The death of film???

[Chris Parker]

This seems to be the overall debate of choice when it comes to REDs impact on the industry. People are saying that RED will quickly mean the death of film. Many people anyways. I personally don't agree. Film will be here for a while yet, although RED will speed up its ultimate demise. There is just too much on the line for big budget features to quickly adopt a new medium like RED just to save a few bucks. I mean, on a big budget commercial, OR on a big budget feature, the camera bill is just a small item in the budget. The security the proven workflow of film offers these types of productions will not be given up overnight.

BUT....that's the wrong debate. Save that debate for another two years.

The IMMEDIATE and very swift impact RED will have is that it will quickly cause the death of HD.

I mean, think about it. Who in their right mind would shoot on HD, when for the same price, they could shoot on a RED? If I were a film camera rental house, I wouldn't be too worried...yet. If I had all my money tied up in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of HD cameras, I would be VERY VERY concerned, unless I had the capital to invest heavily in RED, and be able to weather the financial storm that the necessary quick turnover from a mostly HD rental house to a 4K rental house will cost.

RED is going to come in and sweep HD right out the door...fast. Then, over time (think 5 - 10 years) it, and all the other 4K cameras to come starting in 2 - 3 years time, will gradually give film a funeral.

"First, we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin."

That is my prediction....discuss if you wish...

[number6]

I agree, over time, that film will be pushed to the back, if not pushed out completely.

I'm thinking that a more important point is that the mindless content of most films will be pushed to the back. Of course there will always be that type of entertainment because it is needed by many movie-goers, psychologically. But I'm thinking this newfound ability to make PROFESSIONAL movies in local environments affordably, will enable niche stories to be told that will create understanding between groups and cultures. Understanding is the first step in tolerance... is that the REAL revolution that this camera will enable?

[jaadgy akanni]

I'm thinking this newfound ability to make PROFESSIONAL movies in local environments affordably, will enable niche stories to be told that will create understanding between groups and cultures. Understanding is the first step in tolerance... is that the REAL revolution that this camera will enable?

I concur. The political and philosophical agendas behind movies made by the big companies will finally find an opposing point of view that can compete. New cinematographers will be able to afford to produce their scripts without having to ask for the proverbial "green light"

[Stephen Williams]

Hi All,

The death of film was first suggested over 50 years ago, Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year. Remember film is often used to archive digital movies. RGB separations on black & white ester based film have an expected life of over 500 years.

Stephen

[Chris Parker]

Sure more of these types of movies will get made. And more will get watched. But the hollywood blockbuster ain't going nowhere. Why?

Because special f/x will still cost money. Blowing things up...costs money. Big movie stars...big money. The theatres will be as jammed with crap as they are now for a long while.

Now, is there a new potential market for a 4K projected arthouse RED theatre. Sure as hell is. Arthouse stories, although they may move slightly more to the forefront, will still be arthouse.

Anyways, I would love to see some replies to my post more directly however...

[M.Halsell]

Existing formats will continue to live for some time, I suspect. The workflows are deeply entrenched. Despite the quality of RED, the workflow is still quite infant and needs to become more palatable.

Another fact is that film nor HD is exclusively driving all the content that is currently out there. But clearly we are witnessing a very pivotable point in industry history.

[Chris Parker]

Hi All,

The death of film was first suggested over 50 years ago, Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year. Remember film is often used to archive digital movies. RGB separations on black & white ester based film have an expected life of over 500 years.

Stephen

In the new world, digital archives, if maintained properly, will have a lossless archival (just as good as the day they were shot...no scratches...no dust) shelf life of FOREVER.

[Barend Onneweer]

In the new world, digital archives, if maintained properly, will have a lossless archival (just as good as the day they were shot...no scratches...no dust) shelf life of FOREVER.

If you manage to retrieve and open the files...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,661093,00.html

They managed to retrieve the files in the end, but it shows that even 15 years of technological progress can endanger the accessibility of digital archives.

Barend

[Chris Parker]

Like I said...properly maintained. Think massive hard drive storage system that is well maintained. Backed up by a data tape library that is refreshed every 10 years. Everything is verified periodically. Etc. etc.

[tj williams]

Most of the cost of movies is for known "stars" and sets, locations, and crew. The choice of cameras is of little economic importance in a sizeable production. In the future movies will be made on computers and the stars will be digital dopplegangers. It will be quite possible in a few years to make a movie featuring John Wayne. Eventually none of the current cameras will exist outside museums. On the last day cameras work on a set I predict there will be both film and digital cameras. This year the RED is a great value in a high rez. digital camera, there are enough being sold to guarantee this camera a place in some large projects and many smaller ones. This film vs. digital debate is silly here, as it depends on the background of the participant and no one is changing their mind, these posts are a lot like going out into the desert by oneself and yelling into a canyon.

[PaulClements]

Hi,

Film works and is proven. Many people don't like digital. Digital will increase in popularity but I personally believe film will be used for many years to come. I dissagree strongly that film is dead, infact I hate the expression. I do agree however that a very strong contender for motion picture capture is available via Red's camera and as another high end option for film makers this is a very good thing.

Paul

[Mardi_Gras]

As usual, this is a tough one. Film has remained the numero uno format for over a century, that's a fact. Digital acquisition/storage is always evolving and yes, getting better in terms of durability, efficacy and stability.

What will happen to film in another few decades from now, more especially with competing digital acquisition formats like the RedOne, remains to be seen, but one thing I'm certain will still be here with us is the romanticism with film, as in 35mm film; that will be the hardest to let go, especially with the old, seasoned pros.

[Chris Parker]

I guess the whole point of my original post has been lost. It was that the film is dead is the wrong debate....yet that is what everyone is debating.....even in this thread.

My whole point was that the current debate should be how much of an impact on the HD WORLD will RED have? I agree with all that film is far from dead, although it is hitting it's golden years....soon to retire to a bedroom community in florida.

But any comments on the 'Red's impact on the HD market' part of the thread?

[G. Haz]

Who in their right mind would shoot on HD…
Broadcasters. They have already made a substantial investment in transitioning their entire infrastructure to HD - cams, deck, character generators, DDR's, routers, switchers, etc. For broadcasters 1080i will be the ceiling for a couple of decades. Calling HD dead is narrow view of the entire industry.

unless I had the capital to invest heavily in RED, and be able to weather the financial storm that the necessary quick turnover from a mostly HD rental house to a 4K rental house will cost.
The financial storm? The required capital for the rental houses is significantly less, they already have most of the support gear(primes, etc.). Honestly, I think you need to take a deep breath sit down and relax. You might be hyperventilating.

Red is here - alive and well. It will certainly change the industry on some level, but I don't think it's destined to kill HD or slow moving rental houses.

[REDHKSC]

RED = Film + HD

Let make friends RED or Film or HD but no wars, and we are talking about " Freedom " in 4K to anything .......

DIGITAL ASSETS are the Keys to the HIGHWAY.

STEWART

[Chris Parker]

Both good points G.Haz.

Broadcasters will most definately continue shooting HD for a while.

Rental houses will also survive renting HD Gear.

My view is based more towards the part of the industry I work in. Rental houses that rent HD cameras for commercial shoots or features will have a tough time renting out their HD inventory once RED becomes widely available.

And for such rental houses, it sure would be a financial hit. If they purchased a couple hundred thousand worth of HD Cameras in the past year, and suddenly MOST of their clients want RED, they will have to invest heavily in RED. Yes, it is cheaper, but the financial hit will come from their dimishing ROI on their HD cameras.

Your points however, are very valid.

[Steve Gibby]

Yes G.Haz made some good points. Let me build upon his points:

A D-cinema camera that can also be easily re-accessorized, re-lensed, and re-setup for the non-hardlined and hardlined EFP work that broadcasters do will be quite capable of being adopted into their field workflows, and RED One has that capability. Most of them have legacy investments in 2/3" HD lenses, which can be easily used on RED One with a RED or Abakas B4 adaptor, and that setup will cover either 2k or 1080p on RED One. Then, as long as it can be demonstrated that they can also adopt it easily into their post workflows, RED One really becomes a viable option for them.

