Reality Check

[Brook Willard]

Many of us are viewing the footage with the goal of making it look as good as or better than film. Granted, RED will have its own aesthetic... but there's no denying that a "film look" is the goal of many.

So when Jim asked [regarding noise] what somebody was comparing a "problematic" image to, there wasn't much of an answer. The reality is - at least for me - that we should be comparing these images to film.

So here's some film. I shot this about a year ago while testing out Kodak stocks for a film. I shot it in the same stage where we shot the first RED footage. It's also the same footage I pulled frames from for the FAQ.

If memory serves, this is a studio fresnel 5K through a 6x6 frame of muslin and not much else. The stock was Kodak 5218 exposed at 500ASA on a BL-4S through a Zeiss standard. It was scanned maybe 4 days after processing at 3K and scaled to a 2K DPX file. I assembled the DPX sequence in Shake, cropped to 1080p and exported as an Apple Animation to Quicktime. From Quicktime, I exported once to ProRes [HQ] and once to Apple Motion JPEG A [between "High" and "Best"].

There is a significant gamma shift between the ProRes file and the JPEG file... I recommend checking out both. Be sure to view it in Adobe 1998.

Just something to think about. This is the gold standard as of thursday.

5218 Motion JPEG (http://homepage.mac.com/mb38/film/5218mjpeg.mov)
5218 ProRes (http://homepage.mac.com/mb38/film/5218prores.mov)

Please go easy on my server. Give the ProRes file some more time to upload.

[Mike Prevette]

smartass\ 5201, would be the gold standard but whatever. /smartass

_mike

[Alex Boothby]

Hey Brook - do you still have those 4K scans shot by Dante Spinotti that I sent you? Can't find where I put the originals. That was 35mm, super 35mm & 65mm - and still noisier than Red.... but nice, academy worthy noise

[Brook Willard]

Yep, I have those. I can send them to you if you want them.

[Alex Boothby]

I seem to recall doing a side-by-side crop of the super-35 vs milk girls. Might be fun to post that in this thread if you got 'em. Kinda on topic. Anyway I don't want to bug you...

[casey warren]

Hey Brook - do you still have those 4K scans shot by Dante Spinotti that I sent you? Can't find where I put the originals. That was 35mm, super 35mm & 65mm - and still noisier than Red.... but nice, academy worthy noise

Brook: Could you possibly post those stills? or e-mail them to me? mindcastle@mac.com

[Rick Darge]

I think someone should get out there with a Red, a 35mm cine-camera and an HVX for good measure and shoot a hot lady in front of a cold window and post the results just for kicks.

[Alex Boothby]

There's a rough plan to shoot side-by-side film and Red at the upcoming Toronto Red test. Maybe 100 ASA & 500 ASA. Same lens, same lighting, etc. The idea is to scan the film at 4K - if we can manage it. Unfortunately it's several weeks away (awaiting the famous Red #98). I'm sorta talking out of my ass here as I'm just a lowly late-comer, but the goal is to post the findings.

Thread here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3718

[Gbabymogul]

It's too early to be able to tell. I keep repeating myself, but if i'm honest about it, digital doesn't look like it's going to replace film any time soon. That will change and the revolution is here, but unless i'm proved otherwise, it seems to be hyperbole.

This is film. Look at the light. See, no digital playing hop scotch. Look at the tones and the colours.

There are soooo many examples of where film just has superior quality.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177267142.jpg

This is the Viper - but look - no green lines. Look at how high contrast this is. I expect RED to be able to do better but Show me. Don't tell me. The time for teasing and marketing is over.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1188963666.jpg


This is a great forum. And i hope to contribute so much that this camera will be proud and it will be the art that it can be.
Maybe i've pissed some people off by being truthful, but so be it. I adore the idea behind it, admire many of the people working on it, but my Art deserves craftsmanship , not marketingship (not that that's what you're doing).

This film against RED is counterproductive since i think this camera has a ways to go. The way Jim's designed this revolution is that we all will have to contribute and find the best answers to the limitations. This is where comparisons are another way of avoiding how to make the camera the best it can be.

RED will be one tool among many. Did painting with oils have any less artistic merits when watercolours came along or vice versa ? No. Just me 3 pence. ;)


signed,

G

[NateWeaver]

I see nothing in your film still that Red can't do. Your example is scaled very small, and had a pass by a very good colorist.

The "tones and the colors" are all created by the colorist in that example.

[Fence sitter]

Are you sure that's Viper. The film was shot on viper but this looks like a publicity still possibly acquired on a different format....film?

Fence

[Alex Boothby]

It's possible to test without engaging a hype machine. I doubt Andrew Wyeth succumed to the all powerful watercolor propaganda. He likely tested them out for himself.

[Gbabymogul]

I see nothing in your film still that Red can't do. Your example is scaled very small, and had a pass by a very good colorist.

The "tones and the colors" are all created by the colorist in that example.
Nate, i'm not particularly interested in debating whether film has a better DR, latitude, color, handles the higlights much better and on and on. What I'm more interested in is not the theoretical equivalency of RED but proof. Show me the smooth roll offs of highlights. Show me like the above example with the Viper.

This camera is (probably) going to be a major player eventually, but honestly, there's going to need to be a lot of hard work on the workflow and defining the parameters that the camera can work at before film is anywhere near done. Maybe i'm biased, but it's just my opinion. I love film and I love the possibilities of this camera, but i don't see it as a competition.
Horses for courses.

:beer:

[Mark Mannschreck]

I hear ya Gbaby, but ONLY 25 cameras have been out for ONLY 4 days...

