Keep video and film seperate please! [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Jaime Valles

07-14-2006, 09:15 AM

Film is simply a recording medium. So is MiniDV, P2, flash, etc. Nobody should care what is used to capture footage. What matters is if the finished product tells the story effectively.

The same thing that happened to still photography will happen to cinema. Digital 35mm SLR cameras have taken over the world of film cameras. It didn't mean film photography died; it has simply been mostly replaced by a faster, cheaper (in the long run) more convenient technology. Hollywood movies will be created the same way very, very soon, for the same reasons.

That said, I'd LOVE to shoot on 35mm film right now, and anyone with the resources will be hard pressed (today) to shoot with anything else. But for me, the $$$ to shoot on film simply wasn't there. MiniDV allowed my first feature film to be made. If not for video, there would be no movie, period. I understand the limitations of dv (resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity, etc.) However, we shot the thing, and got it edited, and were accepted into several film festivals, and nobody in the movie theaters complained about the softness or noisiness of the image. They saw the movie as a fun, engaging story full of comedy and adventure, and were enjoying it thoroughly. Would it have looked better if I had shot it on Anamorphic Cinemascope 35mm? Hell yeah! But it wasn't film. It was digital. It was projected digitally in theaters that held between 200 and 500 audience members, and everyone enjoyed it. So much so that it actually won the Audience Award in one of the festivals, over several other features shot on 35mm.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter what you shoot on. Just go out there and make your movie. If it's good, it'll find it's audience.

Proteus

07-14-2006, 09:29 AM

The purpose of film and digital video is the same: To record a sequence of images that can give the illusion of motion when played back (surprise, surprise!).
Currently film has its advantages on quality and digital video its own on economy, workflow and control.
But, digital video is getting better exponentially, affected by most technology advances. Its difference on quality from film is continuously decreasing, also exponentially, so it's obvious that soon or later, it will reach the image quality that film can provide today. But, digital video evolution won't stop there. It will continue to getting better and better, continuously leaving film behind and in some point in time, there will be no reason for someone to shoot in film except perhaps for historical or romantic reasons...

Although I like film I am futurist more than romantic. I would congratulate those who gave birth to this excellent recording medium so long ago (if they were alive), as they made a revolution at their time, but we too, have to take their example and look forward, take advantage and even contribute if we can, to a similar revolution of *our* time which is obviously the digital medium.

All the above are obvious. That’s why we forget them. :)

..and for the history...

The inventor of the first permanent photograph
Joseph Nicéphore Niépce (March 7, 1765 – July 5, 1833):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Joseph_Nicéphore_Niépce.jpg

________________________________________________
Zoopraxiscope moving picture projector in 1879 by Eadweard Muybridge (1830-1904):
http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/muybridge/muybridgeportrait.jpg http://www.kingston.ac.uk/Muybridge/img0014.jpg

________________________________________________
World's first public film screening on December 28, 1895
by the Lumière brothers.
They made the Cinématographe in 1895 hand-cranked camera, projector and printer combined:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Fratelli_Lumiere.jpg/180px-Fratelli_Lumiere.jpg http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmpft/img/about/collections/photographs/lumiere-cinematographe.jpg

________________________________________________
RCA Victor sound camera.
The world's first 16mm optical sound-on-film camera introduced in 1935:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/rca.jpg

FAST FORWARD IN TIME....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The RED camera ...to be released... :)

Graeme_Nattress

07-14-2006, 11:26 AM

zoostory

07-14-2006, 11:48 AM

"man is man"

B. Brecht.

ZaneIsNumber1

07-14-2006, 01:15 PM

Of course film looks better than video. It's been around WAY longer!

I understand why many would not be keen on HD. It seems every time I see a HD production that makes me think "Wow! I couldn't tell the difference". I see something shot HD that looks a bit shit. In some cases, I see both in the same movie (ie: Wolf Creek, proudly shot in my home state, but looking pretty video whenever the sun came out).

It's mostly to do with lighting and how it's treated in post. And it can look too sharp. I like the dreamlike haziness of film. I don't mind grain either. Films that could afford otherwise sometimes shoot 16mm or with grainier stock for the look (or to hide makeup effects, ie: Bubba Ho Tep on 800 ISO stock).

But, hey, it's also about economics, and when you like in a state that doesn't even have a lab, film can be pricey. And HD can have such a simple workflow.

My thoughts, anyway.

taubkin

07-14-2006, 01:35 PM

What is this? 1989 again? I though we were over with this sort of poo poo. (I´m actually writting the words poo poo now, so the auto-censorship don´t need to go through all the trouble...)

Honestly, "silly" is a very mild word to describe the innitial post. And with all do respect, dasonras, "purist" also don´t fit very well. Red or not red, people have to get over some things. The fact that most films are digitally intermediated, is a great example, why film is not film anymore. And we all already know video is not video anymore. And we have airplanes, the internet, nuclear fusion (and fission!), superconductors, the internet, and
south park. We´re not in kansas anymore, and it´s 2006. Maybe we still are a long road from flying cars, but maybe we´re getting closer to digital moving image acquisition. What´s wrong with that?

Usually the "so-called purists", and I don´t direct this personally at dasonras, since I don´t know that person, are not the brightest of individual, and are just making excuses for things they can´t understand, either because of the lack of intelligence, or the lack of will. Sanding still won´t get you anywhere. (Ok, it might, if you´re on a train or something, but, then again, the guy in the first wagon will get there first!)

Cheers and Good Luck keeping video and film separate, for all that are willing to try. When you´re at it, you can try to avoid the cure of cancer to be discovered... :P

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 02:42 PM

RED is in no way making video emulate film. However, RED is not, strictly speaking, video, either. It's a very high quality motion image capturing device - a movie camera, that just tries to capture the best quality image it can. As to how you make it look, well, that's up to you. We're just allowing you to record the max dynamic range, with max resolution for you to decide how you display.

Graeme
To say that RED "is in no way making video emulatate film" seems a bit of an overstatement as max dynamic range, max resolution, 24p and variable speed capability, large sensor resulting in 35mm depth of field characteristics, etc., etc., are all film-derived quality objectives. Some users will want to emulate a film look, others may not. But the capability to do so will be intrinsic in the technology as far as I can tell. No, it's not a film camera, but it should be very capable of emulating a film look. In fact, if it doesn't, what's the point?

Graeme_Nattress

07-14-2006, 02:49 PM

Those are not film specific qualities though - they're just desirable qualities for an imaging system that happen, in many ways, to be met by film. But this is all semantics....

As for 24p, sure - people want it, but I'll be shooting 60p myself :-)

Graeme

mike the beginner

07-14-2006, 05:03 PM

QUOTE:they're just desirable qualities for an imaging system

Exactly!!! I love hearing Graeme speak of dynamics rather than just resolution. Surely it must warm the hearts of you guys out there that Red is not just looking at resolution but lattitude and dynamics AND resolution . As a beginner it sounds prety impressive to me:)

Graeme_Nattress

07-14-2006, 05:07 PM

We're looking at as much of the picture as we can. RED is so much more than a film replacement. We're not just innovating on price.

Graeme

Proteus

07-14-2006, 05:20 PM

I was about to reply when I saw your post mike, but anyway here is my (similar) view…

The film (the medium) has some general qualities, like (usually) greater latitude and resolution and also has a specific look. The look might include the different type of noise (grain), the “s” curve response, random pixels, tonality etc (although some of these might be generally desirable).

The point is that when digital will match or exceed the general qualities of film, then we’ll be able to *simulate* the film’s look and any other look we desire.

If RED gives us real 10+ stops latitude, then along with the 4k we’ll come much closer.

As for 24p, sure - people want it, but I'll be shooting 60p myself :-)

Me too! Imagine HD+ on a great display with the smoothest motion!
It will be like looking out of the window (without being there of course)! :)

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 05:30 PM

Me too! Imagine HD+ on a great display with the smoothest motion!
It will be like looking out of the window (without being there of course)! :)
I hope we'll be able to broadcast 1080p/60 sooner rather than later. And I don't think it's even in the Blu-ray spec at this point. Some of the new HDTVs are 1080p/60 capable, but not the hd-dvd or blu-ray players. A big oversight, IMO.