The EFP broadcast industry is the single largest percentage portion of all the motion media productions worldwide each year, and when added to the rest of the EFP style productions each year, EFP absolutely dwarfs the totals for feature production and other cine style productions.

Now days broadcasters increasingly look for cinematic production values in their EFP productions...forget ENG, I'm not talking about news gathering....just EFP. For EFP, broadcasters are hungry for cameras that can achieve cinematic and non-cinematic results quickly and affordable.

Sounds like a great opportunity for RED One...and that's exactly why I climbed aboard the RED bandwagon almost two years ago...flexibility, utility, and scalability. I produce/direct/shoot national TV programs for 12 different broadcast and cable networks -and I'm very aware of what they want looking forward.

[Dan McCain]

I think some of us who spend too much time on reduser.net get too immersed in red, and begin only see the industry through rose colored glasses. Many people will be using many different formats for different genres for a variety of reasons for many years to come. The people to post here at reduser.net are a small slice of the industry.

Here are a few off the top of my head:
Small scale concert shooters
Live event shooting/Jumbo-tron for sports
Wedding videographers (some of them still use pd150 etc)
Corporate videographers
Reality shows
News
Student productions
on and on...

There are many clients who complain about paying for HVX200, they wont (I maybe I should say shouldn't) have access to Red either.

I own both HD camera packages and (soon) Red package and I plan on making money with both.

[Stephen Williams]

Like I said...properly maintained. Think massive hard drive storage system that is well maintained. Backed up by a data tape library that is refreshed every 10 years. Everything is verified periodically. Etc. etc.

Hi,

At what cost refreshing your library every 10 years & what happens when the files are not readable. I think insurance companies feel happier with film archives.

YMMV

Stephen

[Chris Parker]

The files will NEVER be not readable if they are refreshed into new codecs as they become available. the cost to refresh the data tapes every 10 years wouldn't be that much.

but yes, i see that film archives will be around for a while, but come on, they won't be forever....

[red1225]

Why anyone would want film to go away is beyond me. Why kill, destroy, or stop using a medium that video/digital formats have been trying to emulate for years??? Remeber...RED may look more like film than anything ever before...but its still not there.

I'll love and respect my RED for all it can do...but LONG LIVE FILM!

[vsv]

RED4K possible killed 16(s16)mm film...
But we have also 35/65/70mm :biggrin:

[donatello b]

"Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year."

if you read Kodaks financial reports i do no think you'll find that in them ...
most news releases Kodak might state SALES $ are up since ( then they give a year ) say 1998 ... but if you look into the fine details -
( this is a example not actual figures) say in 1999 film cost $300 core today $600 core = so actual feet sold could be down 40% but sales $$ could be up 10% .... i haven't read a report since last winter - from what i recall film negative volume was down but i think release film feet was up slightly ...

or there could have been a year ( example - not actual sales -say 2002 ) where film sales dropped 75% and then in 2005 Kodak could state film sales are up 50% since 2002 .... it's a numbers game - you pick a year that make you look good ...

[Stephen Williams]

"Kodak keep selling a higher volume of more motion picture film every year."

if you read Kodaks financial reports i do no think you'll find that in them ...
most news releases Kodak might state SALES $ are up since ( then they give a year ) say 1998 ... but if you look into the fine details -
( this is a example not actual figures) say in 1999 film cost $300 core today $600 core = so actual feet sold could be down 40% but sales $$ could be up 10% .... i haven't read a report since last winter - from what i recall film negative volume was down but i think release film feet was up slightly ...

or there could have been a year ( example - not actual sales -say 2002 ) where film sales dropped 75% and then in 2005 Kodak could state film sales are up 50% since 2002 .... it's a numbers game - you pick a year that make you look good ...

Hi Donatello,

I am only talking about motion picture film. Sadly John Pytlak, my source of information recently passed away. However John posted that 2006 sales were higher than 2005, that in turn were higher than 2004.

Stephen

[donatello b]

"Who in their right mind would shoot on HD, when for the same price, they could shoot on a RED?"

it all depends on your current needs, workflow in place , and final delivery ...
XDcam is pretty easy to shoot and edit ...
or you simply like the "look" of a certain camera for a project ...

[Jiri Bakala]

Red is great!
Film is beautiful!
Broadcasters still air SD.
HD in its many flavours is here to stay for many years. Heck, it took the broadcast world well over a decade, if not more, to finally adopt HD. They are not going anywhere anytime soon...
So, our tool palette just got better. End of story. :-)

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Like I said...properly maintained. Think massive hard drive storage system that is well maintained. Backed up by a data tape library that is refreshed every 10 years. Everything is verified periodically. Etc. etc.
But surely after a certain point it becomes more costly than archiving via film-out, which as Stephen said, you do once and it's good for 500 years?

[Jay Taylor]

Guys, stop with the film is dead crap!

Even though digital still cameras are everywhere, there's no problem in buying film for your old 35mm film cameras. Even though today's digital cameras will be dead in 3 years, and these film cameras will be running another 20 or more!

Even though digital audio is super convenient and easy to work with, most, if not all, studios still have a trusty 2" 24 track analog tape machine. You'd be surprised at how much those things are still in use!

We still have super8 cartridges even though video cameras are everywhere. You can still get a vinyl record pressed! There's so many examples like this!

Even if Red eventually matches 35mm film in every technical way, it's never going to look like film. It's just different! That will never change! A lot of people will never give up film. Jim has said himself that the Red is another option, not a replacement for film.

Please give this "film is dead" attitude up!


Jay

[Jiri Bakala]

Jay is dead on right.

Just to add another example; when TV first started, people were saying 'radio is dead' and our favourite 'film is dead' (at that time of course not as a medium but rather as movie-going). None of that happened.

So, viva cinema, viva film!

[Chris Parker]

By 'film is dead' I think we are referring to the gross loss of market share...not the extinction of celluloid itself. Of course you can buy 35mm film for stills cameras. BUT...how many people are shooting with it....WAY LESS than 10 years ago.

That is the disucussion. It is not a 'you won't be able to find an ARRI camera or a roll of film in 5 years' type of comment.

[Jay Taylor]

By 'film is dead' I think we are referring to the gross loss of market share...not the extinction of celluloid itself. Of course you can buy 35mm film for stills cameras. BUT...how many people are shooting with it....WAY LESS than 10 years ago.

That is the disucussion. It is not a 'you won't be able to find an ARRI camera or a roll of film in 5 years' type of comment.

I agree with that. Convenience always wins out. The market share will shrink. But even though you see it that way, I seriously get the feeling most people on this board think you won't be able to buy film in another few months! :tongue:

Crazy!


Jay

[Rob Powell]

The IMMEDIATE and very swift impact RED will have is that it will quickly cause the death of HD.

I mean, think about it. Who in their right mind would shoot on HD, when for the same price, they could shoot on a RED? If I were a film camera rental house, I wouldn't be too worried...yet. If I had all my money tied up in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of HD cameras, I would be VERY VERY concerned, unless I had the capital to invest heavily in RED, and be able to weather the financial storm that the necessary quick turnover from a mostly HD rental house to a 4K rental house will cost.


Let's not forget that most of the industry still operates in SD, not even HD. RED will certainly cause competitive pressures on the HD world, but we have a long way to go before even HD is even widely accepted. The big reason that RED will not kill HD anytime soon, is that the RED workflow is more consistent with a cinema workflow (larger budgets/more time) than a broadcast one. Try shooting an HD football game with 16 REDs. Much of broadcast is live or on a short workflow timeline. They cannot quickly adjust to footage that must be color graded and transcoded before editing. There are exceptions, of course, but HD has an upper hand in this arena and will hold on to it for the foreseeable future.

While industry entrenchment may be a factor, it is not the primary one. RED makes beautiful images, but workflow is going to be a more of an issue than image quality.

RA Post

[Bob Bermani]

I understand that the point of this thread was not to argue whether film is dead or not. However, had it been about that, I think the argument is essentially moot. Film will always be available in some form or another. For a long time into the future, there will be veteran cinematographers who refuse to switch to digital, no matter what the quality or cost to use is. Some seem so obstinate that they would rather die than switch to an entirely digital work flow.