[Sean]

Just for another perspective: I think there's two different camps examining this camera. The folks who have been shooting film, and the folks who have been shooting digital. They're going to approach the Red results entirely differently. Obviously, many film folks are at the upper echelons of the industry, and they're used to very big budgets and can afford to demand the best that the world has available. They will probably expect the footage from Red to be almost as good or better than film before they'll adopt it widely. But for the digital filmmaker, the fact that Red might deliver something more filmic than any other digital camera to date, and at a price-point many independents can afford, well that is the kicker. For me, the film comparison isn't all that useful, although it should prove interesting, because I was probably never going to shoot film anyhow, and neither were a lot of Red buyers. It never factored into my plan. If Red ends up being indistinguishable from 35mm, well I've won the lottery. But if it falls some (probably imperceptibly) measure short of 35mm, well then as long as it's a damn sight better than an HVX, I'm still coming out ahead. Clearly, Spielberg's needs are not the same as mine, and as much as Red and the rest of us would love mainstream Hollywood to start toting Red Ones on every shoot, that won't change whether I'm getting the camera I've dreamed about. If I get a really beautiful digital image that's better than any other camera in that sub-50K price range, then I'm exceedingly happy. I do value the scrutiny you guys are giving these images. But it's not really going to change whether I want the camera or not, unless the HVX+Redrock adapter gives me just as good a result for less money.

[NateWeaver]

Show me the smooth roll offs of highlights. Show me like the above example with the Viper.


I can't show you, but I've seen it, and I've seen it manipulated in Red Alert. The Viper doesn't have much on the Red (and I have more experience with the Viper than just seeing your still).

After reserving comment for a very long time on this camera (until I had seen full res material manipulated firsthand), I can say that as soon as the kinks are worked out in the workflow, the film argument is going to take another huge jump towards being moot.

But whatever. It's just my opinion...you'll have to see it for yourself.

[Brad Hawkins]

Well said Sean.

[Gbabymogul]

Boothba, Wyeth once urinated from a second story window on a watercolour salesman. If it weren't for the Nantucket wind, well... He was an avid anti-watercolorist (and had a sign warning travelling watercolour salesman). Read his bio, dude.

Sean, good points. Believe it or not i'm in the indie camp since it's my own money going to fund these projects. Maybe some financing... I agree about the quality and all, but to analyze and find out what is useable will ddirectly effect your budget. If RED only has a "useable" 10 stops of DR, and to minimize your contrast ratio you have to bring in more lights wouldn't you like to know about that now rather than on set ? Or if filming above 50mm is necessary in those situations, then it will mean purchasing longer lenses.

Like I said, i'm reserving judgement, but don't want to figure out how to get the most out of the investment i'm going to make. It's a lot of money for me. I'm no billionaire. he he.

:beer:

[Gbabymogul]

I can't show you, but I've seen it, and I've seen it manipulated in Red Alert. The Viper doesn't have much on the Red (and I have more experience with the Viper than just seeing your still).

Nate , tell me why every high contrast shot with RED i've seen has green lines ? Red zoom, Zeiss, Optimo, don't matter...and not theoretics, but proof that this camera can achieve what the Viper can.

Btw, it's not even a question with film.:beer:

[Sean]

My posts are too long. Short version--I just think there's two types of buyers: the people looking to replace film, and the people looking to get a better digital image than they thought they could ever get for that money in 2007/8.

[Gbabymogul]

My posts are too long. Short version--I just think there's two types of buyers: the people looking to replace film, and the people looking to get a better digital image than they thought they could ever get for that money in 2007/8.I first got interested in this camera when I was looking for an alternative to the HVX. That's it. If I could get a camera with amazing color rendition, "real" 1080p, great form factor, a fair price, and avoid all the digital crap i'd seen so far then cool, i'll buy it.

I'm here to make art and make the camera work for me. Period. It's not about film but achieving the aesthetics that my stories want. I think RED can accomplish that (with ALOT of practice for me)...:beer:

[Alex Boothby]

Boothba, Wyeth once urinated from a second story window on a watercolour salesman. If it weren't for the Antucket wind, well... He was an avid anti-watercolorist (and had a sign warning travelling watercolour salesman). Read his bio, dude.

In Pennsylvania urinating on a salesman is a sign of respect. Why do you think Jim cancelled his Mid Atlantic tour?

[Gbabymogul]

In Pennsylvania urinating on a salesman is a sign of respect. Why do you think Jim cancelled his Mid Atlantic tour?

Lol. :)

[Andrew Benz]

In Pennsylvania urinating on a salesman is a sign of respect. Why do you think Jim cancelled his Mid Atlantic tour?

Damn... shakes head... :biggrin:


I'm here to make art and make the camera work for me. Period. It's not about film but achieving the aesthetics that my stories want. I think RED can accomplish that (with ALOT of practice for me)...:beer:

I second that... the "1 inch punch" of cameras in it's simplest form to function best... this hope at least.

[Casey Green]

Don't forget, that RED is so much more than it's astounding image quality.
It is it's entire 4K workflow (REDCODE/Form Factor/Media/etc.) that is also revolutionary.

I see what you are trying to say, G, but it seems weak at best, because Film has been around for over 100 years. RED has been barely tested in the public for less than a week (lol!), so I think there will be many years to come before any declarations can be made of it's limits. (Remember also that the Camera's Firmware will change and so the image can only improve.)

:wink:

[Alexander Nikishin]

Look at how high contrast this is. I expect RED to be able to do better but Show me. Don't tell me. The time for teasing and marketing is over.


In other words, Give us the goods?

Amen brotha.

As soon as I get my hands on a RED, I'll attempt to do just that.

[Morning Glory]

like boothba said, we WILL be doing side by side test with 35mm film stock, all things being equal. (meaning, if it fits in our budget)

[Graeme Nattress]

What does film look like anyway? What does RED look like anyway? In both cases you're making a "negative" that you can "develop" how you want. What counts is how much room for maneuver you've got to make your look from what you shot. Everything else is just pretty pictures....

[NateWeaver]

What does film look like anyway? What does RED look like anyway? In both cases you're making a "negative" that you can "develop" how you want. What counts is how much room for maneuver you've got to make your look from what you shot. Everything else is just pretty pictures....

That is, much more eloquently put, what was on my mind when I was posted earlier.

Using words like "feel" of film, and "color" of film is malarkey. As I have learned lately using Color, a lot of what I had attributed inherently to film in the color rendition dept was nothing but tricks in color correction. I'm not talking about "looks" as much as I'm talking about the nice things that happen to skin tones when you have well-designed secondaries that use good math.

