Film still has a special place in my heart

[Spinflight]

I plan on using the RED ONE to acquire the source material. Then after the project is edited with minor color correction (or none depending on how it translates) do a film out on some of the projects just to get the tone and feel that film gives you. I think it'll translate nicely from 4K. Just another reason why the RED One is quite a versatile tool for acquisition. So film does still live on in my book... just not for acquisition anymore.

[explosive]

This makes me wonder of the day in the maybe but maybe not too distant future when we will be nostalgically saying, "4k still has a special place in my heart..."

And people will warmly chuckle and chide us saying, "Get with the times, mate."

:)

[jaadgy akanni]

My heart was empty until RED came along...

[I Bloom]

Thanks for the memories...

[Steve Sherrick]

Spinfight, what kind of budgets are you working with? I would assume that would be quite an expense to tack on. Obviously features for theatrical release would still require film outs, and perhaps some festivals still require it. So, if these projects are not for theatrical or festival, is this just an artistic decision? Either way, I respect the decision. I'm just curious about the financial end of it.

Steve

[Emanuel A.]

This makes me wonder of the day in the maybe but maybe not too distant future when we will be nostalgically saying, "4k still has a special place in my heart..."

And people will warmly chuckle and chide us saying, "Get with the times, mate."

:)


My heart was empty until RED came along...


Thanks for the memories...L M A O :)

[Greg Voevodsky]

Film still has a special place in my heart - but not in my wallet.

[Joe Taylor]

Film still has a special place in my freezer... at least it did last time I checked several years ago. Anybody want some film? "Sigh."

[Jason Murphy]

Film still has a special place in my freezer... at least it did last time I checked several years ago. Anybody want some film? "Sigh."

Whaddya got?

[Spinflight]

Spinfight, what kind of budgets are you working with? I would assume that would be quite an expense to tack on. Obviously features for theatrical release would still require film outs, and perhaps some festivals still require it. So, if these projects are not for theatrical or festival, is this just an artistic decision? Either way, I respect the decision. I'm just curious about the financial end of it.

Steve


Most likely music videos. 3 to 4 minute filmouts won't be that expensive. I just watched a filmout from the SI 2K camera a minute ago. Looks amazing. The textures and tones is what really caught my eye. Take a look and you'll see what I'm talking about.

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_footage.html

4th clip down from the top

I think the clean look of RED will have it's place and a filmout from RED will definitey be a viable option for those wanting to shoot film still but don't have the budget to originate on film. I think this workflow will catch on for many who still want to work with film but without the added expense of origination. I for one will probably shoot 90 percent of my music videos this way.

Like I said before, RED just opens up so many options.

[Chris Swinbanks]

Spinflight, just curious as to why you'd go back to film? Obviously you're after "the look".... however...
Whats the end product for your music videos, broadcast or film projection? Going to film will add minimal grain on intermediate stock, unless you go out to a camera stock. The "film look" shown in the qt (and was that a retransfer back off film, then qt'd?... it doesn't say) can be achieved through software (DI style) without the expense of film transfer and telecine (if for broadcast).
At the moment I can't justify in my head why you'd go that route.....
(and I'm a film/digital/film guy...)
regards

[Spinflight]

Spinflight, just curious as to why you'd go back to film? Obviously you're after "the look".... however...
Whats the end product for your music videos, broadcast or film projection? Going to film will add minimal grain on intermediate stock, unless you go out to a camera stock. The "film look" shown in the qt (and was that a retransfer back off film, then qt'd?... it doesn't say) can be achieved through software (DI style) without the expense of film transfer and telecine (if for broadcast).
At the moment I can't justify in my head why you'd go that route.....
(and I'm a film/digital/film guy...)
regards


Everything would go back to digital for broadcast.

If the certain tone that I'm looking for in a project can be achieved in software by all means I'd rather take that route. Much cheaper and quicker. I work a lot in audio, and we use software and a lot of hardware. The software can emulate but not get it quite perfect like the hardware we use in our mixes. Film to me is the hardware equivalent for a certain look.