The fact is CCD and CMOS sensor technology will only continue to advance in the coming years. Optical film media technology advances yearly as well, but it isn't capable of evolving as rapidly as semiconductors or the coming nano revolution. Eventually semiconductors will reach their technological limits, and optical sensors will be based on newer nano-scale devices. Specifications relating to contrast ratio, sensitivity, noise, resolution will only get better with time, MUCH better, as will the costs related to data storage and processing. The same cannot be said of film. Costs of using it are not going to decrease at the same rate more modern technologies are. Moreover, I believe that with enough creativity, given an image stream on the order of the quality and resolution of the RED’s, practically any visual result can be achieved in post. As it is right now, tools for processing a 4K workflow are not exactly cheap; substantial processing power is needed, but it’s only a matter of time before any desktop PC can chew-on a 4K video stream without flinching.

I think right now is an awesome time for Red to be releasing their flagship product. There’s a huge market, and it’s going to change the playing field. I think film as a medium for shooting moving images will never be “dead”. I do believe films market share will be hurt by what Red is offering, since so many of the pro’s are already buying into it.

[Craig Schober]

Film will always be available in some form or another. For a long time into the future, there will be veteran cinematographers who refuse to switch to digital, no matter what the quality or cost to use is. Some seem so obstinate that they would rather die than switch to an entirely digital work flow.

then it seems we can put a date on film's death. that is, when all the old school holdouts actually die and no one knows or can tell the difference between film and digital cinema. it's already happened in the still photography field so motion picture film would only naturally follow. the fact is that it could disappear tomorrow and audiences wouldn't know or care. so it will probably take another generation or so before it becomes more of an artifact than the dynamic medium it is today.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Ever notice how whenever the next great Digital Camera comes out it comes bundled with someone saying "Film is dead"?
They said this with the f900 and I don't think anyone on this forum would say the f900 is better quality then film (Unless maybe Robert Rodriguez has an account cause he said it.)

[Steve Gibby]

Let's not forget that most of the industry still operates in SD, not even HD. RED will certainly cause competitive pressures on the HD world, but we have a long way to go before even HD is even widely accepted. The big reason that RED will not kill HD anytime soon, is that the RED workflow is more consistent with a cinema workflow (larger budgets/more time) than a broadcast one. Try shooting an HD football game with 16 REDs. Much of broadcast is live or on a short workflow timeline. They cannot quickly adjust to footage that must be color graded and transcoded before editing. There are exceptions, of course, but HD has an upper hand in this arena and will hold on to it for the foreseeable future.

While industry entrenchment may be a factor, it is not the primary one. RED makes beautiful images, but workflow is going to be a more of an issue than image quality.

RA Post

The example you give is hardlined EFP. With it's ability to genlock, 12 volt auxiliary power bus, RS232, dual link HD-SDI, B4 HD lens usage capability, RED One can be readily adapted to a hardlined EFP scenario, though there are some workarounds needed in the field and post.

Non-hardlined EFP programs are far and away the huge majority of network television programs produced worldwide, and that is the type of program that RED One can be adapted to the easiest. The cameras don't have to be genlocked together, or there is just one camera, plus the program gets edited in post, thus the time to grade color, and incorporate footage and LUT's into an NLE.

RED One will be especially in demand for non-hardlined EFP cinematic shooting of creative montages, in-bumps, out-bumps, and promos for nework television programs.

My post on page 2 of this thread touched on this, and my Sticky on the top of the EFP/ENG for RED forum on RED User has a lot of info on using RED One in non-hardlined and hardlined EFP production environments.

You specifically mentioned an HD football game. I've directed/shot extensive non-hardlined EFP coverage of NFL games, from a specials at the Super Bowl, to the Pro Bowl, to entire seasons of hardlined coverage. Trust me, NFL Films and others in the football world are looking hard at RED One.

[Joel Kaye]

I guess the whole point of my original post has been lost.

Yeah - did anyone read it? HD vs. RED.

I think it's fair to say HD and Film acquisition for narrative movies under $1 million are going to be effectively dead in favor of RED or similar within a few years.

I wouldn't want to be making my low budget horror movie on anything other than RED right now because you have know that's what you're going to be up against when you hand it to a distributor a year from now. Do you want to look like video or look like a movie? It's too risky to not shoot RED. Kinda like big movies reason it's too risky to shoot RED over film.

[Brandon Freeman]

Regarding RED killing HD, I don't think so. I think what it will do (and this is what I'm praying for) is force the market to lower the costs on HD substantially.

I know for independent no budget films (those that I don't have funding for), I'll use my Canon XH-A1 with a Letus35 or Brevis and spend the rest of any dough I have on the important stuff -- lighting, actors and sets.

The biggest value the RED has for me is 35mm DOF at a large resolution. But HD ain't that terrible, either.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, yeah, RED will tank the $40k+ HD systems and force them to lower their prices. But guys like the XH-A1, I think they'll be around for a while.

EDIT:
Unless, of course, RED comes out with a prosumer version for the price of a new XDCAM EX. THEN we'll be talking the end of all HD. :)

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Even the 40k+ systems I don't think are in danger. The people whom have actually used an f23 all say it's an amazing camera.
I don't know how much is PR and how much isn't I haven't seen any real footage off that thing beyond a youtube video which didn't mean a whole lot to me.
I downloaded the brochure and the manual as well.

[Joel Kaye]

I know for independent no budget films (those that I don't have funding for), I'll use my Canon XH-A1 with a Letus35 or Brevis and spend the rest of any dough I have on the important stuff -- lighting, actors and sets.

The big problem with that idea is you really don't have a movie that can be projected well in comparison to originating on RED. So you take part of your sales potential away. It's just not that much more money to shoot RED - well in a year from now it won't be when you can easily rent one.

I think distributors understand that - or will - when evaluating product. A great story trumps everything else. But if that's great then why wouldn't you want in on RED.

Small cameras will remain better for most Docs.

[Brandon Freeman]

The big problem with that idea is you really don't have a movie that can be projected well in comparison to originating on RED. So you take part of your sales potential away. It's just not that much more money to shoot RED - well in a year from now it won't be when you can easily rent one.

I think distributors understand that - or will - when evaluating product. A great story trumps everything else. But if that's great then why wouldn't you want in on RED.

Small cameras will remain better for most Docs.

Sure, but I'm talking filmmakers that are shooting to DVD and going that route (another viable distribution path).

However, yes, if a film is going to get funding for a film that is going to theaters, the cost of a RED is nothing.

[red1225]

then it seems we can put a date on film's death. that is, when all the old school holdouts actually die and no one knows or can tell the difference between film and digital cinema. it's already happened in the still photography field so motion picture film would only naturally follow. the fact is that it could disappear tomorrow and audiences wouldn't know or care. so it will probably take another generation or so before it becomes more of an artifact than the dynamic medium it is today.

Don't mistake your ignorance of the film medium and market with the extinction of it...

It's obvious you've not had much experience in big budget features and television.

If I live to be 70...film will be around for another 30 years as I will always opt for it (professionally) before any other medium.

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that only older shooters want to shoot film and only younger shooters want to shoot digital. I run into beginners, young film students, etc. all the time who have a passion for shooting film. And I run into seasoned pros all the time who are very excited by the new digital technologies.

[oldphart]

...

If I live to be 70...film will be around for another 30 years as I will always opt for it (professionally) before any other medium.

Hmm - 30 years ago I bought a Sancorscope anamorphic. Have not used it for quite some time now. The Bolex has been in retirement for a long time. I was happily shooting stills with a 6x6cm Rolleiflex and a 35mm Exacta. Neither has been in use for years, even though I really like my 20mm Flektogon.

You will probably be able to get 35mm film 30 years from now, but it will be an expensive product for those with special interests. 8mm disappeared quickly when video was still quite shabby. 16mm is likely to be gone in a few years. I have made diapositives on glass plates. The quality was excellent, but I do not see them around these days.

[Rob Powell]

The example you give is hardlined EFP. With it's ability to genlock, 12 volt auxiliary power bus, RS232, dual link HD-SDI, B4 HD lens usage capability, RED One can be readily adapted to a hardlined EFP scenario, though there are some workarounds needed in the field and post.