The rest is science. Latitude. Resolution. Handling of clipping. All things, that in my short experience watching Red Alert at work, the camera has in spades.

[Álex Montoya]

Right now, my only concern is the blown out highlights and how harsh are the transitions to them, with fringes and black lines.

I just hope that they come from the RAW conversion, and that, if not, they can be addressed somehow.

I mean, my digital still camera may blow highlights easier than film but the transition to them is much more pleasent, much more, dare I say it, film-like.

[Karl H]

My posts are too long.

yeh Sean, fix up for god's sake. i dont come on here to read your essays...

[orre]

Have you seen the shot of the girls with shewinggum? That looks (feels) like film to me.

[david farland]

Film & digital are two different mediums.
It’s like comparing a cello to a synthesizer.
Both sound like shit in the wrong hands but more important is the opposite.

To pick a beautiful cello piece and compare with some crap synthesizer one is a bit like….well no…exactly like… picking a beautiful softened film clip and compare it with a blown up noisy digital one.

Not fair.....

Did the synthesizer overtake the cello?
In pure numbers it did, but the cello still has it role…just like film.
Film will play a dimished role to digital.
In future of course both will get better but it'll be a bit like do you want to support a full orchestra or create it on your synth in your bedroom.

/end rant

Cheers,

[Paolo Tinari]

I would say too that to play cello takes much more time and effort than having some nice results with a synth

[Álex Montoya]

That's just an excuse.

They may be different mediums but there's no real reason why they shouldn't produce a similar image. I don't see color fringes or black lines as an inherent an inevitable characteristic but as a shortcoming.

[Emanuel A.]

I would say too that to play cello takes much more time and effort than having some nice results with a synthLOL Agreed.

Ciao Paolo,

Bello il tuo lavoro @ www.schmovies.com likely the gorgeous italian women there. With no competition at all... It's impossible! :)

E.

[david farland]

Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear....just like hitting the record button on your digital camera won't get you into the ASC.

[David Battistella]

Nate, i'm not particularly interested in debating whether film has a better DR, latitude, color, handles the higlights much better and on and on. What I'm more interested in is not the theoretical equivalency of RED but proof. Show me the smooth roll offs of highlights. Show me like the above example with the Viper.

:beer:

Gabby.

It will not be long before Steven Soderberg's next two films are released, both shot on RED and both will probably have a wide "film print" release and a narrow 2K digital release.

When we go to a theater and watch a print then we can sit back and see how the camera handled a complete feature film. When I first saw Collateral, I thought about the fact that it was shot in Viper (and mostly HDCAM actaully on the F-900's) for about ten seconds and then I watched the film and followed the story.

Film is Film.
RED is RED.

Soderberg will shoot RED Storario might not. You will choose the camera that shoots the image the roll-off and color that you like.

It will be interesting to watch the next few months to see how things unfold.

David

[orre]

When I saw Collateral I felt sick by the look of it to be honest.
On the other hand I didn´t react in the same way with Apocalypto (genesis).
or with Zodiac (Viper).

I hope Storaro will shoot RED, he´s shot digital before.

[Joe Carney]

If anyone is reading the posts from offhollywood, you would know that the RED is far from being dialed in properly, and they still manage to get great looking shots. So, before passing judgement, we should wait a little while.
At least until more features are enabled.

And film isn't going anywhere. geez. We have a camera that will do a great film out compared to other digital formats. That's called money in the bank when talking to the people holding the purse strings.

[David Battistella]

And film isn't going anywhere. geez. We have a camera that will do a great film out compared to other digital formats. That's called money in the bank when talking to the people holding the purse strings.


This is the best part of RED. No more, "I'm shooting HD but it might be going to film" or " I am shooing Varicam and I need to do a filmout"....blah blah balh.

Red solves this by shooting a Bigger than 35mm frame.

That is awesome...

[David Battistella]

[QUOTE=orre;78655]When I saw Collateral I felt sick by the look of it to be honest.
On the other hand I didn´t react in the same way with Apocalypto (genesis).
QUOTE]

I do not think that it was the camera, as much as how they decided to light most of it.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/page4.html


David

[Sean]

yeh Sean, fix up for god's sake. i dont come on here to read your essays...

No, cuz you're saving up for when you buy my book! :-)

[Jay Taylor]

Hey Gbaby,

Probably not a good first post, but…

I'm glad someone else is seeing the difference! The film shots are so much smoother! To my eyes, the Red just looks like good video. I'll probably be stoned for that statement!

Everyone keeps saying that the Red can do that, it's all in the coloring, etc. Wasn't Crossing The Line colored on some high end system by a professional colorist? Why did it still look video? At least to me, it did…

Anyways, I could go on and on, but I'm no professional! I'm sure you can tweak the footage to get the "film" look, but personally, I'm not interested in that.

Just wanted to thank Gbaby for having the guts to say something! :)


Jay

[Fix]

Straight non-colour corrected film looks dull. My guess (from the start) is that RED has the same issue. If you want REDONE footage to look like film than light it good and colour correct it propper. If you cant do that, than hire some of us who can.

Btw Viper cam’s motion makes me sick also. It screams video. Red doesn’t.

[jbeale]

To my eyes, the Red just looks like good video.

You do realize those are practically fighting words around here :-). Anyway I'm curious, did you see CTL projected in 4k? A very large number of prominent industry professionals have seen Red footage projected, and I have yet to hear any say "looks like video." Can you explain exactly why it looks like video? Especially curious to hear you mention that film looks smoother, when the most common comment at early Red screenings has been how smooth it looks.

Have you seen the still frames in this thread? Do all those shots look like video to you? http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4266&page=4

Everyone has their own opinions, of course. I've been shooting and editing video for ten years and for what mine's worth, it doesn't look like video to me.

[Jay Taylor]

Hey jbeale,

Yes, I know those are fighting words! I might need to get out of here before someone takes my head off.

I've looked at all the frame grabs, clips, etc., that have been posted so far. The closeup shot is the best I've seen so far, but unfortunately we haven't seen it in motion yet!