Graeme_Nattress

07-14-2006, 05:37 PM

If that's the case, that they don't support 1080p60, then they're at best half formats that will not last.

Graeme

Graeme_Nattress

07-14-2006, 06:14 PM

Well, both video and film are different from RED. RED is really neither. I'm not saying you can't do video with RED, but video, to me, implies lots of things: interlace, 2.2 gamma, sharpened edges etc. That's the video look. RED is different - you'll be able to just record images with minimal or no processing and derive your own look from them. This will have it's own aesthetic.

Graeme

dasonras

07-14-2006, 06:15 PM

I'm glad that my initial post caused somewhat of a stir; I am always open to learning about other peoples opinions on matters.

Just to clarify...I'm not bad mouthing Red, since I really don't even know the technical qualities of their product.

My fear is that the "look" that we all are trying to obtain will one day become very generic looking. You see, in the 70's and 80's, films that were studio shot had cinematic quality to them that home or amateur filmmakers could not obtain. This is what separated the high and the low. It is also what made certain films have quality to them that an audience can recognize and appreciate. Today...it seems that with digital innovation, "everyone" is able to make a great looking movie; and in turn, movies are becoming less and less unique looking.

Secondly, I feel that working with cine cameras is far more difficult than working with digital cameras. There is a lot more work involved in being a cinematographer who works with cine cameras. I consider cinematography an art; everything from selecting lenses and filmstock, to lighting the set. Digital filmmaking in a way is taking away from the artistic aspect of traditional cinematography.

Is film and video simply defined as a "recording medium"? There is a specific reason one would use film over video for given projects. I don't see the nightly news be recorded on 16mm film! So yes, video should be left for some projects and film left to others. Ones that require a particular color saturation and depth of field, film are your answer. If something like that doesn't matter, then use video. Additionally, if you want a little history, video was primarily used on television during the 70's and 80's. This helped define "what TV should look like" and "what a movie theatre should look like."

Another response...I am not saying I dislike digital video (or video at all). I record on video almost every day of my life. I'm also NOT saying that either medium looks better than the other. They are two completely different mediums and cannot be compared in "how good they compare."

Another response.. QUOTE: "FILM CAN BE PRICEY; IT'S A MATTER OF ECONOMICS." <--- Um...I'm glad you figured this out on your own. Filmmaking is supposed to be pricey. This is why many years ago there weren't as many amateur filmmakers.

QUOTE: "Usually the "so-called purists", and I don’t direct this personally at dasonras, since I don´t know that person, are not the brightest of individual, and are just making excuses for things they can´t understand, either because of the lack of intelligence, or the lack of will. Sanding still won´t get you anywhere. (Ok, it might, if you´re on a train or something, but, then again, the guy in the first wagon will get there first!)"

^^^Okay, now, I'm not sure how seriously you take this industry, but for me, this is my job. Meaning, I make money by shooting filmstock. Now, if we continue in the direction that we are headed, salaries for cinematographers are going to drop dramatically. Too many people are becoming cinematographers. The skill and art is being compromised. As more and more digital technology becomes available, there will be a surplus of cinematographers (all working for a fraction of what they were once paid). This industry is about competition. And it seems to be getting more and more generic.

Keep the discussion going, because I am very interested. Please do not use direct attacks or offensiveness. We are just discussing point of views. It is interesting, i posted something like this on a FILM ONLY forum and more people seemed to share more traditional views. And oh... purists are not necessarily "not bright." I am a purist because I enjoy the art and challenge of filming. I feel that with digital filmmaking, the challenge is somewhat diminished.

Proteus

07-14-2006, 06:24 PM

If that's the case, that they don't support 1080p60, then they're at best half formats that will not last.

Graeme

Greg you are right –unfortunately! I did a short search to be sure and it seems that both formats (Blu Ray and HD DVD) support only the current HDTV resolutions and frame rates:

- 1920 x 1080 HD (50i, 60i and 24p)
- 1280 x 720 HD (50p, 60p and 24p)
- 720 x 576/480 SD (50i or 60i)

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-13627/Index.html
http://www.dvdforum.org/hddvd-whatis.htm

You can always convert easily from 60p to 60i but that’s not the same thing…

Also, AFAIK there is no format (including WMV) supporting 60fps at 1080p except one or two mpeg-1 encoders and maybe a couple of older (and not efficient) codecs I think.
But its easy for some company to extend it's proprietary format and add 1080p at 60fps.
That will be playable from a powerfull pc (e.g HTPC) but not from a table player.
If there IS demand though, that might make companies to support such an extention like they did with the WMV and DivX! :)

mike the beginner

07-14-2006, 06:26 PM

QUOTE; I hope we'll be able to broadcast 1080p/60 sooner rather than later. And I don't think it's even in the Blu-ray spec at this point. Some of the new HDTVs are 1080p/60 capable, but not the hd-dvd or blu-ray players. A big oversight, IMO.

Oh Greg i fear you may be right on this one. Why are we so slow on moving broadcast TV to match existing technological advances. Here in Britain we waited about 7 years to see widescreen TVs to more or less take over the old 4x3 format. We still have the majority of broadcast programmes at the 4x3 format or are a hybrid format between 4x3 and 16x9. It is going to take us ten years to change from analogue to digital. We have a two year war (so far) between Blue Ray and the alternative. You rightly state they have messed up big time in not providing 1080p capable. As far as i gather Hitachi have now produced a 1080p here in Britain and others will surely follow. When you see things like this you just wonder are we all getting ahead of ourselves big time or not?

Michael

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 06:36 PM

I may be wrong, but it's the European HDTV standard set at 720p/50?

Proteus

07-14-2006, 07:01 PM

I may be wrong, but it's the European HDTV standard set at 720p/50?

Yes, as in my previous post there is 720p 50 and 720p 60.
But NO 1080p 60 (or 50) anywhere.

In Europe 50fps will be probably selected in most cases but I don't see it as a general restriction. The displays would display both and probably the players too. HDTV is more universal than NTSC and PAL.

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 07:14 PM

[quote=Proteus]Greg you are right –unfortunately! I did a short search to be sure and it seems that both formats (Blu Ray and HD DVD) support only the current HDTV resolutions and frame rates:

Unfortunately, broadcasters and cable operators seem to be resisting 1080p/60 due to bandwidth considerations. But it is more surprising that hd-dvd and blu-ray aren't including 1080p/60 in their spec. I suspect this will change and maybe it's a good thing that the players are delayed and not many are being sold. I personally think that blu-ray makes the most sense for the future as we're going to need all of the disk storage space possible for 1080p/60, 3D, etc.

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 07:18 PM

Yes, as in my previous post there is 720p 50 and 720p 60.
But NO 1080p 60 (or 50) anywhere.

In Europe 50fps will be probably selected in most cases but I don't see it as a general restriction. The displays would display both and probably the players too. HDTV is more universal than NTSC and PAL.

Sorry, I missed your 720p/50 reference.

For producers it's going to be important to choose the most versatile mastering format considering the different US and European HDTV standards. 24p is probably the best solution, although definitely a big compromise.

taubkin

07-14-2006, 08:13 PM

I'm glad that my initial post caused somewhat of a stir; I am always open to learning about other peoples opinions on matters.

I´m glad you´re actually interested in this argument, instead of just trolling! That makes things more fun! Sorry for the missspelling, I´m typing from a keabord in very bad shape, and it´s driving me nuts!

My fear is that the "look" that we all are trying to obtain will one day become very generic looking. You see, in the 70's and 80's, films that were studio shot had cinematic quality to them that home or amateur filmmakers could not obtain. This is what separated the high and the low. It is also what made certain films have quality to them that an audience can recognize and appreciate. Today...it seems that with digital innovation, "everyone" is able to make a great looking movie; and in turn, movies are becoming less and less unique looking.

There is more to good cinematography than obtaining a certain look. And acessibility is NOT going to turn everybody into great cinematographers! This has been argued to death by people much better prepared than you and me, this was the root of all the film vs. digital debate that consumed the international film academy for more than a decade. They concluded that acessibility to the tools won´t make people better artists! THINKING and FEELING will make people better artists.