Non-hardlined EFP programs are far and away the huge majority of network television programs produced worldwide, and that is the type of program that RED One can be adapted to the easiest. The cameras don't have to be genlocked together, or there is just one camera, plus the program gets edited in post, thus the time to grade color, and incorporate footage and LUT's into an NLE.

I don't really disagree with you, but my points relate to the original concept that RED will kill HD anytime soon. You have to admit that the current configuration of RED is not the most user-friendly for hardlined EFP. Sony definitely has a leg up.

Secondly, having edited for HGTV and other similar networks, the budgets for many of the non-cinematic broadcast shows (and there are a lot of them) simply won't support a long post process. The waters are still muddy, but it appears the color grading of RED footage entails a significant time commitment. (This may not be the case in the long haul.) If so, SD/HD workflows are still going to be a viable alternative for some programming despite the image quality disadvantages. I.e. HD still lives as a reasonable alternative.

RA Post

[red1225]

Hmm - 30 years ago I bought a Sancorscope anamorphic. Have not used it for quite some time now. The Bolex has been in retirement for a long time. I was happily shooting stills with a 6x6cm Rolleiflex and a 35mm Exacta. Neither has been in use for years, even though I really like my 20mm Flektogon.

You will probably be able to get 35mm film 30 years from now, but it will be an expensive product for those with special interests. 8mm disappeared quickly when video was still quite shabby. 16mm is likely to be gone in a few years. I have made diapositives on glass plates. The quality was excellent, but I do not see them around these days.

You must live in the country.

Super 8 made a come back a few years ago and 16mm usage has been on the rise too (hence the new 416). Every feature I work on still shoots 35mm film...come to think of it every tv show too.

Medium format still photography has also make a comeback. (All major magazines still require there cover photos and big story photos be shot on film)

Just because you jumped on the video bandwagon early on and abandoned film usage dosen't mean it disapeared.

It dosen't really matter. Film is here to stay.

[Steve Gibby]

You have to admit that the current configuration of RED is not the most user-friendly for hardlined EFP. Sony definitely has a leg up.

RED One has the circuits, features, and busses to integrate into a hardlined EFP scenario, but yes, there are some workarounds involved, at least for now. I do agree with you that traditional manufacturers servicing that industry have a leg up on RED One - for now. That said, even in hardlined EFP production scenarios there are quite often non-hardlined cinematic B-roll cameras that rove around and get cinematic footage for the truck to roll into the program. RED One should be very useful for that.



Secondly, having edited for HGTV and other similar networks, the budgets for many of the non-cinematic broadcast shows (and there are a lot of them) simply won't support a long post process. The waters are still muddy, but it appears the color grading of RED footage entails a significant time commitment. (This may not be the case in the long haul.) If so, SD/HD workflows are still going to be a viable alternative for some programming despite the image quality disadvantages. I.e. HD still lives as a reasonable alternative.

Time is money. The more compact, yet creatively productive post can be, the better, when it comes to budget-challenged productions. I've had to produce/direct/shoot/edit a ton of those types of shows, and it's always a mantra of: "Maximize technology while also minimizing overhead". In tight turnaround shows, a lot of time spent grading footage will kill meeting deadlines. You just named a scenario where being able to shoot 1080p RGB, where footage values are baked in, is preferrable in many cases. If the shows don't have a tight turnaround, but rather deliver in 3 or 4 weeks after acquisition, that is where a RED One shooting RAW can shine. In that type of non-hardlined EFP program you'll then have the time to load, grade, select, bin up, cut, polish, and master the show without a deadline breathing down your neck.

[Rodrigo Lizana]

As someone stated on a previous post, camera packages aren´t the biggest item in a film production budget but they sure are a primary tool to get the job done. It´s just like tires in motocross racing. Not the biggest expense but one that plays an important role. If the race matters, sure I want to have the best tires available.
Many times, in 35mm and 16mm productions the lighting package is more expensive than the camera one. We rent 35mm and HD cameras all the time and HD has not touched film in rental numbers. It has found its own space in productions that otherwise would have stayed on paper .
What about Red hit on HD rentals...well I don´t have a Red one to rent for the moment. As for my own personal projects I´m going to be doing them on film as long as its overall image quality (at least for me) remains undefeated. As for the market, I´m planning to offer many kind of tires for many different races...

[red1225]

As someone stated on a previous post, camera packages aren´t the biggest item in a film production budget but they sure are a primary tool to get the job done. It´s just like tires in motocross racing. Not the biggest expense but one that plays an important role. If the race matters, sure I want to have the best tires available.
Many times, in 35mm and 16mm productions the lighting package is more expensive than the camera one. We rent 35mm and HD cameras all the time and HD has not touched film in rental numbers. It has found its own space in productions that otherwise would have stayed on paper .
What about Red hit on HD rentals...well I don´t have a Red one to rent for the moment. As for my own personal projects I´m going to be doing them on film as long as its overall image quality (at least for me) remains undefeated. As for the market, I´m planning to offer many kind of tires for many different races...

BRAVO!!!

[Columbus]

You must live in the country.

Super 8 made a come back a few years ago and 16mm usage has been on the rise too (hence the new 416). Every feature I work on still shoots 35mm film...come to think of it every tv show too.

Medium format still photography has also make a comeback. (All major magazines still require there cover photos and big story photos be shot on film)

Just because you jumped on the video bandwagon early on and abandoned film usage dosen't mean it disapeared.

It dosen't really matter. Film is here to stay.



It's simply not true, most of the major fashion photographers shoot with high res digital backs, Glen Luchford, Mert & Marcus, Nick Knight. If you look in any major fashion magazine, V magazine, ID, 10 you will find a lot of the stories are shot digitally.

[red1225]

It's simply not true, most of the major fashion photographers shoot with high res digital backs, Glen Luchford, Mert & Marcus, Nick Knight. If you look in any major fashion magazine, V magazine, ID, 10 you will find a lot of the stories are shot digitally.


Sure...maybe in London...NOT NYC.

It simply is true. Sorry pal.

[donatello b]

film will be around for quite awhile ...
however it will not be around here (in my freezer) for long - as soon as i pick up my RED - all those 35/16mm cores & super 8 kodachrome film is out of here ... and my wife can't wait for RED so she can have the freezer back !!

i'm finished shooting film for my personal projects ... tired of waiting for 2k scans .. tired of having them redone .. tired of dust ...tired of tiny scratches here & there ... tired of being tired of it all ....

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I never realized that film was stored in freezers.

[Ramesh Jai]

I think these 'RED vs HD' and 'Film is dead' debates have been over done.. let it rest. RED is going to bring to life a whole new breed of film makers. Wish we could leave it at that.

[Ramesh Jai]

I never realized that film was stored in freezers.
Only if the wife's cooking is bad.

[Columbus]

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree, for example october 07 issue of W magazine, (probably the biggest US magazine next to US Vogue) one of the main stories is shot digitally by Mert & Marcus. check link http://www.style.com/w/feat_story/091107

[Mark L. Pederson]

Sure...maybe in London...NOT NYC.

It simply is true. Sorry pal.


Ahhhhhh...... beg to differ. Digital dominates large format film in NYC fashion.

[mezmo]

RED4K possible killed 16(s16)mm film...
But we have also 35/65/70mm :biggrin:
Super 16 scaned to 2K DPX is cool and a totally different
look to Red. A High Speed Arri SR can run up to 150fps
no problem. I'm cetainly not getting rid of mine.
I'm looking at Red as another choice for certain projects,
not to replace anything.
I just don't understand this endlees debate.
Mezmo

[Rob Powell]

I'm looking at Red as another choice for certain projects,
not to replace anything.
I just don't understand this endlees debate.


Amen.

Like many of you, we work in a variety of formats and mediums. Why people insist on closing the door to certain ones is a mystery. My father-in-law always says "the right tool for the right job." RED is a great tool, but it DOES have limitations. So does film. Let's keep a lot of tools available. We don't have to kill film or HD to convince ourselves that buying RED was a good choice.

RA Post

[kmikami]

To answer the original question, I don't think that HD is dead. How many films are finished with a 2k DI? And 1080p delivery formats are just getting started. How many 4k projectors and monitors exist in the country at the moment?