I did a little experiment. Not scientific by any means, but none the less…

Brook posted a clip of some 35mm shots in the first post of this thread. So what I did was I opened that clip, as well as the 2k clip, and played them side by side. I played them looped, all on my tiny little macbook!

I brought this over to my parents, who have been seeing movies all their lives, and asked them, "Which looks better?"

Within two seconds they both pointed out the 35mm clip, and they both agreed, "It looks like a movie!" Note, I didn't tell them which was which! Just presented them with two clips, and said pick!

The Red footage is close, I'm not denying that. It's way better then the dvx100's and hvx100's that people have been using for a while now, BUT…

(here's them fighting words again!)

It feels like video to me. Maybe this will change when we start seeing actual production footage, as opposed to tests.

I'll be the first to admit, however, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes film feel like film. Is it the way it handles highlights and overexposure? The latitude, dynamic range, etc.? The movement itself? The grain?

I've seen a lot of stuff shot on the dvx100, and hvx200, that approached a film look, but there's always something that gives it away. There's always something that tells me "this is digital." Apparently it's not enough to shoot at 24p, or have higher latitude, or have the highlights blow out gracefully. (Speaking of which, so far, it looks like the Red clips big time!)

Having said all that, this camera IS up there with all the higher end Sony's and even the Genesis. And a MUCH cheaper price tag to boot! That's your revolution right there! I just wish people would see it for what it is. I high end digital cinema camera, not a 35mm replacement.


Jay

P.S. Please don't kill me! :help:

BTW, no I haven't seen it projected in 4k. I'd love to though! Maybe that smooths out everything?

[damonbots]

To my eyes, the Red just looks like good video. I'll probably be stoned for that statement!
Jay

Not good video, extraordinary video! Everybody uses "video" like it's a four letter word. Red footage seems to fit the definition:

"Video (Latin for "I see", first person singular present, indicative of videre, "to see") is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."

Red isn't film and it will never be film. They could have designed the camera to add film-like curves with a ton of grain. Hell, Jim could have just built a revolutionary new film camera. Why didn't they? I'm assuming that the intention was to develop a camera with a super clean, unprocessed, high res image that can be processed easily (and most importantly to me... inexpensively!) in digital post. It allows for the most freedom to manipulate the final product however you want. Feel free to get stoned now. It's been a good week!

[Maximus Imagimus]

Religious arguments never end and i suspect this battle will never completely end. but i am leaning alot from the passionate battle. Expensive tools need to be handled very carefully, but I am looking forward to seeing many happy "accidents" from this system. bolt it on the funny car, shoot handheld in a fighter jet. strap it onto a bull and see what happens. We have film, now we have something new. I hope someone tries to rig it for astro photo and macro too. Let the fun begin.

[jbeale]

Actually I think there is a lot of agreement that the Red stuff doesn't look quite like 35mm film. For that matter, Jim has said it's not a 35mm substitute, rather it is a different option. I suspect if treated properly, it has the potential for almost any kind of look, including something very much like film, but it is still too early in the process of working with the footage to have everything worked out correctly. Time will tell.

[Graeme Nattress]

WHy does film look like film? Grain mostly. That's what people see, then motion and the rest. What you've got to do is, quite frankly, put RED up next to some pristine 65mm stuff. Then RED looks very filmic indeed - just not 35mm filmic as 35mm film has too much grain.

Graeme

[Álex Montoya]

I think we just need more, better shot (and carefully developed) footage.

[Rick Darge]

Film looks the way it does because its a photo-chemical process where light exposes grain on celluloid. Digital will always look like digital because its light turned into code. Film is a physical, organic process. Nothing can replace that...yet.

[Eric Maran]

Someone should sneak some Red footage through a grain filter and see if it passes as film. With the strong latitude that the Red has, I'm almost convinced that the main reason that people say it doesn't look like film is the absolute LACK of grain. It's so amazingly crisp it's screams digital, even though it's probably the most gorgeous "video" I've ever seen, and I'm a huge advocate of film.

It doesn't have a lot of the trappings that "video" does... the highlights don't clip as horribly (despite the jaggies mentioned), the blacks are rich and the shadows full of detail.

I've got a short and a feature (hopefully) coming up and I'm jealous of all of you Red owners/soon-to-be-owners. So I'll probably shoot S16mm or 35mm instead.

And if Soderbergh is willing to bank two huge Che epics, that (in my first-thought opinion) should have a filmy look, on the Red cam, I think we all know where this camera is headed.

Great job Jim & co!

[Jay Taylor]

Hey again,

I don't agree that grain itself is what makes film look like film. And this whole idea that Red can somehow standup to 65mm film? Maybe when it comes to grain, but that's not the argument here!

That seems to be the only thing going for the Red, as far as the image quality goes. A lack of grain! Apparently grain has been holding everyone back! So that's why all these indies have chosen digital as opposed to film. They're willing to put up with clipped footage, low dynamic range, etc, as long as there's no grain! Heaven forbid some grain! :)

Just making a point. All I keep hearing about is grain!

Anyways, I'm glad to see some people realize it's not a substitute. Just another option. A much more affordable, higher quality, option than has been available before now.

Lets see some nicer footage!


Jay

[Graeme Nattress]

Jay, sounds like if you want nicer footage, you've got to go shoot it yourself.

I'm all for discussing stuff, but when you talk industry outsiders looking a film / digital comparison, grain is the first thing they see, then motion, then whatever's left.

Clipped footage? You mean film doesn't clip. I didn't know that. Low dynamic range? Have you measured it? I have. And remember, think of the horses :-)

Graeme

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Film looks the way it does because its a photo-chemical process where light exposes grain on celluloid. Digital will always look like digital because its light turned into code. Film is a physical, organic process. Nothing can replace that...yet.

I disagree. Film looks like film because of its non-linear response curve, natural shoulder and knee, etc, and broad color space (and motion, and dof, etc) all off that can be emulated pretty darn closely if you ask me. Look at the images that come out of the H3D and compare it to medium format.

[Jay Taylor]

Graeme,

Film may clip (I think the word used for that is blown?), but it's much more graceful then what we've seen from the Red so far. But obviously, we need to see some better examples.