I've been playing around with the Macgregor and crew footage and it looks amazing with the CC that I've applied. Maybe a filmout of that footage could take the look somewhere, where the software can't. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm talking out of the side of my neck. It would be interesting to see some comparisons though.

Either way, I'm just glad that RED gives me a really clean "Plate" to work with so that anything is possible. Software or Hardware.

I went back to the SI 2K site to look at the different clips again. Maybe I'm the only one that sees the difference in the look from the filmout vs the non filmout clips. Maybe software can give you that tonal feel and my eyes are just trippin'.

I'm going to open a can of worms here:

When light exposes film, it's very organic. There are no "pixels" per se since the reaction of the film being exposed to light blends the so called "pixels" together with one another which helps to create a smoother tone. Digital sensors can't physically blend the pixels with one another so it gives you a snappier crisper picture. Hence DP's use filters to soften the crisp image of digital. Put a film negative under a microscope and you'll see the blending. Every "pixel" is interconnected to the next without any space. Maybe this is the aspect that digital color correction can't seem to emulate.

CWS, can you elaborate more about this DI software that you spoke of. This could save me a lot of time and money if it makes the filmout useless and unneccesary for the look I'm trying to acheive.

[RivaiC]

Indeed, Film still has its own place. I still like it very much

[Fix]

I was at the cinema a couple of weeks ago and saw “The Bourne Ultimatum”. The picture was not that sharp, latitude just ok and all that, but the sensation of analogue film really gave me that feel good experience. Sharpens, latitude and colors you get from a digital projection are really great, no doubt. But the flickers and almost “alive” picture you get from a traditional cinema is fantastic and the key to why I go there over and over again.

It’s all the difference from watching a movie at home on your HD tv. Even on a HD projector.

[Chris Swinbanks]

cws, can you elaborate more about this DI software that you spoke of. This could save me a lot of time and money if it makes the filmout useless and unneccesary for the look I'm trying to acheive.Well, in what you could call the "RED" tradition, you could start with Apple's Colour, or go with any of the higher end pro systems (Baselight, Lustre, Film Master, Scratch, Da Vinci....etc etc). DI (Digital Intermediate).... I was just referring to the colour grade, perhaps adding grain, playing with contrast. Google "filmlook", there have been many attempts over the years to recreate that look, some companies specialised in it, particularly as a video treatment.
From the initial influence though, looking at QT's on a PC/Mac/other flavour, there may have been so many different influences on so many different stages of the conversion process to create that QT. Unless the process is fully explained, you may be led to believe what you are seeing is attributed to a film component, where it may be attributable to a combination of multiple processes, eg original video/data grade, how the data to film transfer was done (this can vary widely and have a major influence), neg processing, telecine from neg (= grade), generate qt (another "grade" possible)......... way too many influences to make a proper judgement call.
Screwing round with a colour grade program will likely get you close to "the look" without throwing your hard-earned at a lab/transfer facilities, at least to start off.... :biggrin: hope that makes sense...

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Film has a special place alright -- in the history books, where it belongs.

[Petr Dvorak]

film or red, it doesn't matter they are just tools

[chuck colburn]

film or red, it doesn't matter they are just tools

Got that right Hawaj. Mayby John boy is just having a bad day all around.

[Nik Manning]

I am sure you could use a filter to simulate the look of something being shot on film. No need to go back.

[Spinflight]

film or red, it doesn't matter they are just tools

Got that right.

I've done all the software color grading. I've done filmouts. Both give you a different look and feel. I just think RED footage filmedout will look amazing, and believe it or not, will have a different tone than what just software can do. Film and RED together could be a lethal combination.

I see film as if it's another plugin I can add to the footage(may it be a little expensive and more time consuming).

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

But I wanna slide that celluloid through my fingers, get high off the smell and accidentally cut my self every now and then!