Just as a thought experiment, if a camera came out tomorrow that was everything Red is but only shot 1080p and cost $2000, you can bet that there will be a million indie productions shot with it. Or if there were a new camera that only did 2k but far outperformed the Red in dynamic range I'm sure many productions would adopt that format.

[laguun]

there will be probably more 1080p cameras sold in the next month than the red one will ever be delivered.
nobody understands the cameras implications as of yet.
we thought that the nikon F2020 would have 24@~20K.

red took the market. anything else is speculation.

[E.J. Sadler]

Film will never die, it will just become obscure and incredibly expensive.

For still media, even in a market like Atlanta, the number of places that handle pro film stocks has dwindled to low single digits. More importantly, good pro labs have disappeared at the same rate. As digital capture has become the norm, the cost of film acquisition has quadrupled.

If you look at the still film market, R&D has been dead for quite a while. Nobody is holding out for new improved film stocks. The same is going to happen to motion stocks in the near future.

If you look at still media post, you'll find that there are no film looks that haven't been able to be duplicated in post, and there are digital looks that far surpass what film was ever able to render.

As people gain experience in grading raw capture, you're going to see footage that looks just like film, and not too long from now, looks that would have been impossible to achieve with film. More importantly, people are going to start to grow very accustomed to not having to worry about locking in a look at exposure time with a particular stock or process. This post exposure flexibility is what will drive people away from film.

Another factor that drove many still guys to digital was low light performance. Modern DSLRs capture cleaner footage at ISO 1600 now than we ever got from pro 400 speed stocks. Shooting at ISO 800 used to be big decision in terms of factoring in the cost of lost image quality, now you don't even think twice about it.

When you can half your lighting budget, eliminate processing and scanning costs, maintain the look of film, and have more flexibility in post than you ever could have imagined, film just doesn't seem to make sense anymore.

[David Battistella]

Film is a medium. An artistic medium. To suggest that film is dead is like saying that when photography was invented painting was dead. It's like suggesting that oil painting is dead because of watercolor. It makes no sense.

Many video artists are using VHS camera's to record installations. As much as I think VHS is dead, it is still being used as an artistic medium, as film will be for many years to come.

David



It has nothing to do with cost. Film is the cheapest thing about making a film.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Film is the cheapest thing about making a film.

Well technically thats not always true.

[Michael Brennan]

To answer the original question, I don't think that HD is dead. How many films are finished with a 2k DI? And 1080p delivery formats are just getting started. How many 4k projectors and monitors exist in the country at the moment?

Just as a thought experiment, if a camera came out tomorrow that was everything Red is but only shot 1080p and cost $2000, you can bet that there will be a million indie productions shot with it. Or if there were a new camera that only did 2k but far outperformed the Red in dynamic range I'm sure many productions would adopt that format.

The mother of all blanket statements.
Got to be more specific! How do you define "HD"?

HD camcorders to shoot theatrical release, possibly are dead.
HD cameras to shoot low budget movies shorts and commercials maybe.
RED will shoot some docs but not all.
But most other uses which HD cameras are put to at the moment will continue to be shot with "HD" ie defined for the momnet as "non single chip cameras" which will continue to get better.


Mike Brennan




Mike Brennan

[vsv]

RED vs FILM...
Its like compare McDonalds with good european restaurant :biggrin:

[Miltos Pilalitos]

For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen.

Even Kodak thinks film will eventually go away! The unbelievable for me is how on earth we took so long to surpass a medium that started more than 100 years ago.

Digital acquisition will only get better. To the point that it will be an impossibility for film to keep up. The birth of RED only marks the point in time when film will start to fall behind.

The achievement in my opinion is not for digital to look like film. It is to look better than film.

[Stephen Webb]

The unbelievable for me is how on earth we took so long to surpass a medium that started more than 100 years ago.

Because the technology is inherently superior - digital is some respects a very limited way of recording and storing information. It just so happens to be a very convenient one. The real revolution will be whatever technology replaces digital (and I'm not just talking about cameras).

Also, it's worth remembering that film hasn't stood still. It may have started 100 years ago, but that means it's had 100 years of development. It's no wonder competing has proved difficult.

[Martin Drew]

Because the technology is inherently superior - digital is some respects a very limited way of recording and storing information. It just so happens to be a very convenient one. The real revolution will be whatever technology replaces digital (and I'm not just talking about cameras).

Also, it's worth remembering that film hasn't stood still. It may have started 100 years ago, but that means it's had 100 years of development. It's no wonder competing has proved difficult.

Of course "digital" doesn't imply a particular technology. Film is effectively digital in that it has grains which are either on or off.

M

[Miltos Pilalitos]

The real revolution will be whatever technology replaces digital.

Alien technology? :biggrin:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen.

Now that's just plain stupid speak. Unless you believe film operates in some super paranormal dimension beyond the mortal realm of time and space where physics and math rule digital *will* perfectly emulate film and it *will* surpass it.

If you could capture a 32bit perfectly linear HDR image of the world @ 16k and had sufficient processing power you could theoretically simulate the formation and exposure of billions of crystals.

There is this concept that floats around that digital *can't* do this or it *can't* do that. But it's rediculous. Digital *can* simulate anything that exists in the universe given enough processor power and clever programming.

Thanks to Moore's law some things are getting easier to brute force than ever before.

Filming is going to become 'capturing reality' before too long. Capture your scene. Load it into your MayAXSI WaveODO Brush 4.0. Choose your angle, lens, tweak the lighting a bit use a 'retro' 5217 stock. Retime the scene perhaps and output.

That's what'll replace digital sensors. Raytracing combined with image analysis and reality capture.

Beowulf is going to be the first film to club handedly muck around in the the pantry exploring this, but it'll some day make filming completely obsolete

[Stephen Webb]

Of course "digital" doesn't imply a particular technology. Film is effectively digital in that it has grains which are either on or off.

Or somewhere inbetween :sarcasm:


Alien technology? :biggrin:

It'll happen (not the alien bit, the replacement-for-digital bit). Nowt lasts forever.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Stephen Webb, you aren't the same person who wrote that book about aliens, are you?

[Stephen Webb]

You mean If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens - Where Is Everybody?: Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life?

No, I'm not.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I don't quite get the "You could shoot on HD for the same price as the RED" line of thinking. How do you figure? I guess it depends what you consider HD. I consider the HVX-200 HD, because it is HD, and I consider the XH-A1 and those kinds of HDV cameras to be HD, because they are also HD. And they don't cost a fraction of what the RED and its related accessories cost. I mean there's no comparison.

I'm a HUGE Red fan, heck, my business now has three on order and we'll have four by early next week. But it's not cheap equipment. It's inexpensive compared to the Sony F950 or something, sure, but compared to stuff like the HVX-200 or whatever, no, it's not cheap. It's still quite expensive.

Obviously the quality is better, but for us, it makes more sense to film low budget music videos on high level prosumer camera because if it's only going to be shown online or on TV anyway, we can get a nice enough look without risking our extremely expensive RED packages to get that. Better to rent them out on the side if the clients aren't willing to pay the extra price for better picture quality they might not notice too much if they're mainly playing their music video on YouTube, which is a likelihood for low budget clients. We're saving our REDs for personal projects, rentals, and high budget clients. Oh you want a music video for $7,000? Sure, we can do that, no problem. You get the XH-A1. You have $15,000? We'll film with the RED, sweet.

But for us film isn't dead, it just was a total non-issue. Film to me isn't dead or alive, it's just not an option I care about whatsoever. It's like 8-track players or vinyl. I'm aware that they exist, and I have seen pictures of them, and am also aware they were the only ways you could hear recorded music for some time, but beyond that I've never owned either and have no interest in them. They belong in museums. Film is exactly the same thing. It worked beautifully for long, no need to diss it, you can obviously (duh) get incredible images from 35mm film, it's been the standard by which all other mediums must be judged for decades upon decades. But it's not "alive" for us because we have no interest in using it, no experience shooting with film, and don't care for any of the hassles that go along with the process, whether that's during production or post-production. So thank you, film, for giving me so many great movies of the past. You will be fondly remembered. But the future belongs to ultra high def. like the RED One.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

You mean If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens - Where Is Everybody?: Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life?