When I mentioned low dynamic range, I was speaking of the dvx's, and hvx's people have been using. The Red is obviously better then what's been available until now.

I wish I could shoot some footage! I'm sure I'd have a bunch better idea of what the camera is capable of if I could play around with the Raw files inside the Red Alert software.


Jay

[albert rudnicki]

Years ago I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine about MAC and PC. Funny enough today's MACs are PC.

Cheers
Albert

[Ruairi Robinson]

WHy does film look like film? Grain mostly. That's what people see, then motion and the rest. What you've got to do is, quite frankly, put RED up next to some pristine 65mm stuff. Then RED looks very filmic indeed - just not 35mm filmic as 35mm film has too much grain.

Graeme

Hmm.

Shooting anamorphic on relatively slow stock means you see very little grain.

If you watch the film on tv, you see practically none.

Posting a badly exposed, badly graded, unusually grainy piece of film proves nothing guys. Show us a 4k scan from The Thin Red Line or The New World if you want to compare the best you got with the best 35mm film can do...

Otherwise you run the risk of people comparing a 4k scan from The Thin Red Line or the New World (or whatever) with the worst piece of footage the red is capable of. Which I'm sure would piss you guys off too.

[Sean]

In a cinematography class I took, we shot 10 minutes of 35mm and a whole bunch of HD. At the end of the term, we got to see a screening of the 35mm footage and the HD footage together. The 35mm footage was really disappointing. And there was a very well known DP on hand for the shoot too. If it had been a "new technology," the whole class might have discounted 35mm film as entirely inadequate. Obviously something wasn't quite right in the processing or the transfer or the way we shot it. Just shows, however, that it's hard to judge much from a single test. The proof will come in the next months upon the release of a properly graded Red shoot, and it will either look astounding or it won't. I think right now we're still guessing.

[Michael Booth]

But it's not really going to change whether I want the camera or not, unless the HVX+Redrock adapter gives me just as good a result for less money.

Just checking the Red screen grabs at 720p vs HVX/M2 screen grabs at 1080p the Red appears to be in a different class.

Then checking 720p downrezzed Red clips on a 42 inch plasma, and checking 720p downrezzed HVX/M2 clips on the same plasma. Again the Red footage is far superior, even at this resolution and compressed.

[Jay Taylor]

Posting a badly exposed, badly graded, unusually grainy piece of film proves nothing guys.

Exactly! And even then, I prefer the film clip! :)


Jay

[albert rudnicki]

"We’re shooting RED side by side film. We scanned the film 4k and took both into the Baselight, compared them and then did a filmout of both. When we screened side by side, we literally could not tell the difference. In fact, most people picked the RED footage as film because of a greater dynamic range in the highlights than in the 5218. We are actually inter-cutting the digital images with film. It’s not enough to say it is the best digital image out there. The RED image looks remarkably better than the filmed images. I thought I would never be able to say that”

- Jon Farhat VFX Supervisor of Wanted"

For now I trust in what he says.

Albert

[Joel Kaye]

us a 4k scan from The Thin Red Line or The New World if you want to compare the best you got with the best 35mm film can do...


At this point I believe anyone talented will be able to get amazingly good stuff out of RED that will wow audiences and sell tickets just as well as film. And that's with a faster workflow and lower costs.

I think practical producers are going to look at this footage in the future and go - OK, that's easily good enough to sell and project... and we're going to take the money we're saving on film and put it into marketing. Or his kid's private school tuition.

I'd love to see a double blind best of the best shootout with a bunch of ASC members voting for their favorite images. Until that day happens we'll be having circular arguments...


BTW - your short kicks ass. Well done. You need a RED. ;-)

[G.A. Kokes]

I'd love to see a double blind best of the best shootout with a bunch of ASC members voting for their favorite images. Until that day happens we'll be having circular arguments...


An event like that would certainly make for some very interesting reading. But don't you think that "circular arguments" will continue regardless.

I do.

Cheers,
G

[Jeremy Teman]

I don't think Jim ever said anything about being a substitute. I believe he said it is not a replacement, it's an alternative.

The thing for me that gave away the digital vs. film with 35mm still cameras in side-by-side comparisons was always the way the green turns out with digital. It was always an artificial neon colour compared to the richer green with film. That is something that can be easily changed in photoshop and I'm not even sure if there is 'still' that problem with still cameras.

With Red the only thing that, for me, gives it away is the look of the noise compared to the grain of film. Personally, I think grain looks bad in most cases. I would go with a clean digital image at any time. Once the dynamic range gets a little better, and the frame rates get faster with Red I don't see a reason to use film.

[Joel Kaye]

An event like that would certainly make for some very interesting reading. But don't you think that "circular arguments" will continue regardless.


Yeah - kinda like people who swear their stereos sound better with exotic speaker wires... but every blind test indicates cheap wire is chosen just as much as expensive ones.

Anyway - I've already seen enough to know RED is good enough for me. Am I going to try to fool people into thinking it's film? Hell yeah. :ninja:

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear.....

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

[Gbabymogul]

The rush to declare film to be virtually out of the market because of RED was the reason for my first post. Yeah, people are excited (as am I) but it's not going to happen so quickly and IMO why should it ? I like options. Options are good.

I believe that RED (using the right paradigm) if going through the right post process could be great using the right film stock, or with 3D, and 4K digital projectors, we may see another type of movie going experience. What I'm trying to get at is
to get the depth and beauty of the best movie will take knowing the ballpark that RED best plays in. And , IMO, that means taking a realistic look and analyzing what areas of the digital paradigm we have to avoid and choosing tools and methods (in both budget ranges - indie and Hollywood) to be the most efficacious in getting there. Maybe, with RED we need to avoid some of digitals shortcomings by reducing the range on set and manipulating it in post then that's something that should be looked at. If we need to stop down the lenses to avoid how the digital sensor reads then that needs to be known.

Film has a wide breadth and ability to hold alot of information, paired with the way it is designed to handle color inconsistencies and work with existing lenses perfectly; it's obvious why until now there has never been a real contender. RED is a real contender, and if shot with the paradigm involved should make some gorgeous images.