Is film and video simply defined as a "recording medium"? There is a specific reason one would use film over video for given projects. I don't see the nightly news be recorded on 16mm film!

But they were, for many and many years.

Okay, now, I'm not sure how seriously you take this industry, but for me, this is my job. Meaning, I make money by shooting filmstock. Now, if we continue in the direction that we are headed, salaries for cinematographers are going to drop dramatically. Too many people are becoming cinematographers. The skill and art is being compromised. As more and more digital technology becomes available, there will be a surplus of cinematographers (all working for a fraction of what they were once paid). This industry is about competition. And it seems to be getting more and more generic.

Are you trying to say you are a purist because you´re afraid to loose your job to some kid that knows nothing about cinematography but has 17.500 dollars to spend on this new camera? If so, I fear for your future. I take the industry very seriously, but I might be radically less experienced than you. I actually want to be the kid that will take all the jobs of the cinematographers that refuse to recicle their knowledge and move forward with the times. If you are one of them, new camera or no new camera, you´re doomed to become jurassic anyway.

Keep the discussion going, because I am very interested. Please do not use direct attacks or offensiveness. We are just discussing point of views. It is interesting, i posted something like this on a FILM ONLY forum and more people seemed to share more traditional views. And oh... purists are not necessarily "not bright." I am a purist because I enjoy the art and challenge of filming. I feel that with digital filmmaking, the challenge is somewhat diminished.

Don´t take it personally, I´m being blunt, more like a devils advocate, but in any way I seriously wish to imply negative things about you or your ability as a Cinematographer. I just get pissed off with cinematographers that hide behind some sort of Mystical world of uncanny powers and walk around the set like a genious, when, in fact they´re only there because they have 15 years of experience in mediocricy. I know a lot of those...And if RED is what it takes to rise and take those people´s jobs, great!

Proteus

07-14-2006, 10:02 PM

Today...it seems that with digital innovation, "everyone" is able to make a great looking movie; and in turn, movies are becoming less and less unique looking.

I wish it was true! Because if this was possible, if “everyone” was able to make a *technically* great-looking movie with the same quality as Hollywood, that would cause an artistic revolution!
Why? Because the big producers would have to turn to art to compete! (Instead of BS).
Imagine spending millions to improve the artistic side of the films! That would be a celebration of art! But of course it's only a dream…

Secondly, I feel that working with cine cameras is far more difficult than working with digital cameras. There is a lot more work involved in being a cinematographer who works with cine cameras. I consider cinematography an art; everything from selecting lenses and filmstock, to lighting the set. Digital filmmaking in a way is taking away from the artistic aspect of traditional cinematography.

First of all, the art factor is always the same –not depending on the medium. Art cannot be substituted. In digital it will simply be different. As for tradition, I’m futurist. If you like film and admire its creators, do what they did: Look forward.

Second, I have my objections about where the art in a film is being focused.
The art currently is being seriously limited to the “make” of the movie and NOT to the essence of the movie.
The majority of the movies have nothing to say and there are many reasons to be avoided… so the majority of people watch scrap movies and gain nothing. And they get used to gain nothing and respect nothing. And then they go out and kill each other –even the kids do this. “But there was art in these movies, in the lens selection, the lighting, the film process…and a lot of tradition!”

Number 1 priority should be the essence of the movie which is the script, because with today’s spread and marketing, believe it or not, a movie has the tremendous power to affect millions!

And the script is the last thing they care… In fact they intentionally repeat the same BS and the same recipes each time, that they think will sell.
Also there should be a lot more art in photography and direction. The reason to see a movie should not be just to kill your time; it should be worth each second…

^^^Okay, now, I'm not sure how seriously you take this industry, but for me, this is my job. Meaning, I make money by shooting filmstock. Now, if we continue in the direction that we are headed, salaries for cinematographers are going to drop dramatically. Too many people are becoming cinematographers. The skill and art is being compromised. As more and more digital technology becomes available, there will be a surplus of cinematographers (all working for a fraction of what they were once paid). This industry is about competition. And it seems to be getting more and more generic.

Each revolution has its own temporary consequences until everyone is adapted. We all should adapt continuously today no matter in what area, because everything is changing rapidly.
And I wouldn’t support a selfish argument. We all should care for the general good NOT just for ourselves, because exactly *this* selfish tactic is driving us ALL to hell right now –the whole planet…remember?

To end this long reply, if digital is going to benefit the vast majority, then this is the right medium. Simple as that.

Greg Voevodsky

07-14-2006, 10:16 PM

Well, having been a producer and director and having shot 35mm at about $1 a foot (30 cents stock, 30 cents processing, 30 cents work print - back in 1996 at 24 frames a second. I was paying $100 a take for a 2 minute shot every time an actor blew a line!) I look forward to RED in a big way, my wallet.

Just since most of us will never afford $150,000 Ferraries, many of us love our $30-60,000 sports cars that can beat the arrogant Ferrari owners much like the Ford GT40 did in Le Mann in 1967. This film vs video argument reminds me of the editors who loved touching film... having touched film, cut film, looked for and hunged film... the last of a generation, I can say cutting film was like picking cotton, and a computer or machine that makes the work easy, creative, fun, and AFFORDABLE, is welcomed... and re-invigorates editing (Natural Born Killers, etc)...

Much like Apple did for desktop publishing, Avid for film editing, and the Internet did for publishing and broadcasting, technology breakthroughs have humbled the lucky and few hard working film editors, also the rich or privilege media moguls and corporations and has given us the individuals the chance and audience to deliver products to the people (Thank God for Amazon.com and E-bay that support us entrepreneurs and indi-filmmakers and writers / bloggers).

If we all had to go through Barns and Noble, Wallmart, 35mm film, the film distributors, we wouldn't have this great and free creative multi-media.

Lastly, having seen blu-ray at Circuit City with a Hollywood movie playing on a horrible LCD Screen - I could see film grain and bad contrast compared to the plasmas playing normal DVDs. Ironically, it's the Discovery's Nature Channel shooting 1080i with shots of the Grand Canyon - beautiful and sharp - that make HD really stand out. Film has always been a lyrical, surreal, abstract format with a minimum frames 24 (the cheapest possible- not the best) - 30 would be sharper and more lifelike. Also the colors and art direction (color selection) make film more like a dream. Where video at higher frames, and now equal or higher resolution - can capture 'reality' better. I'd rather see the Grand Canyon in Red's 4k or 2K than in film with grain and color curves. (However, if it were a story of the Grand Canyon or in a narrative movie, I might like to see it done in lyrical film style.)

It's funny now, that most people on Amazon.com would rather watch DVDs with no noise or film grain! So now digital cinematography which minimizes noise and grain, is the new way like color over b/w. Embrace the future, like still photography has done already.

Greg Voevodsky

07-14-2006, 10:16 PM

martinimitt

07-14-2006, 10:28 PM

I am somewhat of a purist. I believe video is video and film is film, and there shouldn't be any sense in trying to make video emulate film.

They are two entirely seperate and different mediums that satisfy different project needs.

If you want your project to look like 35mm film, then go out and buy an Arri.

You can keep using film for "film" while the rest of the industry moves toward "digital 24".

I was a musician when recording to hard drive just started and remember the talk that "hard drives would never replace 1 inch tape. Have you heard digital recording? It sounds soooo different and worse than analog".

The owner of that studio can't give away his analog machines and the entire studio works with ProTools.

Robert Rodriquez to told be that "film was dead". I have to disagree - it's dying a slow, angonizing death.

acrochordon

07-14-2006, 10:56 PM

If Arri is Ferrari and RED is Porsche, I need a camera company that is Subaru Sti. That is my price range. Porsche is cheaper than Ferrari, but still out of my reach.

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 11:00 PM

I think ARRI would prefer to be compared to the Porsche (911). A design that has gone through so many iterations that it's now rock solid in every way. Just as importantly, they're both German. haha.

acrochordon

07-14-2006, 11:11 PM

Who says Blu-ray will not have 1080p?

The Samsung Blu-ray players are up converted 1080i to make a pseudo/quazi 1080p.

Sony PS-3 will have Blu-ray with 1080p. At least that is what they say. Maybe they are not telling the whole truth.

