots of her face. If anyone here has an HDTV, try and catch this film this month if ONLY for the close-ups of Charlize, and for Allen's gorgeous lighting and framing. Simply stunning.

Also, many of the sets and backgrounds were very simple, so the CODEC was often under-stressed. As a result, the close-ups on Charlize really held together, even on <20 Mbps cable.

I guess my point is (did I even have a point?), I mean beside the fact that Chalize Theron is hot, is that I dare any straight male to watch Charlize in HD (shot in 35mm, by the way) and not be floored by how the quality of the image enhances your experience of her in that film.

[Phil Maker]

If I had a 100 million dollar budget, I would choose... RED.
Grain looks like sh*t.
RED is the future and it's better.
Why fight it.
(that's not a question)

[Ralph Oshiro]

If I had a 100 million dollar budget, I would choose . . . RED.
Why does it have to be either or? If I had THAT kind of money, I would shoot . . . EVERYTHING!!! RED, 35mm, 65mm, Super 8, SD interlaced video (you know, for fake news footage, etc.) . . . RED is another brush. Another arrow in our "arrow-holder thing." Super-clean, 4K images. Then cut to some "dirty" gritty, grainy 16mm. Then some black and white reversal. Then cut to some interlaced news footage. Then some bad wireless cell phone video. Different . . . is good.

[Clint Johnson]

1) Fine. I do and I care. So do the Inuit and every other underrepresented segment of society who don't have access to capital and want to tell a story.

2) A agree on Telefilm. I will add the Toronto international film fest Inc. for that matter.

3) I disagree, while Franco cinema limits competition it does so to restrain mega media marketing departments. It worked very well for the canadian music industry. Sad to say the little guy needs help.

1) It is nice that you care, just don't ask me to pay for it with my taxes. I can't really speak for the Inuit since I personally know only two (maybe three, not sure) and if they were obsessing on culture they would hate me for my Cree ancestry since it was the Cree that took their land and drove them north above the tree line. But speaking with what little authority my diluted Cree blood gives me, I'd rather see a good film about the Chinese explorer Zheng He than a good film about Chief Peguis leading my Saulteaux Cree ancestors to Lake Winnipeg. Zheng He's story is just more interesting and I'd love to do it myself if I had that $100 million dollar budget.

But you know, if I had a $5 million budget, that Cheif Peguis story could get me writing too. It just isn't as good a story and no amount of common DNA will change that.

Just because somebody wants to tell a story doesn't mean that anyone else should give a damn... unless it is a good story that enough people would be willing to pay to see. Other than that, they should put it in a museum and get on with life, not try and get the state to force everyone else to pay for their intelectual masterbation.

2) We agree on the TIFF! See, I'm not as disagreeable a git as I'm coming across in these posts. I'm actually quite nice, just ask me.

3) I think we'll continue to disagree about the Francophone film scene, when the province tries to keep people from finding out that there are better films out there, I don't see that as helping anyone but some hothouse production companies that couldn't cut it on quality alone. And this type of protectionism in the music industry may have given us Celine Dion but I still prefer Tom Waits.

I am a little indie guy who doesn't want the help the state offers; tax me ten dollars so you can give me back five dollars? No thanks. I know, I know, I'm supposed to game the system so that the government takes more money from other people to pay for what I want... but outside of the poor economics of it, that just strikes me as morally wrong. So I am stuck with high taxes trying to scrape together non-state funding in a business sector that is addicted to corporate welfare.

Hey Jim, you've sure managed to start a lot of fights with one post! I suppose you are the type of guy who goes around poking hornets nests eh?

In a vain attempt to bring this post back on topic... uhh... I'd rather shoot both Zheng He's $100 million and Chief Peguis's $5 million story on Red digital cinema.

[Jason Murphy]

What RED allows is for those stories that i'm passionate about (that are best served by 35mm characteristics) i can now give them their due props. I no longer have to go to the market (time and expenditure) to try and finance them or shoot them on a format that i know will be counter to it's theme. I can choose the stories i've wanted to do for years, and define a workflow that is sustainable with my small bizness.

Hopefully, they'll be worth enough that others will be entertained, but as a famous writer once writ -"I write because i have to, not because i want to". You can add direct/paint and that's what it's about, for me.

Amen to that. I hope we see a bunch of interesting low-budget narrative and 'experimental' (or extreme non-mainstream depending on how you look at it) projects spring from this.


Why does it have to be either or? If I had THAT kind of money, I would shoot . . . EVERYTHING!!! RED, 35mm, 65mm, Super 8, SD interlaced video (you know, for fake news footage, etc.) . . . RED is another brush. Another arrow in our "arrow-holder thing." Super-clean, 4K images. Then cut to some "dirty" gritty, grainy 16mm. Then some black and white reversal. Then cut to some interlaced news footage. Then some bad wireless cell phone video. Different . . . is good.

And amen to that as well. Different IS good. Now, the question is: will the rise of RED (and 4K digital acquisition in general) mean that we see a resurgence in a few hardcore film-makers shooting 65mm? THAT would be a very cool unexpected benefit of RED as well. Would love to see more large format "non-IMAX-event" filmmaking happening.