I am chuffed at that those who have reservations and are showing footage. And I think we all owe them a big hug. But, it's fairly clear to me that some of the shots done with film (same gear, lens) wouldn't show some of the digital shooting - green lines, highlights (could be smoother). For me, i'm more interested in saying " how do we avoid this?, and what gear/filters should we be looking for?, and maybe what stories would best suit this medium"?

I know it's only been a wee bit that the camera has been released, but i'm asking for some variety (not Hollywood) to see what gear we'll need, what questions need to be asked, and for the footage shot (some of which is great)- where it doesn't compete with film - how do we get it to be the best it can be ?

I don't expect RED to be like film - it is what it is. If you ask can it be as magical as film? I think so. That's why I'm here (although great 1080p is all I wanted). I'll let other dudes post on this, though.

They can ban me now. hehe ...

:beer:

Horses for courses.

[Ruairi Robinson]

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

Everybody now:

The Vengabus is coming!
And everybody's jumping!

[Jim Hoffman]

It is worth noting that like it or not - "Video" has entered mainstream "film"making and audiences as a whole embrace it. There are certain qualities you may or may not care for but there is no denying on every level of this industry cameras like the RED (even though there aren't any - ha) have taken hold and are accepted and desired. Just from that standpoint what an excellent tool to have - the more choices one has the less one has to worry about the tools getting in the way of the art. There is still debate, although muted, about the analog vs. digital in audio - Yes there are some measureable differences - most people can't tell... but for those who can, or claim they can... great - chose either... but both are great choices and acceptable on most every level. What an exciting time!!!!!!!

[Tim H.]

This really has more to do with history than it does X is better than Y.

Film exists because it was available when movies began. There was no digital, there was no analog "video" there was "Film". Does the term "Filmmaker" mean anything?

Just because movies have been shot and projected on film since the start of cinema doesn't mean its superior. We are so set in our ways that we think we have to continue to compare Digital to Film.

There may be limitations to Digital but considering how young it really is the limitations are far less then film experienced when it was first born. Remember movies started out in b&w, no sound, odd frame rates, poor projection, etc.

While digital images (photography/HD, etc) might be limited in lattitude and not as smooth in its linear form it has many beneifts over film. Film is organic and more forgiving in some ways but it also has its own limitations. Have many of you ever looked at 35mm film before any "magic" has been done to it? Ever noticed how bad dailys can look? Ever noticed a crap print when watching a movie at the theater?

Recently the local theater has been playing more and more movies via Digital Projection. It is amazing how much better they looked. Clean, no waving, no scratches, no missing frames. While many of these films were shot on film, it was clear that they went straight from the negative to digital form and spent the rest of their life as 1's and 0's.

So this brings us to aquistition - Shooting on film or digital does not give you instant sucess and both will need some tender loving care to make them look as good as some of the more pleasing images we have seen over the years. So to assume because one shoots with one medium over the other they will obtain a better result is plain silly. Then to try and compare the two and pick a winner is even more foolish.

Red would not be nearly as exciting if it was just another Viper or Sony 900. What truly makes it exciting is that not only are they pushing the quality limits they are giving it to us at a resonable non-monopoly price.

Lets not forget that Hollywood hates change. There are many unions who need to look out for their "bellow the line" crew members and the last thing they want is to make it easier to shoot outside of the system.

If movies were invented today would they have chosen film or something like Red? Would they go out and rent Panavision packages or buy Red?

[Albertdup]

Hi all

For a first post here I go.

I am amazed with all the talk about film and Digital and Indie and big budged "films". Is it still a film if it was shot on digital ? (No answers on that one please) Living in South Africa we are lucky if we see five locally produced films a year, We don't have big studios so I guess all our film makers would be classified as indies. We don't even get new prints all the time of new international released movies, old prints from the USA is no stranger to us, and then all the beauty of film comes out , lots of streaks and noise from all the playing it went through.

As a film maker my main objective is to tell a story, to take the viewer into a world that was only in my imagination, through the combined effort of a team of people we can to the best of our ability portray that dream and share it with others.

Considering that a feature can be made locally for the price of a RED , lenses and other essentials, it becomes clear that film is out of range to many a film maker. Video and HD has become the norm, enabling stories to be told that would otherwise never been able to be made.

I believe that RED as a company is opening new opportunities with the complete package, work flow and projection. This will allow us in future to make better looking movies at a price that we can afford, enabling us to grow an industry constrained by high cost.

Stories will no longer stay ideas or locked up due to insufficient funds, we will be able to release our imaginations and take the world on a journey of stories that was never told.

Thank you RED for giving us hope and making it a reality.

[david farland]

Posted by david farland http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=78611#post78611)
Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear.....

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

....people confuse simple with talent in every way!

[Hitman Jr]

The rush to declare film to be virtually out of the market because of RED was the reason for my first post. Yeah, people are excited (as am I) but it's not going to happen so quickly and IMO why should it ? I like options. Options are good.

I'm a wedding videographer, so take my opinion for what it is, a layman.

This whole thread reminds me of 10 years ago when the digital SLRs were just hitting. I'm reading the exact same comments of film stills vs digital stills I read back then. The reality is today, in the event market, film has the same status as vinyl, a few demand it, most don't. Most don't care.

The other debate that this reminds me of is PC vs Mac... :wacko:

Film will probably never die, people like Spielberg will always be able to get their preferred format. What will kill it in the main stream is the accountants. With ever escalating budgets something has to give and if RED can come anywhere near, and from what my untrained eye is telling me, it's damn close, then that will be enough to push the accountants over as long as it's a cost saving format.

I must say I find some amusement in all the critiquing going on. Does anyone here realize just how bad films are in theaters? Projectors bulbs that are under powered to extend their life. Underexposed reels of film, scratches on the reels for the first showing, let alone the 2000th showing... On TV, broadcast compression from hell, especially on satellite and cable, bad signals, interrupted signals...