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2006/02/16/survey_says_pla.html

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 11:24 PM

The blu-ray dvd spec document does not include 1080p/60. I carefully read it. Repeatedly. Maybe it's a mistake, but there is no mention of 1080p/60 in the formal document.

I too have read about PS-3 having 1080p/60 support. Confusing. But that's Sony these days.

Upconverted 1080i to 1080p isn't even close to native 1080p/60.

acrochordon

07-14-2006, 11:27 PM

http://www.realgeek.com/89/panasonic-bluray-promoted-in-1080p-package/

Greg Lowry

07-14-2006, 11:33 PM

Says 1080p, but not 1080p/60. Keep looking, I would love to know that what I read is wrong.

The blu-ray users group says they're not aware of 1080p/60 being included in the blu-ray player spec. Bad, bad, bad.

hoofandmouf

07-14-2006, 11:46 PM

"My fear is that the "look" that we all are trying to obtain will one day become very generic looking. You see, in the 70's and 80's, films that were studio shot had cinematic quality to them that home or amateur filmmakers could not obtain. This is what separated the high and the low. It is also what made certain films have quality to them that an audience can recognize and appreciate. Today...it seems that with digital innovation, "everyone" is able to make a great looking movie; and in turn, movies are becoming less and less unique looking."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

You mention "high" and "low" and that immediately brings me back to my art school days... no offense but you sound like one of my old painting professors that used to rag on illustrator and graphic design. He pretty ragged on any art that used a computer in the creative process. Same thing happened in photography.... this debate just seems to go round and round

Look, film is great.... HD is great..... they both have their differences, weak points, strong points. To simply write all digital mediums off as "video" shows a lack of knowledge or better yet an insecurity and anxiety about the future. Others have said it on this thread, think FORWARD, PROGRESSIVE.... look at digital for what it is. Another option for the filmmaker to achieve his story.... if you do not adapt you will become obsolete.

that is all.

William_Robinette

07-15-2006, 12:00 AM

movies are becoming less and less unique looking.

I'm glad you figured this out on your own. Filmmaking is supposed to be pricey.

Meaning, I make money by shooting filmstock. Now, if we continue in the direction that we are headed, salaries for cinematographers are going to drop dramatically. Too many people are becoming cinematographers. The skill and art is being compromised. As more and more digital technology becomes available, there will be a surplus of cinematographers (all working for a fraction of what they were once paid). This industry is about competition.

I mean no disrespect.

But gut reaction from a quick overview of this thread is that you, dasonras, or someone with this viewpoint, are crying because you now have to share your sandbox with everyone else,... even though you think you make the nicer sandcastles. I would be concerned for their future if you think a bunch of kids are going to pick up digital cameras and put them out of a job. If that happens, maybe they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.

And I don't think film is "supposed" to be expensive. I think it just is...

Gibby

07-15-2006, 08:51 AM

I shoot film stills and digital stills, 16mm & 35mm film, and SD and HD video. Media convergence doesn't have to equal media collision. As a director and DP, I approach my projects thinking what medium and equipment would best express what I’m trying to say – and still stay within the project budget.

It’s counter-productive to divide into little fiefdoms and shout our case over the walls at the other encampment defenders. The stark reality is that the age of ones and zeros, a digital world, arrived in many industries some time ago. Film in stills and 35mm film in motion media will probably never disappear completely, for various reasons, but if recent developments in the still photography industry are any indication of trends for the closely related motion media industry, here are the facts:

- This year Canon and Nikon both announced that they are ceasing development and production of any new SLR film cameras.
- Konica Minolta quit the photography business altogether
- Kodak posted a $298 million dollar loss for Quarter 1 of 2006, their sixth straight quarterly loss. Experts assess that as Kodak being slow in adopting to the increased demand for digital, and a commensurately decreasing demand for film
- More than ¾ of all still photography cameras sold today are digital, and that total is estimated to be over 90% by 2010.

The motion media industry uses the same basic technologies as the still photography industry: film and digital. The chipset and use of my Canon 20D DSLR and RED are very similar: single CMOS, Flash, etc. The basic technology of my first 35mm photo camera, a Nikon F (1969), roughly parallels the mechanical technology of later 16mm and 35mm film cameras.

No amount of sentimentalism will stem the onslaught of digital technology in the convergent motion media industry. My approach is to take the very best of my accumulated digital and film knowledge and apply it to each project – cinematic techniques applied to digital technology. For sentimental or aesthetic reasons I still take out my old Nikon F and shoot some film once in a while. That same afternoon I may take my Canon 20D out and shoot some digital stills. I don’t feel the need for it to be an “either/or” situation, although I obviously know that the digital workflow of the digital SLR represents the main part of the present and future. The same with 16mm and 35mm film. I use them when the aesthetics of the story I’m trying to tell absolutely define that film is the way to go – and the project budget will allow for it. I approach SD and HD video the same way. When a project budget, or “look and feel” call for digital video, I use it.

The people in the motion media industry with the broadest skill sets are those in the most demand, and that trend is increasing. They are the ones who have the opportunity to be included in the broadest range of projects. If you have the latest convergence tool, but you don’t have convergent skills, you are like the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest! Why even have the tool if you’re not going to maximize it’s professional and economic potential? If you’re a traditional “film guy” why not swallow your pride and learn digital technology and application? If you’re a traditional “video guy” why not swallow your pride and learn cinematic techniques and equipment? If you do, you’ll be stoked professionally and you’ll smile all the way to the bank!

Here’s to the end of motion media fiefdoms, and the beginning of true collaboration…(raises glass). We’re all part of the same tribe now, and we can learn from each other, rather than let pride or jealousies prevent us from pushing forward the boundaries of creativity.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

taubkin

07-15-2006, 11:32 AM

...Simple as that.

...Here’s to the end of motion media fiefdoms, and the beginning of true collaboration…

I rest my case. I´ll leave the rest to the native english speakers on nice keyboards, that could put it so well.

Cheers!

Jarred Land

07-15-2006, 11:35 AM

Here’s to the end of motion media fiefdoms, and the beginning of true collaboration…(raises glass). We’re all part of the same tribe now, and we can learn from each other, rather than let pride or jealousies prevent us from pushing forward the boundaries of creativity.

Gibby

jesus that almost brought a tear to my eye. :) post of the day so far. Thanks Gibby.

govindaBLU

07-15-2006, 12:16 PM

tear.....

Proteus

07-15-2006, 02:03 PM

Uhm... taubkin, I'm not a native speaker… I make many mistakes, but I'm learning...
BTW your reply to dasonras was great! :thumbsup:

taubkin

07-15-2006, 07:06 PM

Got me! LOL! :thumbsup:

dasonras

07-16-2006, 02:02 PM

Some clarification....

First, someone above was trying to make the point that video and film are collaborative mediums and that most hollywood films today start on film and are editing in a video environment (or vice versa). Clearly, my point was not understood here.

I am not saying that the two recording mediums should not be used in collaboration, but that it is WRONG to try to perfect a product that will make video EMULATE a film look.

Recap....I feel that films should be shot on film, and video (not necessarily limiting to digital mediums, but also including analog forms of video), should be left to projects that don't require a cinematic look.

The emulation of film on video medium destroys the challenge and art of a cinematographer. For those of you who have never operated a cine camera, and only video cameras, then you really don't understand the challenges faced during ACTUAL filmmaking.

Jarred Land

07-16-2006, 02:10 PM

i couldnt disagree with you more dasonras. I think if you really believe that digital cannot be cinematic then you my friend are in for one hell of a ride in the next couple years.

dasonras

07-16-2006, 02:23 PM

Again, more misunderstanding....

I am not saying "digital cannot be cinematic"

I am saying VIDEO should NOT be cinematic.

There needs to be a distinguishing look between TV and CINEMA.

Blaine

07-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Again, more misunderstanding....

I am not saying "digital cannot be cinematic"

I am saying VIDEO should NOT be cinematic.

There needs to be a distinguishing look between TV and CINEMA.
Now that's just crazy. To say that video shouldn't be cinematic sounds more like, "I've spent so much money on film, it's not fair for you to do the same thing with video (read digital)."