No, I'm not.

Yeah... pitty, loved that book :)

[Martin Drew]

Or somewhere inbetween :sarcasm:

No. The individual particles of silver halide are either on or off. The size of the particle determines how much light is required to make them developable.

M

:innocent:

[Ramesh Jai]

RED vs FILM...
Its like compare McDonalds with good european restaurant :biggrin:
Ok, so RED is fast food compared to European restaurants...? Hmmm.. Interesting.. (how Dexter would say)

[Stephen Webb]

No. The individual particles of silver halide are either on or off. The size of the particle determines how much light is required to make them developable.

But in colour film the silver halide is washed out, and the coupler dye that is left behind is neither "on" nor "off", it comes in shades :usd:

[Damien Molineaux]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokinos Fotographos
"For me film isn't dead. It never will be. And I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film. I don't think it will ever happen."


Now that's just plain stupid speak. Unless you believe film operates in some super paranormal dimension beyond the mortal realm of time and space where physics and math rule digital *will* perfectly emulate film and it *will* surpass it.

If you could capture a 32bit perfectly linear HDR image of the world @ 16k and had sufficient processing power you could theoretically simulate the formation and exposure of billions of crystals.

There is this concept that floats around that digital *can't* do this or it *can't* do that. But it's rediculous. Digital *can* simulate anything that exists in the universe given enough processor power and clever programming.

Thanks to Moore's law some things are getting easier to brute force than ever before.

Filming is going to become 'capturing reality' before too long. Capture your scene. Load it into your MayAXSI WaveODO Brush 4.0. Choose your angle, lens, tweak the lighting a bit use a 'retro' 5217 stock. Retime the scene perhaps and output.

That's what'll replace digital sensors. Raytracing combined with image analysis and reality capture.

Beowulf is going to be the first film to club handedly muck around in the the pantry exploring this, but it'll some day make filming completely obsolete

Why do people have to insult each other ? I'm that one guy, read what your answering to again.

"For ME film is not dead." He's expressing his opinion, and come to think about it, all the movie theaters in my town are showing films on film, so...

"It never will be." Again it's his opinion. I tend to think one should never say "never". Now it depends what you call dead. It is true today, film is considered the best archival medium for motion pictures. They are transfered to three B&W prints, one for each color. In that sense, film will still be around for quite some time.

"I have yet to see a digital camera actually look like film." You can't discuss what he's seen ot not.

"I don't think it will ever happen." Again, his opinion, clearly stated. He doesn't think so. I certainly think we're not there yet, I also don't think you can get film to look like Red. They're different beasts. Film has a look, which we may be one day capable of emulating, but it will be hard due to the organic nature of film. We'll probably manage it someday, but then again, is that the goal ?

I must say, these discussions about film being dead really tire me. Red is a new tool. It is a very high quality tool and it's different than film. Some will still prefer film, some Red, and the smart ones will like each one for it's particularities, maybe with a preference.

Long live film, long live Red. The more (tools) the better.

Cheers,
Damien

PS I think I already prefer Red, even if I haven't shot with one yet, because of the quality and it's ease and price of use, yet I still love film.

[Damien Molineaux]

RED vs FILM...
Its like compare McDonalds with good european restaurant :biggrin:

Uh ? What ?

What's McD and what's the european restaurant ?

Are you trying to diss Red or do you really not like film, or is it that you think McD is great ?

Film is not one thing, there are so many types of film and so many ways to work with it, if you haven't seen beautiful things on film, I'm sorry for you.

But maybe it's Red you're comparing to McD, what are you basing your judgement on. Red is a new tool. Let's wait and see what some people manage to make with it. I've seen horrible things on film and I'm sure we'll see horrible things shot on Red, doesn't mean it's not capable of making beautiful images.

Why am I even answering this silly comment...

[Desert Rune]

Film is analog. Analog has no place in our digital world.

It's only a matter of time before film is dead, like it is happening with photography and already with videotape.

[Joel Kaye]

Obviously the quality is better, but for us, it makes more sense to film low budget music videos on high level prosumer camera because if it's only going to be shown online or on TV anyway, we can get a nice enough look without risking our extremely expensive RED packages to get that.

Shoot the same music video with a RED and the HVX put them both on TV and see if you can tell the difference.

Most music videos with a budget of $25K+ shoot 35mm for a really good reason.

I think renting a RED in a year from now will be pretty cheap. Music videos have been one day shoots typically. To me music videos are prime RED territory. Unless you're servicing the no budget market. With ANY budget the first thing I'd do is rent a RED.

[Joel Kaye]

As to the debate around film becoming dead. The SLR market shows the way. Yeah you can still buy film. Barely. Can you buy a 35mm film slr right now? Barely. Nikon stopped R&D on 35mm film cameras. It's turning into super 8mm. Functionally it's dead but not dead technically.

We haven't spoken at all about movie delivery though. Right now movies are delivered to theaters on FILM. So there are A LOT of films sales. In the past few years we've had a fair number of blockbusters shooting over a million feet of film. That's helped film sales a lot.

And then there's the military. The military uses film too... and I think quite a lot of it. Any time they are running very high speed tests. So film will remain.

I think there's another point at hand though. And that's when a DP is allowed to choose RED over film for a high end project in any of the major studios then film functionally ceases to matter. That's a significant watermark and we'll probably see it within a year.

But David Mullen is right - we're going to see old pros shooting digital and new college kids shooting film.

I personally think RED (or other 35mm DOF digital) will steal narrative TV show production from Film and other HD cameras over the next years. And I think it'll dominate low budget movies. I don't think it'll touch reality TV... but it might be used as the "Glam Cam". I'm unclear about nature docs - clearly some guys here who do that are very excited about RED.

I wonder what Mark Cuban is thinking right now...

[David Battistella]

Well technically thats not always true.

Craig. I agree. I was loosely paraphrasing a Robert Altman quote I once heard. When asked about his long takes and about all of the film he used his reply was, "the film is the cheapest thing about making a film". IN the context of a fully budgeted film inwhich all of the players are being paid, etc. the cost of film and filming is relatively (percentage wise) very, very cheap.

David

[M Most]

Film is analog. Analog has no place in our digital world.


Light is analog. CCD's are analog. CMOS is analog. Anything that lives in the real world - i.e., light - is analog by definition. Anything "digital" is a very approximate representation of that reality. All light capturing devices are analog, although what comes out of them can then be digitized to represent a lower resolution version - which is exactly what happens with CCD's, CMOS, and any other light measuring technology.

Besides, for archival purposes, analog representations - such as film negative - are self descriptive. Shine a light through it and you recapture what's on it. Anything digital must by necessity be accompanied by instructions as to how to reconstruct the information that's represented. This means a description of the file format, what's in that file, and how to reconstruct it - including any compression information. If you're looking for reasons why film is still the "standard" archival medium for every studio in existence, that's one of them.

[GlennChan]

Analog has no place in our digital world.
Digital signals are transmitted as... wait for it... analog electrical signals.

But regardless, you have to look at your needs and figure out which is the appropriate tool. For archival film definitely has many good properties (e.g. it has a proven history of lasting a long time). For acquisition film has less and less of a quality advantage over digital/video. Though it still has advantages like high speed.

For projection, film has some advantages and disadvantages compared to digital projection (see NATO's report).

[kmikami]

The mother of all blanket statements.
Got to be more specific! How do you define "HD"?

No, saying that Red has killed HD is a blanket statement. Saying, as I did, that perhaps HD isn't quite dead yet is a pretty reasonable position to take. I'm not sure why you quoted me since you seem to be agreeing with what I said.

[kmikami]

Digital signals are transmitted as... wait for it... analog electrical signals.

I'm pretty sure they're transmitted as digital electrical signals. :wink:
I understand that you're trying to argue that the electrical signal itself is analog but that doesn't exactly make sense. The signal is carrying information in a digital format. The electricity itself is neither digital nor analog.

[oldphart]

Light is analog. CCD's are analog. CMOS is analog. Anything that lives in the real world - i.e., light - is analog by definition. Anything "digital" is a very approximate representation of that reality...