Honestly by the time a "film" reaches the general public it's already been beaten to an inch of it's visibility. And when it comes right down to it, the public doesn't know any better and doesn't care. Those of us who may know better may care, but we're far and few between. Being shot on film isn't going to put one more dime in a movie's take than being shot on video. If you produce a movie people want to see and are entertained by they are going to pay to see it, no matter what format it's shot on. When the studio heads comes to this realization, that's it for film in most movies. Red is a very good answer from what I see and know to film, but it could just as likely be a viper or a genesis. I sat in Superman Returns and occasionally could see where the video capture was less superior to film. The friends I was with couldn't have pointed one of those scenes out to you, and they exited not ranting about the negatives of video imaging, but if Superman could lift a giant ball of kryptonite and fly it into space.:pinch:

Really this debate of film vs digital, it's headed digital people because it's a cost savings. Your debate in the future will be if the pencil pushers will approve a film budget when digital will save them money!

[Dominic Jones]

smartass\ 5201, would be the gold standard but whatever. /smartass

_mike
<supersmartass>Yes, but 5299 would be a more reasonable match given the effective ASA of Red One</supersmartass>!!

Dom "Just being a pedantic bugger for the hell of it" Jones... :biggrin:

EDIT: I'm gonna out-smartass myself here, but thinking about it 5205 is probably the closest, given that there's no particular white-balance preference with the Red. Bugger - I hate it when that happens!...

[Karl H]

Everybody now:

The Vengabus is coming!
And everybody's jumping!

Are you the same Ruairi that was nominated for an oscar? I've heard you have a huge ego problem!

:sarcasm: I like your site.

[Álex Montoya]

Yeah, nice site, Ruairi. I have downloaded the three quicktimes of your next work. Very nice.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Are you the same Ruairi that was nominated for an oscar? I've heard you have a huge ego problem!

:sarcasm: I like your site.

Stop feeding it! My head! It's starting to swell again! The Pain!

[Dominic Jones]

<deadpan humour>
Ruairi, you're shit.
</deadpan humour>

[Emmanuel Cambier]

In a cinematography class I took….

Tss… now… that's bad man, your not supposed to take classes but to give classes, it's a totaly different thing ya know, you should try it, if only for financial reasons, as would say W.A. :poster_stupid:

[Dominic Jones]

Lol, read the first few words of your post and thought I'd been completely misunderstood!!

Btw (just in case - I'm paranoid now!), no offense intended of course, Ruairi - best of luck with everything...

[jbeale]

For those looking for general (not Red-specific) reading material about measuring measuring film and digital sensor response for resolution and dynamic range, here are some interesting pages:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

[Jay Taylor]

For those looking for general (not Red-specific) reading material about measuring measuring film and digital sensor response for resolution and dynamic range, here are some interesting pages:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

I just found those pages, too! Really fascinating.

His tests seem to show that digital still cameras have higher dynamic range then film. I've never heard anyone claim that before! Though I can't claim to really understand everything he's saying…


Jay

[Steve White]

I have no problem with the comparisons between film and Red images. However, these comparisons are being done incorrectly.

When discussing image quality concerns such as highlights, saturation and resolution, comparisons can only be faithfully made between the original 12-bit Redcode RAW file, and the original developed film negative. These comparisons are very difficult of course, since the film negative is a measly 35 mm, while the Redcode is a digital data file. They're entirely different media.

In order to even begin making comparisons, the Redcode has to be debayered, and converted from the 12-bit linear to some arbitrary gamma curve. At this point the image is being displayed on a monitor (6 bpcc? 8 bpcc, 10 or 12 bpcc? whoknows?). Depending on the choice of gamma, detail in the shadows and highlights may have already been obliterated. Currently, the only person I would really trust to do this properly is Graeme.

The film is no better. Unless directly enlarged by as an optical print (go generational losses), the film has to be scanned by no less than a digital scanner using a CCD or CMOS chip... and guess what folks? Inverted(?), debayered(?) and gamma curved*. So we go through the same thing all over again, do we not? After all - what's the dynamic range of the scanner? Did it faithfully interpret the film... The choices are all somewhat endless until true standards are referenced and quoted.

By manipulating these two gamma curves, and everything else about the colour channels, sharpening, etc. the images can then be arbitrarily tweaked to the taste of the colourist, whereby one man's 'taste' is another man's travesty. By no means should the images be compared at this point - unless the original images were shot under the SAME light at the SAME subject, and then carefully manipulated by the SAME colourist to achieve the SAME result. Otherwise it's always apples and oranges. It's like saying "my camera shooting at magic hour is better than your camera shooting at midnight". :blink:

Finally - to illustrate the utter ridiculousness of these post-colour processing comparisons, people are references "good looking film" images that are actually 8-bpcc JPEGs. Which are, of course, not film, but digital images so far removed from the initial negative that it would be difficult to even compare the source to the result.

That said, all the images I've seen so far from Red are technically brilliant.

-Spiff

*I'm not entirely sure how film scanners work.

[John V]

If film is so great why not just shoot and play it back? Film goes though the same process as red footage. Once scanned film looses the advantage it has over RED. That advantage film has is it records everything. After scanning it is digtal..it ceases to be film at that point. Just a observation from a non pro.

[Casey Green]

ok, so I say this thread is shot. How about we see what LART has to offer before another lengthy Film/Digital debate comes up?

anyone else agree?

[Keith Alan Morris]

South Bend in the HOUSE! wazzup hitman?
kemo


I'm a wedding videographer, so take my opinion for what it is, a layman.

This whole thread reminds me of 10 years ago when the digital SLRs were just hitting. I'm reading the exact same comments of film stills vs digital stills I read back then. The reality is today, in the event market, film has the same status as vinyl, a few demand it, most don't. Most don't care.

The other debate that this reminds me of is PC vs Mac... :wacko:

Film will probably never die, people like Spielberg will always be able to get their preferred format. What will kill it in the main stream is the accountants. With ever escalating budgets something has to give and if RED can come anywhere near, and from what my untrained eye is telling me, it's damn close, then that will be enough to push the accountants over as long as it's a cost saving format.