If you can do it, why the hell sink all the money into film costs when it could be used to boost other areas in your filmmaking?

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 02:29 PM

Video is it's own unique art form, and indeed the type of digital video that RED will produce is as different again from traditional video as is it is different from traditional film.

Now, Dasonras, you're using the word "cinematic" as if it has some real definition. To me, it's a wooly word that to me, it means cinematic if you're watching it in a cinema :-)

Will projects shot on RED look "cinematic" - yes indeed. Will they be made to look (traditionally) video-like, yes indeed. Can you shoot with the RED and make it look like film? Yes indeed. It's your choice.

I totally agree with Jarred here (that's me personally speaking). You just have to look at all the film die-hards in the stills world shooting digital and loving it, and making real photographic looking photographs that are art in every definition of the world. Video is always a few years behind photography.....

Also, I'd totally disagree that a video camera destroys challenge and art. This is, again, me speaking personally here, an elitist attitude, that has no roots in reality. It's really, really hard to shoot good video and make it look really good. It's not point and shoot, it's not auto everything let the camera do it all for you. Does video make some things easier? Yes - it gives you WYSIWYG and instant playback. Digital stills are the same, and all this changes for the better is the learning curve. That means, due to instant feedback if you want to learn to improve, you can improve quicker. You don't have to wait for film to be developed to learn if you got it right - you learn there and then, on the spot or soon after, and because it's there and then, you remember what you did, and because of the metadata you've got a record of your settings, again, helping learning. SO no, it doesn't take away any skill or art, but it accelerates those who want to learn, who take the effort to learn.

Also, it's results that count, not how you achieve them. When the audience is watching on the big screen, in the cinema, they don't care whether it's shot on film, video or RED. What they care about is whether they enjoy it or not, and the technology behind the film is rather irrelevent to how they enjoy it....

Graeme

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 02:31 PM

Again, more misunderstanding....

I am not saying "digital cannot be cinematic"

I am saying VIDEO should NOT be cinematic.

There needs to be a distinguishing look between TV and CINEMA.

Why?? TO state such a thing does not make it true! Why! Why should people not make video look like what they want it to look like??? Why does TV need to look different to what you see in the cinema?? Why??

And RED is not video - it's digital cinema. That's as different to video as it is to film. It's a new medium, just waiting for artists to master and produce great looking visuals with!

Graeme

Blaine

07-16-2006, 02:33 PM

And RED is not video - it's digital cinema. That's as different to video as it is to film. It's a new medium, just waiting for artists to master and produce great looking visuals with!
There it is! I love that definition!

Haakon

07-16-2006, 02:38 PM

The emulation of film on video medium destroys the challenge and art of a cinematographer. For those of you who have never operated a cine camera, and only video cameras, then you really don't understand the challenges faced during ACTUAL filmmaking.
Sure, digital technology is making certain things easier for cinematographers - but isn't that what technology is supposed to do? Just because many DPs who shoot digitally carry out their jobs in a different way doesn't make them any less valid at their craft. It still takes a good eye to create a beautiful frame - doesn't matter what tools you're using. Honestly, it just sounds like you're bitter that the specific process you have learned to do things is becoming obsoleted by technology. Perhaps that's unfortunate for you, but resisting things isn't going to prevent their impending onslaught.

Unlike others, I don't think that "film is dead" quite yet, but I do think that it will be someday (in the same way that "vinyl records are dead" today; yes, they still exist, but aren't in widespread mainstream use). Digital acquisition is rapidly becoming transparent to the end user (if it's not already) - do you think that the majority of people who went to see "Superman Returns" knew (or even cared) that it wasn't shot on film? I'm not going to type up my list of reasons that I personally feel digital acquisition is a superior process to shooting film (we've been discussing this for YEARS now - Red is hardly the first camera to spawn this debate), but the attitude of "films should be shot on film and videos should be shot on video" is downwright silly. Honestly, I don't think you even believe what you're saying - I think you're just saying these things because you're frustrated that a new system is right around the corner that you won't have 40 years of experience to put behind it. Instead of fighting change, give the new guy a chance. I think in a few months when you see what Red can do, you're going to be pleasantly surprised. That is, if you allow yourself to be...

Haakon

07-16-2006, 02:54 PM

It's really, really hard to shoot good video and make it look really good.
I would agree with this, but mostly because the limited dynamic range of video has traditionally made composing a scene more difficult than if you were shooting it on film. The film retains more detail in both ends of the spectrum, and we associate that with a more "cinematic" look. However, that arguement is a double-edged sword, because RED's entire goal is to offer as much dynamic range as possible - thus removing that challenge. So be careful how you frame that argument! :)

Also, I know you want to separate Red from "video" because that term carries somewhat of a negative connotation in professional cinematic circles, but I don't know why we can't embrace video and the direction it's heading. Do you consider 60i SD material shot by the DVX to be "video?" I'm pretty sure everyone would. What about when you flip the 24p switch? Is that magically not video anymore? What if you make the chips 4K in size? Where's the line? I don't think there is one - all of this digital acquisition is video - we just need to be proud that we're advancing video technology to a place where the quality is rivaling (and surpassing) the alternative!

dasonras

07-16-2006, 03:26 PM

Yes, I agree with much of what you say Graeme. Now, i would not call myself a filmmaker, because i don't usually deal with writing or directing. I am simply a DP. I get paid to capture the scene. So... when people are at the theatre and would watch the film, i don't take any credit for how captivated they are to the story. My job was to capture.

Secondly, yes, VIDEO IS A UNIQUE ART FORM, however, it should remain UNIQUE and not attempt to emulate the true look of film.

taubkin

07-16-2006, 03:27 PM

I really think shootig on film is actually easier than shooting on video. I'm not an expert, but film's larger lattitude is way more forgiving than video. The film's texture also makes light seem much less harsh, and with film it's possible to use harder light without fearing it will look totally wrong. Besides, we all know how far we can go to make cr@p shot on film look good on a telecine, but we just can go that far with cr@p shot on video, for instance.

I think art is difficult to make in any medium, and shooting good material is always a challenge, being it on film or on video. And I don't even feel that analog video is an art so different from motion picture film, but that's a more personal opinion...

-Oh, sorry, Haakon, already said it!-

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 03:41 PM

Secondly, yes, VIDEO IS A UNIQUE ART FORM, however, it should remain UNIQUE and not attempt to emulate the true look of film.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't get the logic. You're stating something as a fact, when instead, I'm asking "why?" and asking you to make an argument for it.

My point is that it doesn't matter what the end look is, or how it is achieved, only that it meets the creators artistic vision. If that artistic vision is video emulating film, then so be it. That is a valid choice and that choice has it's own uniquely valid aesthetic.

Video and film are just tools. Nothing more. There are no rights or wrongs, just visions, and art, and the artists who make it!

Graeme

dasonras

07-16-2006, 03:42 PM

I'm not directly attacking RED here, so I wish people would stop making it seem like I am. I really don't know anything about Red. (if someone would like to fill me in on why Red is different, please go ahead).

Hmm...good point about Superman. I have not actually seen it. But I see it was shot HD. QUOTE: "Do you really thing people in the audience know it was shot on film?" I'm really not sure. I sure can tell though...and i bet anyone who has shot on film and video could tell too.

About the whole defining "what is digital cinema and what is video". My definition, if the image is recorded electronically onto any other medium other than film, it is video.

Someone mentioned vinyl records....audiophiles would argue that vinyl records produce a much higher fidelity sound than digital audio. Just because we moved into a digital direction, doesn't mean that vinyls don't produce good sound.

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 03:47 PM

I would agree with this, but mostly because the limited dynamic range of video has traditionally made composing a scene more difficult than if you were shooting it on film. The film retains more detail in both ends of the spectrum, and we associate that with a more "cinematic" look. However, that arguement is a double-edged sword, because RED's entire goal is to offer as much dynamic range as possible - thus removing that challenge. So be careful how you frame that argument! :)

Well, having a wider dynamic range can make lighting easier, but getting that high dynamic range to look good is a challenge too. Given that shooting film is not easy, I see this as perhaps a shifting of the balance of complexity but it doesn't make the overall task of creating a great image easier.