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.

[Jason Murphy]

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment.

That's excellent. Man after my own heart.

[number6]

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.

Great post, OP. You took something complex and made it resonate with those of us who oversimplify.

[Mike Smith]

Not really. Analog is just an approximation to reality which happens to work when you deal with very large samples of the universe. Light comes as photons, and one of the biggest sources of noise in small-pixel detectors is the statistical distribution of the photons. There is no way to detect half a photon, because it does not exist.

The same goes for your CCD - it is conveniently treated as analog because the crude technology we have been using does not measure the exact number of electrons in each CCD bucket. The same applies to film - we started with a process where millions of photons had to give their energy to a lump of silver salts to turn it into a lump of silver crystals. Then came the developer, and it took a lot fewer photons to make the same amount of silver.

The perfect chemical film would have molecules which interact with one photon of a given frequency to give one stable dye molecule with the appropriate resonant frequency. I doubt that type of film will be developed, but if it was it would not have any grain structure above the molecular level.

The perfect electronic flat-image detector will have pixels the size of photons of the frequencies we will want to record, and it will give us one bitcount for each photon. We are probably years away from it, but it is not improbable that we will get there.

Just like there are people who chip away at blocks of granite to make sculptures, there will be people who make flat pictures with the whole range of methods we have developed up to today even after those perfected recording methods have been developed. Their customers will be collectors and museums, and some of the best will probably be famous even outside the cultural elite.

When I retire, it is not unlikely that I will make film from the raw ingredients to use in my historical cameras. It will be impractical, expensive, and time consuming, but fun - and it will be the right kind of film for 100 years old equipment. It will not keep film "alive" any more than my new latin dictionary is making latin a living language, though.
Actually, you cannot say quantum particles such as photons and electrons make this a digital world. Don't forget that little thing called wave-particle duality where a photon or electron exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior. And in any case, you're taking the analog/digital argument to irrelevant extremes. You will never be able to record anything at quantum levels. From Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the mere act of trying to observe a photon or electron - let alone manipulate it - will affect it. So you will never be able to record data at the quantum level. It's an impossibility of physics. For some gory details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The terms analog and digital used here refer to how data is represented. In the analog world, for example film, as mmost says, the data is recorded directly as a series of images. Digital data on the other hand has to be represented in an abstract kind of way. It doesn't really matter how. For example, you could represent a number as how many kinks you put in a piece of string provided those that need to recover this info know that's what they mean. Representing a movie digitally this way is possible but of course ridiculously time consuming and impractical. But you could do it. You can represent data as levels of magnetism on magnetic tape. But you cannot represent it this way at the quantum level. You can only do so at a magnetic domain level where a large and unknowable number of magnetised atoms are involved. You can record an analog signal this way, or, using a known method of representation, you can record digital this way too. The method of recording either is the same; varying the magnetisation of magnetic domains on the tape.

[Desert Rune]

Vmax, funny you bring this up. I'm listening to The Universe in a Single Atom audiobook right now, which talks about quantum physics as it relates to human consciousness.

[mezmo]

Hi Guys,
Trying to understand the *film is dead*, *Video is dead* thing.
Although it helps the Red marketing compaign no end I think
a lot of this is based on fear. Fear of not being accepted with my
bright new shiny RED one, fear of losing work for my film/HDvideo
gear. Don't panick. There's enough work on the planet for all people
and all cameras cause EVERY JOB IS DIFFERENT.
Keep that in mind and happy shooting all.
Mezmo

[Mike Smith]

There is no doubt in my mind that you're right. There will be an increasing need for visual media in coming years. There will be plenty of room for all formats. There will be some folks that won't be caught dead using anything but film to make movies etc.. But the RED camera will be accepted by those artists who couldn't care less how the movie is captured. RED's future is very much assured merely by what it offers. But film has some very important advantages. It has a wide latitude and it is self-archiving. (To some degree at least. It may need to be converted to that 500 year RGB monochrome thing that Steven Williams mentioned way back inpost #4 for more permanent archiving.) Digital data still has to be represented in some form of media. If that media deteriorates, it is no more permanent than analog data in the same media (magnetic tape for example). The person/company that solves this problem will do very well indeed!

In the HD world, I like the XDCam EX workflow. It will have an optical disk drive available to archive recordings I think for under $1500. These disks have a shelf life of 50 years. That's at least reasonable. As a RED reservation holder myself, I hope that a similar system becomes available for RED or any other camera system. I think the XDCam drive only works with the XDCam system. I don't like the idea that my data has to permanently exist only on spinning hard drives even in a RAID system.

[number6]

Actually, you cannot say quantum particles such as photons and electrons make this a digital world. Don't forget that little thing called wave-particle duality where a photon or electron exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior. And in any case, you're taking the analog/digital argument to irrelevant extremes. You will never be able to record anything at quantum levels. From Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the mere act of trying to observe a photon or electron - let alone manipulate it - will affect it. So you will never be able to record data at the quantum level. It's an impossibility of physics. For some gory details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The terms analog and digital used here refer to how data is represented. In the analog world, for example film, as mmost says, the data is recorded directly as a series of images. Digital data on the other hand has to be represented in an abstract kind of way. It doesn't really matter how. For example, you could represent a number as how many kinks you put in a piece of string provided those that need to recover this info know that's what they mean. Representing a movie digitally this way is possible but of course ridiculously time consuming and impractical. But you could do it. You can represent data as levels of magnetism on magnetic tape. But you cannot represent it this way at the quantum level. You can only do so at a magnetic domain level where a large and unknowable number of magnetised atoms are involved. You can record an analog signal this way, or, using a known method of representation, you can record digital this way too. The method of recording either is the same; varying the magnetisation of magnetic domains on the tape.

ummmm, ditto what I said about OP's post. But if either of you guys bring up neutrinos or quarks, I'm outta here!

[Greg Voevodsky]

Hi,

Film works and is proven. Many people don't like digital. Digital will increase in popularity but I personally believe film will be used for many years to come. I dissagree strongly that film is dead, infact I hate the expression. I do agree however that a very strong contender for motion picture capture is available via Red's camera and as another high end option for film makers this is a very good thing.

Paul

PAUL - where were you when the film SLR died. In less than 5 years, still photography is now all 95% digital.... and so in 5 years so will Hollywood both in production and projection. The projection deal is about done.

Also, Avid killed Moviola and flatbeads in about the same time forcing a lot of editors into early retirement! I'd say RED is the Hinderberg for film... in 2-3 years.... film Kodac and Fuji could be gone... in terms of any market much like the still market.

[Chris Kenny]

Film to me isn't dead or alive, it's just not an option I care about whatsoever.

I couldn't agree more. I'm 24. Practically all of the media I consume comes through a computer. Practically all of my creative and/or professional output is computer-based in some way. I've taken probably tens of thousands of photos in my life -- and 99% of them have been digital. I'm extremely comfortable in the digital world. It's where I spend a substantial amount of my life.

I don't "hate film" -- it's just not something that's really on the radar for me. Even with unlimited money, I'd pick Red over shooting film. It's something that belongs to the world I live in. Film simply isn't. I don't think I'm alone, in my age group. This is ultimately what will marginalize film -- a new generation of filmmakers who've grown up in a digital world.

[David Battistella]

I couldn't agree more. I'm 24. Practically all of the media I consume comes through a computer. Practically all of my creative and/or professional output is computer-based in some way. I've taken probably tens of thousands of photos in my life -- and 99% of them have been digital. I'm extremely comfortable in the digital world. It's where I spend a substantial amount of my life.

I don't "hate film" -- it's just not something that's really on the radar for me. Even with unlimited money, I'd pick Red over shooting film. It's something that belongs to the world I live in. Film simply isn't. I don't think I'm alone, in my age group. This is ultimately what will marginalize film -- a new generation of filmmakers who've grown up in a digital world.

Chris,

Your post is so nicely wriiten. It is precisly the matter of factness that this whole arguement needs. It makes perfect sense. The digital world is really the world that matters.