I must say I find some amusement in all the critiquing going on. Does anyone here realize just how bad films are in theaters? Projectors bulbs that are under powered to extend their life. Underexposed reels of film, scratches on the reels for the first showing, let alone the 2000th showing... On TV, broadcast compression from hell, especially on satellite and cable, bad signals, interrupted signals...

Honestly by the time a "film" reaches the general public it's already been beaten to an inch of it's visibility. And when it comes right down to it, the public doesn't know any better and doesn't care. Those of us who may know better may care, but we're far and few between. Being shot on film isn't going to put one more dime in a movie's take than being shot on video. If you produce a movie people want to see and are entertained by they are going to pay to see it, no matter what format it's shot on. When the studio heads comes to this realization, that's it for film in most movies. Red is a very good answer from what I see and know to film, but it could just as likely be a viper or a genesis. I sat in Superman Returns and occasionally could see where the video capture was less superior to film. The friends I was with couldn't have pointed one of those scenes out to you, and they exited not ranting about the negatives of video imaging, but if Superman could lift a giant ball of kryptonite and fly it into space.:pinch:

Really this debate of film vs digital, it's headed digital people because it's a cost savings. Your debate in the future will be if the pencil pushers will approve a film budget when digital will save them money!

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, 12bit linear, then out of the demosaic it's 16bit linear. That so that we don't loose precisions. You don't have to put a curve on the data unless you want to. Even after a curve there's no precision loss. Only when you go out to 10bit dpx does that happen, and only in the brightest 3 stops of highlights which have such an over-abundance of code values you'd be hard pressed (ie never) notice.

Graeme

[jbeale]

the film has to be scanned by no less than a digital scanner using a CCD or CMOS chip... and guess what folks? Inverted(?), debayered(?) and gamma curved*. (...)
All the scanners I know about use three-stripe linear CCD detectors (RGB) so there is no de-bayer step. The other steps are still needed, though.

Also, the film scanner has an easier job than a camera sensor because the film negative has taken the large dynamic range of the real-world scene and through exposure and development, converted that down to a smaller dynamic range of negative density/transparency. So the limitations with film acquisition have more to do with the film stock, than with the film scanner- the scanners these days are able to get pretty much all the information there is on the negative.

[Florian Stadler]

I think the Film vs. Digital debate is moot with 4K cameras like the Dalsa and the Red. Film has its own character with grain and all and so does 4K. Choosing between the two can be an aesthetic choice - either way - if you have the choice economically. The big difference I have seen is in 2K+ digital projection. That's where 4K aquisition really shines imho it has a hyper real totally different feel than film. "Grainless film" is what came out of my mouth when I first saw it. And that's something to embrace.
Someone in this discussion said Film looks dull when not properly color corrected. You must be speaking of film transferred to video because a film print has its own inherent contrast built in that you can take advantage of by stamping 3 numbers on a camera report. Has the Red team thought about implementing the ASC's proposed "Digital Printer Light"?
At the end of the day a camera is but a tool to create an image and there is a whole lot more going into that than the camera alone. Motion pictures are about conveying emotion and capturing performances, if a particular tool allows you to convey that emotion in a way that fits the story best - that's what matters. Resolution, grain, sharpness are tools to express yourself with.

Respect to the Red team for what they have done, I'm impressed and welcome the new brush in my toolbox.

BTW Brooks I haven't seen such a grainy piece of 5218 in some time (and I routinely push 18 2 stops). Are you sure it wasn't 7218 or underexposed by at least 2 stops or something went wrong in the transfer?

[Brook Willard]

Certain. That's 5218 exposed at 500. Granted it looks like absolute crap, but it is what it is.

[Thomas Mathai]

I see nothing in your film still that Red can't do. Your example is scaled very small, and had a pass by a very good colorist.

The "tones and the colors" are all created by the colorist in that example.

This is true for just about ANY professionally shot content. I don't think anything is ever left untouched by a colorist before it is released.


So does that mean his statements aren't valid?

[Thomas Mathai]

Just for another perspective: I think there's two different camps examining this camera. The folks who have been shooting film, and the folks who have been shooting digital. They're going to approach the Red results entirely differently. Obviously, many film folks are at the upper echelons of the industry, and they're used to very big budgets and can afford to demand the best that the world has available. They will probably expect the footage from Red to be almost as good or better than film before they'll adopt it widely. But for the digital filmmaker, the fact that Red might deliver something more filmic than any other digital camera to date, and at a price-point many independents can afford, well that is the kicker. For me, the film comparison isn't all that useful, although it should prove interesting, because I was probably never going to shoot film anyhow, and neither were a lot of Red buyers. It never factored into my plan. If Red ends up being indistinguishable from 35mm, well I've won the lottery. But if it falls some (probably imperceptibly) measure short of 35mm, well then as long as it's a damn sight better than an HVX, I'm still coming out ahead. Clearly, Spielberg's needs are not the same as mine, and as much as Red and the rest of us would love mainstream Hollywood to start toting Red Ones on every shoot, that won't change whether I'm getting the camera I've dreamed about. If I get a really beautiful digital image that's better than any other camera in that sub-50K price range, then I'm exceedingly happy. I do value the scrutiny you guys are giving these images. But it's not really going to change whether I want the camera or not, unless the HVX+Redrock adapter gives me just as good a result for less money.


People have been looking to create cinematic images since the VX1000 first came out. Some succeeded, some haven't.

A camera doesn't create a beautiful image, it's the user of that camera. The camera only captures what it's pointed at. The quality of what is captured depends on the camera of course.

We need to differenciate between the quality of the image captured and what a beautiful image is.

We all know Red will capture a quality image. It's designed to create a high quality image. Add on some great glass and the quality gets even higher.

But it's up to the user to compose a shot so it's beautiful.

You can put the Red on a tripod or table and point it in a particular direction and it'll be a nice high quality image, but will it be beautiful? There are chances that there will be instances of beauty, but that's random and coincidental.

The beautiful image is created with purpose. It conveys something, not just random image capturing and hope for the best.

We may get lucky and randomly capture a beautiful image, but we can't always rely on those happy accidents.

I expect to see a lot of high quality images here, but I hope for more beautiful ones.