Also, I know you want to separate Red from "video" because that term carries somewhat of a negative connotation in professional cinematic circles, but I don't know why we can't embrace video and the direction it's heading. Do you consider 60i SD material shot by the DVX to be "video?" I'm pretty sure everyone would. What about when you flip the 24p switch? Is that magically not video anymore? What if you make the chips 4K in size? Where's the line? I don't think there is one - all of this digital acquisition is video - we just need to be proud that we're advancing video technology to a place where the quality is rivaling (and surpassing) the alternative!

To me, video implies a number of things:

tape,
interlace,
smooth looking frame rates,
2.2 gamma curve,

RED is not video in that you can only have the above if you've chosen them! In essence, RED is the mysterium sensor, and a number of ways to record that data. Sure, you can record as video, but you don't have to. You can record RAW sensor info and post process it to make it look how you want. You could even extract the RAW data and write your own image processing pipeline tools to give the images your own unique look that looks like nothing else. To me, that's the key difference.

So, is the difference fps or resolution or....? No, I think it's all about choice, in that RAW allows you to choose your own processing afterwards. That to me is the main difference.

Good philosophical point though!

Graeme

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 03:56 PM

Just to let you know I'm an audiophile who regularly plays vinyl. I like the aesthetic of vinyl, and indeed, given that many classic recordings were designed to be played back in the home on vinyl and mastered accordingly, I think that's probably the best way to enjoy them as originally intended.

However, digital recordings are more "accurate" by a vast degree. I may not enjoy them as much, but that lack of enjoyment is not due to any supposed superiorty of vinyl.

As to why RED is different? Good question.
1) real 35mm lenses
2) super 35mm sized sensor
3) high dynamic range
4) RAW - meaning you can choose things in post, rather in camera
5) flexibility and modularlity in design
6) really high resolution - 4520x2540
7) affordable (just)
8) fantastic value for money
9) built by users - we have editors, sfx people and shooters on the team. I shoot video, Jim shoots video and film. We're both big into photography. Other members of the core team are producers / directors / shooters etc. We're not faceless suits who've never used imaging equipment professionally in the real world before. That's why we're hear on these forums, spreading the word, getting feedback, answering questions, and yes, even talking philosophy!

I hope that helps explain things!

Graeme

Shaw

07-16-2006, 04:20 PM

Personally I see no basis for the arguement that digital should not be used cinematically. The claim has been made but no real arguement has surfaced to back it up. If I have missed something please point it out! Just because something has always been done one way implies nothing about how good it is!

My fear is that the "look" that we all are trying to obtain will one day become very generic looking.
What look is that though? I honestly don't know - not trying to bash here. That's also where art comes into play. Creativity is a wonderful thing :)

This is what separated the high and the low. It is also what made certain films have quality to them that an audience can recognize and appreciate. Today...it seems that with digital innovation, "everyone" is able to make a great looking movie; and in turn, movies are becoming less and less unique looking.
This I don't understand. Anyone can go out and pick up a video camera but few can produce gorgeous images with one! Are tools becoming more accessible? Yes. Is artistry and talent? No. Is there going to be more competition for these sorts of jobs? Yes. Those who want to succeed will need to combine technical skill AND creativity. It's no longer just enough to know a few things. This is very good for the medium. Those who can produce professional results will always be in demand no matter how many people 'enter the arena.' Artificial boundaries created by cost are not the means for creating the best art. Open access to tools will produce the best. The classification of a pro shouldn't rest on what tools he uses but on how he uses them. Just because you have a tool that can produce pretty images doesn't make you a pro.

everything from selecting lenses and filmstock, to lighting the set. Digital filmmaking in a way is taking away from the artistic aspect of traditional cinematography.
The only thing taken away is film stock choice. Choosing lenses, lighting etc are all just as important as they once were. In fact, now that we have digital grading choosing a look (what choosing a stock effective was) has become even MORE complex and open.

Another response.. QUOTE: "FILM CAN BE PRICEY; IT'S A MATTER OF ECONOMICS." <--- Um...I'm glad you figured this out on your own. Filmmaking is supposed to be pricey. This is why many years ago there weren't as many amateur filmmakers.
This is really an elitist attitude. Why should it be pricey? So that just being a DP is enough for a high pay check? Really that is the only reasons for the arguement. Art shouldn't be restricted to those who can afford it. It restricts creativity. Wanting good pay isn't a bad thing of course!

Now, if we continue in the direction that we are headed, salaries for cinematographers are going to drop dramatically. Too many people are becoming cinematographers. The skill and art is being compromised.
This seems to be the heart of the issue. Yes, more people are becomming 'DPs' but how many of them are actually GOOD? This isn't a film vs digital issue this is an issue of wanting to be payed a high salary and ultimately the main issue at hand here. The thing is a good DP will always command a fine salary. Of course just being a DP will no longer qualify you for good pay - you will need to actually be talented and creative! It sounds like you j want to be, by virtue of being a cinematographer, paid a high salary. DPs will now need to prove that they are worth the amount they are paid. For pros, this shouldn't be too large of an issue. :)

This industry is about competition. And it seems to be getting more and more generic.
And this will make it only more competitive! What is getting more and more generic are generic cinematography skills. Now anyone can develop the skills necessary. Those who want to excel will need to not only have the skills be be able to utilize them in the most effective and creative manner.

EDIT: For the record, none of the above was meant as an attack. I'm not trying to question your skills and creativity just pointing out that these are the things which will guarantee a high pay check these days. Just being a DP is no longer enough. It sounds like you're a perfectly capable and creative person so I wouldn't be so worried. :)

D_and_G

07-16-2006, 04:26 PM

I love film. I have shot film. But I love the realization of the artistic dream even more. :beer:

Edited (since Shaw said eveything I did above )...
RED # wish I was higher

dasonras

07-16-2006, 04:57 PM

mike the beginner

07-16-2006, 05:16 PM

I like movies. I love watching a good movie. There are movies that most movie goers know has probably cost a fortune to make and there are movies that most people know cost very little to make. Apart from you guys, few movie goers look at a movie with a critical eye as to whether it was shot with film or video PROVIDED it looks good and sometimes when it looks bad (Blair Witch). Really keen movie buffs do watch out for a good story, special effects or good filming techniques and good acting etc but not whether it is film or video. Thats my opinion anyway and for what it is worth (probably nothing) but SHAW has just posted a cracker of a post. As each year goes by his comments will ring more true than ever......impressive and thats not from me as a beginner but me as a movie goer (got plenty of experience watching movies:) ) Michael

taubkin

07-16-2006, 05:23 PM

1. Yes, ic can output dual HD-SDI or in the form of DATA, wich can be rendered as any type of video format you need, or just as film scans are output, in 2K or 4K.

2. It has a PL mount. You put whatever you like in it, and the image is formed into the mysterium sensor, that has the size of a S35mm gate.

3. The image is naturally upside down, but the camera knows that's the right orientation, so no, you will never have to flip the image in post, because the camera will display and output an image in correct orientation.

4. It will support any PL lens you have, including S16mm lenses. The problem with those is since only a central portion of the sensor is used, so only 2K acquisition is possible. Also, using S16mm lenses, you'll get s16mm Depht of Field. RED will also manufacture their own PL lenses, but only a 300mm prime has been announced so far.

5. Yes, onboard batteries. Probably they will supply AC options too.

6. The footage will be recorder to proprietary systems, using hard drives or flash digital magazines that can be attached to the camera, as well as a proprietary external RAID system, that will have to be wired to the camera, for high speed 4K work. (up to 60fps - progressive in 4K and 120fps in 2K or 1080p)

7. It's in development. In september they plan to show us some images, and they plan to start selling in the begginging of 2007. It can all change, of course, but they are still in schedule, according to their last announcements. It's not a dream product, because they have credibility. The owner of Oakley is the owner of RED, and he is a very resourceful man. Besides, their cheif crew is composed by VERY reputable developers in the Digital video world. Graeme is one of them.

8. Ops. Answered already...

9. The mysterium chip is their digital electronic imager. Is where the image from the lens is formed and where it's transformed into electrical signals. It's the heart of this camera, since it's an affordable 4K capable CMOS chip (works like those in digital still SRL cameras). Nobody knows where to get one of them, because it's been developed by RED themselves instead of just bought from other manufacturers.