For anyone who works with film, there will be nostalgia, but your post rings very true. As beautiful as film is, it will not matter to the future of film making.

david

[Frank Mirbach]

Hi there,

I just became a member of this forum and I´m following this discussion with great interest. I´m not surprised to see so many different opinions here. Being 40, I´ve been working in both the analog and digital world. I always loved working with film, but also appreciated the ease of use with digital equipment. Generally, I´m convinced the equipment always has to be chosen regarding the kind of project that lies ahead. Film always was the choice for me for if the best achievable quality was required. BUT:

After seeing "Crossing The Line" at IBC in Amsterdam this year all I can say is: I´ve seen the future in filmmaking. We´ve been there with four experienced industry professionals in row one, watching it on a 25m wide screen in 4K projection. We are all well at home with film, one of us even from the vfx field, working wtith 35mm every day and saw the presentation twice. We were sitting there with our jaws dropped. I must have seen thousands of movies in different theaters, all projected in 35mm and I always thought there would be nothing to beat the quality of film. I must admit I´ve changed my mind. This projection was the best I´ve ever seen. Not only were the pictures extremely sharp and clear, without any noise or artifacts at all, but also was there an extraordinary beauty in them, the beauty one might refer to as the "film look". Even our vfx guy just said "sensational". May the resolution of film still be greater, the absence of any noise or grain in the RED material while maintaining the "look" makes it´s quality better than film for me.

After that Amsterdam experience, I must say I don´t see a reason to keep on shooting with film. My company will order a RED One asap.

[oldphart]

ummmm, ditto what I said about OP's post. But if either of you guys bring up neutrinos or quarks, I'm outta here!

"Three quarks for Muster Mark!"
(Finnegans Wake)

[number6]

"Three quarks for Muster Mark!"
(Finnegans Wake)

That does it! I'm outta here!... at least for the weekend.

[Tim Lüdin]

I've also seen Crossing at the IBC in 4k. It looked amazing. Almost to sharp.
It's a new way of looking. But I realy liked what I saw. To make this clear, I love film but the RED images look so great, that I realy have no problem, if digital cinema goes in that direction.

It was funny to watch the bourne 3 right after crossing. In the first 15minutes I thougt there was something missing, till I realized that the bourne3 was in 2K and there was tons of grain etc. The RED images had so much more punch and detail. 4K is the future. It will be the reason why people will go to the movies again.

Film is not dead, but RED brings a lot of options for us moviemakers. RED has it's own quality which I realy love so far. I can't wait for my cam.

It's gonna be all good.

Cheers
Tim
:w00t:

[Frank Mirbach]

Tim, I agree. I was stunned by the sharpness of the projection and my first thought was also that it was too much. Then I was just mesmerized. But I think that´s because we´ve all grown accustomed to a certain quality in projection over the years which actually wasn´t good at all.

I, too believe that the movie theater´s future lies in 4K. According to what I read about the release of Spiderman 3, which was relaeased in both, 35mm and digitally, the audience figures were much better for the digital release.

Anyway, RED seems to me a new and much better way to produce films and I can´t wait to get my ONE.

Frank

[Tim Lüdin]

Hi Frank

The nice thing about the RED picture is that it's so sharp and clean to work with. The basic image is just super clean. That's always a good starting point.
From there you can go almost everywhere. I don't hate grain but I just love clean images. Grain can help you tell a story but I more and more like to ad it later in post. So you have all the control till the end.

Im also amazed by the clean sill images. I never could extract such a clean picture right out of a movie. Its killer.
I also played with scratch at the IBC. It's crazy how hard you can hit the RED images in DI and they still don't fall apart.

Yes RED is not film, RED is different but in a very good way.
Change is good when it looks like RED.

Cheers

Tim

[albert rudnicki]

Somebody asked me: how was my grandfather doing?
I told him that he was dead.
We all loved him, and still do; nothing changed.
It was long time ago and the family has expended. We have aunts and uncles, brothers and cousins. Some bad and some wonderful.
Can anybody take a place of my grandfather?
NO
Can anybody replace anybody from my family?
NO
Live goes on and things change.

Hello RED
I am liking you already.

[Michael Ragen]

This post has more to do with stills, but:

I switched to shooting 35mm stills with a digital a little over a year ago. I loved shooting film, especially cross-processing. The thing that I liked about film was the unexpected results sometimes when pushing/pulling or processing slide for negative.

As far as doing professional work for business, digital just made more sense. I could see what I was getting right away.

I also used to own a Mamiya 7ii medium format rangefinder. I could only afford one lens, but the pictures were fabulous. The downside was my scanner took 30 minutes to scan one 200MB tiff.

Earlier this summer I ended up selling my Mamiya to buy a 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikon zoom for my Red. I definitely regret selling the Mamiya now and will probably sell the 17-35 as I am getting the Red 18-50.

This is not to say the 17-35 is a bad lens. It takes fantastic pictures with a d200.

As far as motion pictures go, I am very excited about the possibilities of the Red One as I am upgrading from an HVX.

And if I want to shoot 120 film again I suppose I can borrow my friend's Yashica tlr or maybe he'll finish his 11x14 camera (how many megapixels do you think that would be?).

Over all (and this has been said before) Red and film are two different formats, and Red is the one I can afford, and if money was no object, I would still probably choose Red for most projects vs. 35mm. If I could afford 65mm I could borrow my friend's Photosonics, although it weighs 150lbs+.

[mezmo]

Hi Guys,
There is a big risk here with this "film/HD is dead" stuff
to do the whole Red project a major disservice.
A lot of very well known DP's come to this site and others to
get some Red info and just leave because of this "film is dead"
rubbish. Most have seen and heard it all before with Sony and
Cinealta.
Because of this Red is fast getting a reputation as the *camera for wankers*.
I'd hate to see this happen as I'm interested in this box and
will be getting into a digital cinema camera of some sort next year.
I'm alarmed that the same stuff is on the Red website in one of the
testo's. Is JJ trying to shoot himself in the foot here.
If you guys want Red accepted as a seroius alternative for motion
picture production, stop behaving like a bunch of schoolkids and please
refrain from punching up the rest of the well established hard working
film and television industry with the "everything is dead Red rules" stuff.
Film is alive HD is alive and Red is now alive and working, at least last
time I looked. You guys with the cameras, let's see some moving H.264
pics, enough with the digital stills, they look great but they don't move.
Ah, that's please can we see some more moving pictures, sorry Mum.
Mezmo

[RivaiC]

Next Generation is 3D Movie for Big Guy.

[Mike Smith]

Hi Guys,
There is a big risk here with this "film/HD is dead" stuff
to do the whole Red project a major disservice.
A lot of very well known DP's come to this site and others to
get some Red info and just leave because of this "film is dead"
rubbish. Most have seen and heard it all before with Sony and
Cinealta.
Because of this Red is fast getting a reputation as the *camera for wankers*.
I'd hate to see this happen as I'm interested in this box and
will be getting into a digital cinema camera of some sort next year.
I'm alarmed that the same stuff is on the Red website in one of the
testo's. Is JJ trying to shoot himself in the foot here.
If you guys want Red accepted as a seroius alternative for motion
picture production, stop behaving like a bunch of schoolkids and please
refrain from punching up the rest of the well established hard working
film and television industry with the "everything is dead Red rules" stuff.
Film is alive HD is alive and Red is now alive and working, at least last
time I looked. You guys with the cameras, let's see some moving H.264
pics, enough with the digital stills, they look great but they don't move.
Ah, that's please can we see some more moving pictures, sorry Mum.
Mezmo
I tend to agree with you Mezmo. As a reservation holder myself, I come here for all the latest info on my camera-to-be. While there's nothing wrong with genuine enthusiasm and folks being upbeat about this exciting camera, some of the rah rah, "fanboy" stuff can get tiresome and does lower the apparent professionalism of the site in my view. I'm not sure it puts off all the well-known DPs but it certainly puts me off at times. I believe film will have plenty of use for the foreseeable future as will HD simply because it's the latest infrastructure of the broadcast industry. So anyone declaring its imminent dead is a little previous I would say. Perhaps if the title of this tread was something like: "The expected effect of RED on HD utilization", the intent of the original author might have been better realized.