Hope I managed to answer those. There are lots of people here that can do a better job, or fill in the gaps.

For more info, why not try www.red.com ?

imgentertainment@mac

07-16-2006, 05:31 PM

A few questions about Red:

1. That is great to say that it has super great resolution, but why does that matter if all that does matter is the output of the final product. Are we saying it has the capabilities of outputing high res?

2. How exactly does the camera use 35mm cine lenses and why would you want to? Just because it is a cine lens, doesn't mean it will produce good optics.

3. Is the image upside down?

4. What kind of mount system for the cine lenses and will it support variable lenses?

5.Is it battery operated?

6. What medium is the footage recorded to?

7. Is this a dream product or something that is actually in production?

8. Estimated cost and time frame for availability?

9. What is this mysterium chip?

All these question can be found on the forum very easily just do a search or scroll down the page. For someone that is such a film guy and dose not know why it would be beneficial to shoot a higher resolution or why you would want to use a 35mm lense. that doesn't make any sense to me. search the forum and all will be reviled

Haakon

07-16-2006, 07:43 PM

Now, i would not call myself a filmmaker, because i don't usually deal with writing or directing. I am simply a DP. I get paid to capture the scene. So... when people are at the theatre and would watch the film, i don't take any credit for how captivated they are to the story. My job was to capture.I feel very sorry for you if you feel that as a DP, you're not a filmmaker. The image is the very thing that makes the story a film and not just some words on a paper! Everything from lighting to composition to how the camera moves all have implications on how an audience perceives a story - whether overtly or subconciously. I don't know who you are (your profile doesn't give any information), but I'm surprised to hear you make comments like these if you're indeed an experienced cinematographer. Are you sure you're not hanging around just to stir things up?

Secondly, yes, VIDEO IS A UNIQUE ART FORM, however, it should remain UNIQUE and not attempt to emulate the true look of film.I realize this is your opinion and not fact (rarely anything is as black and white as "should" or "should not" - especially in art), but I think you'll find that most people won't agree with your mentality on this. As I mentioned before, Superman Returns is a great example of this. The fact is, video has already caught up to film if it's transparent to the audience. Whether or not you feel that the technology is as good a method (yet) or not to acquire images is irrelevant, which brings up the point I made earlier:

audiophiles would argue that vinyl records produce a much higher fidelity sound than digital audio. Just because we moved into a digital direction, doesn't mean that vinyls don't produce good sound.
Of course it doesn't mean that vinyl records don't produce good sound. But most people (probably 99% of the population, at this point) prefer the convenience, random accessibility, and digital features that the compact disc offers. In fact, most people are more than content listening to inferior quality mp3s on their iPods - most of which are created with highly compressed, ineffecient codecs that are most certainly lesser quality than their CD counterparts! So while everyone will draw their own line as to what's "good enough" (and assumingly, the people on a forum like this will care more about the quality of an image than the common layman), it doesn't mean you can't tell a compelling story or captivate an audience unless you're shooting on film. The number of movies shot on video are only going to continue to grow.

About the whole defining "what is digital cinema and what is video". My definition, if the image is recorded electronically onto any other medium other than film, it is video.
I agree with you on this. But while you seem to feel that video must always be inferior to film, I say that video is still in its infancy and we've just begun to see where digital acquisition is going to take us. Red takes a huge step in the advancement of video - not just for quality's sake, but accessibility's sake as well. 4K resolution at the price they're offering it at is huge. That's why there are so many people discussing it on this board.

Graeme_Nattress

07-16-2006, 07:52 PM

It's funny to play the "definition game". Everything that is not film is video. Fine - film is fairly definate. But what does the reverse give us - what is everything that's not video? To my mind, video is a specific recording format - video tape. A video camera records to video tape. As much as I like film, and I'm very well known for liking (traditional) video, I'm also a big fan of this new definition - digital cinema. DC isn't tied to tape. What DC is, in my mind, is recording in the best quality possible, exactly what the sensor captured with as minimum alteration as possible. This is just like RAW in your digital stills camera - capture as much dynamic range as you can, and deal with all the colour decisions later. Video is differentiated from DC because in video, you process in camera. You produce YCbCr processed video from the info from the sensor. So you can call DC video if you want, but that's a limiting definition, not an enabling one. I like enabling definitions!

Graeme

Haakon

07-16-2006, 08:03 PM

You'd consider a Digital8 camera from the late-90's to be something that shoots video, right? It shoots interlaced images onto digtal8 tape - that certainly fits your definition. But then what if you take the output from the firewire port on that camera and record the images directly to a computer's hard drive, bypassing the tape mechanism entirely? Those images, which, since they're digital, are identical. So one is video because it was shot on tape, but the other footage is not, because it was captured to a hard drive instead? Hmm, that's interesting - and I'd say ironic, since you're just going to digitize the video that was shot onto the tape back onto the hard drive anyway.

Point is, I agree that getting caught up in the definition game is silly (though please note that I didn't say that "everything that's not film is video" - there were other stipulations). But I also don't think you should be waving a banner that says that RED is somehow a completely different technology than anything video before it. It's just a highly-evolved (and assumingly superior!) variant, but at the end of the day, it's still video. :) And as I mentioned before, I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. We're entering a new industry-changing era as a result!

Jarred Land

07-16-2006, 08:23 PM

this is getting a little silly.. everything ends up as video nowadays.. if we like it or not. This is the same fight people were having a mere 5 years ago with Digital still photography.. and we all know who won.

And I have no problem with Graeme standing on my roof waving his new little flag. Red is a new catagory as far as i am conderned.. if it promises to do what it says, it will be the first digital camera that film DP's wont need to comprimise to shoot with.

JTmoney

07-17-2006, 01:15 AM

Independent films, that are not even shot on film, hmmm.....Should we correct that one as well? Or say you cut your finger? You ask for a band-aid, for your finger! Then someone speaks up and Says " Well technically we dont have a Band-aid, because as you know Band-aid is a trademark brand!" As you bleed all over the floor, He then says " Can I get you an adhesive bandage instead? " .....A friend asked "what you haveing for lunch?" I tell him a vegetable salad. He tells me " a tomato is a fruit".. Do I call it a fruit and vegetable salad? ....No cause only a fruit would care! Point is , Dont be a fruit! If say "Didital Cinema! " ? Who dont know what I'm talking about?

Mr. Blonde

07-17-2006, 02:27 AM

Why keep them seperate when we can just call them, "Fideo Vilms".

Graeme_Nattress

07-17-2006, 10:18 AM

I think the main differentiator between traditional video and digital cinema, is that in video, processing decisions are made in camera, whereas with DC they're made in post production (not to say you can't make them in camera too, but you can change your mind later). It's the difference between shooting for the right look in camera, and capturing the max amount of information so you can decide on the look and how the image is processed in post. It's therefore more of a philosophical difference than a technical one, or "media" difference.

Waving the RED flag? I'm no commie :-) Funny though - I'll have to get a little RED flag just so I can wave it now!

Graeme

adaml

07-17-2006, 10:31 AM

Digital Cinema... I like the sound of it. :)

Jarred Land

07-17-2006, 10:36 AM

Graeme you hit the nail on the head.. its exactly what you do with film.

Shoot first process later. Thats what makes shooting on film so damn easy. You have a whole boatload of play back and fort, on film you just gotta make sure your in focus and exposed more or less ( you can push a stop here or there in post) and process AFTER you shoot. Its not the medium.. its the workflow :)

JTmoney

07-17-2006, 10:39 AM

No need to wave a RED flag Graeme! Digital Cinema Works for me :) It's a cinema tool..The word game is pointless
RED#334

Gibby

07-17-2006, 10:49 AM

True. What I really like about shooting video and DC is having the ability to either shoot clean footage and tweak it in post, or since I'm an experienced shooter, director, and editor, to have the option for certain projects to tweak the camera at the acquisition stage to get the specific look I'm after. Video and DC gives me the versatility in field production and post production choices that I like and need for many of my projects.

On small projects, where I'm the director, cinematographer, and editor, I'll quite often shoot specialty footage up front, and simply cut and do a graphics pass in post.

If I know the raw footage will be released as stock footage (a massive cash cow by the way), I always shoot it clean, so that it has a wider ability to license out.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

Thomas Mathai

07-17-2006, 12:16 PM

however the big studies are moving more and more away from real 35mm, just to fake it digitally.

Maybe eventually, but not now.

Outside of several studio features shot digitally, it's still mostly 35mm.

Studios are cost concious, but I don't think to the point where they are shunning 35mm film. In fact on most studio films, the film costs aren't that much compared to the total budget.

In the end, the studio STILL wants a negative, be it film or digital origination.

More than likely it'll be a YCM separations that they can archive.

The person who can create a long term digital archive that doesn't degrade or become obsolete will be rich.

Thomas Mathai

07-17-2006, 12:20 PM

Proteus

07-17-2006, 08:49 PM

Someone mentioned vinyl records....audiophiles would argue that vinyl records produce a much higher fidelity sound than digital audio. Just because we moved into a digital direction, doesn't mean that vinyls don't produce good sound.

Vinyl quality has been surpassed already not by the CDs but by the later DVD-AUDIO (no relation to DVD movie sound track format) and Super Audio CD.
With 4.3 times higher frequency response than CD (192khz) and 256 times higher dynamic range than CD (analogous to 24 stops total dynamic range) these formats can reproduce even the finest subtle qualities of sound that vinyl had an edge on it, beyond the human hearing, uncompressed and even in multichannel!

Graeme_Nattress

07-18-2006, 05:21 AM

Jarred Land

07-18-2006, 12:31 PM

Well RED is neither, it's digital. Zeros and Ones.

People aren't looking to emulate film, they are looking for a cinematic quality.

Cinematic quality will mean different things to different people, but that is the standard that a lot of people want to reach.

i like this one... thanks thomas.

Proteus

07-18-2006, 01:07 PM

Unfortunately, 24bit audio implies a dynamic range of 144db, which is much greater than the pain threshold of the human ear, especially when you consider background noise levels the music reproduction needs to rise above :-) I can fully understand having a high bit depth while recording to allow you a lot of gain flexibility in setting levels, and in post production - it's like compositing in float, but it's utterly pointless in a distribution medium when you can't even exploit CD's 96db dynamic range in the home. Maybe in an anechoic chamber...... So if you live in one of them, DVD-Audio might come in handy. It's tricky to exploit even the limited ~50db dynamic range of vinyl in the home.....

Graeme
Here is why you need a high dynamic range as the one offered by 24bit:

1. First of all, this is not an argument, but if you want to enjoy the highest dynamic range and sound quality possible and you pay the money for the equipment, you should also take care to have the appropriate listening environment in your house –not necessarily an anechoic chamber!

2. Now, to enjoy the highest dynamic range and quality *without* spending a fortune, there is only one way: Buy a good set of electrostatic headphones. This will blow away your mind -and your senses! The feel is simply indescribable until you experience it –especially with good recordings with natural instruments (and vocals) on DVD-AUDIO or Super Audio CD. These headphones have the flattest response exceeding audio spectrum, the highest transient response and accuracy, zero intermodulation distortion, zero phase distortion, and almost zero harmonic distortion (of course they depend on the quality of the specialized amplifier that is needed to drive them). Also the sound is reproduced *simultaneously* by the whole membrane surface because the ES force is applied to the whole surface which is only 5 microns thick -it has less mass than the air!. Of course this will make you (train you to be) far more demanding and if there is some flaw in the sound you will be able to recognize it immediately! So you’ll want to hear only the best recordings because those will make you …ecstatic!

3. You can enjoy a live recording with an average dynamic range of say 60db but with the original brief transients that far exceed this level. This means that you can record and leave the peaks intact. In any other format this is a common problem for sound engineers where they always have to pass the source through a compressor or limiter to avoid digital clipping which will result to audible distortion.

4. A 75 piece orchestra can reach 130db!

5. You can have the original sound recording in RAW format ..and you can guess the advantages! It’s like the RAW capabilities of RED: You can enjoy it the way *you* like it by choosing the sound post process of your choice.

6. A high dynamic range is not only useful to reproduce sounds with high dynamic range differences. It also makes the sound reproduction much smoother, apparently exceeding the quantizing nature of digital. This means that 24bit along with 192Khz sampling are as smooth as a perfect analog recording. The vinyl, although it is noisy (<70db) it is very smooth because the recording is analog or else, continuous. Now digital has reached this (perceived) continued analog characteristic –at least for audio.

7. Having a great dynamic range (along with high frequency response) this ensures that even the subtle details of the sound are reproduced with high fidelity. The human ear can hear, or can be trained to hear, much finer details than most academics are willing to admit. This is because the ear is ..connected to the brain which still is an unexplored territory. When you can’t hear something, you can still feel it. The more complicated the sound is, (e.g. many natural instruments playing simultaneously) the more sensitive you are to the sound quality and the higher the requirement for a better format is.
In these cases you’ll recognize a better recording because you’ll feel the difference rather than hear it.

8. About the background noise, guess what: By using a fine set of electrostatic headphones along with a high-resolution format, you can take advantage of the high fidelity and use noise canceling which will let you enjoy your music outside of your …anechoic chamber!

9. Although the whole dynamic range of this format cannot yet be provided, you always have to give more than needed, to receive just what is needed –and the electronic components are getting better and better…

Whew! That post was too OT and too long… but was On topic to your reply...
Also, on a second thought, this is a good opportunity to ask for high-resolution sound 24bit /192khz (at least stereo) to be a RED feature! :D

Graeme_Nattress

07-18-2006, 02:11 PM

Completely OT, as was my post, but a great post none-the-less. I certainly agree that electrostatic headphones are superb for listening. They're open back, so you still need a relatively quiet listening area though to hear the max DR.

I thin your further points re-itterate what I was getting at is that better DR is much more important in the production chain than in the home environment. I'm very cautious about your 6) statement though. Bit depth and DR are directly related. Sampling frequency is another matter, and really, there's no reason why CDs 16bit 44.1khz is not good enough to perfectly reproduce any sound for a home listening environment. It's innadequte for recording and post production, but for the home, I know of no speakers that can approach being good enough to do it justice, and as you point out, really good headphones get you a lot closer, but they're still way behind the microphone in distortion characteristics.

But, as you may know, I'm a vinyl addict, who listens to music via a vintage tube and horn system, so what do I know about sound quality eh? :-)

Graeme

tomthemacman

07-18-2006, 02:48 PM

Dasonras, I truly actually do understand where you're coming from. Yet, I'm looking at it from a different viewpoint, and so, I hope you'll respect my comments here.

I'm a camera op, learning to be a Steadicam op, and hopefully, I'll end up being a DP in a few years. I know your fears about all those kids coming up who have no talent and daddy's credit card and the best cameras, and no clue how to use them. In fact, I'd say some people, before they've seen what I can do, would put me into that category. Sure, I'm a student. Sure, I shoot only on video. (none of the productions I work on have the money for Film) But, the one thing that keeps coming back again and again is that having newer, bigger, better cameras doesn't make you a better DP. Heck, I see all these ads on Craigslist looking for DPs to work for $250 a day with HD gear (or less in terms of money). But, will the image that somebody who's new enough to take that job be good? Well, not by your standards, not by my standards (most probably, I mean, there are exceptions).

I think what you need to do is to just sit back and think about it this way. Having more people with these cameras can only give you better ACs. Just because somebody's got a good camera, doesn't mean they know how to work it to its fullest potential, and it certainly doesn't mean that they could produce a shot that'll be incredible. I know that there are a lot of people out there who I could make better, more compelling shots than, with a 1 CCD MiniDV, if they have a CineAlta. It's not just about having equipment, it's not just about knowing how to turn on the camera and record, anybody can do that, it's having the eye for it, having the skills to take a script and turn it into something immensely visual, yet not something distracting to the viewer or gaudy.

Yeah, so now to get back off my soapbox and get back to figuring out when some more of my Steadicam parts will be shipped in.

(And to anyone who feels like I'm badmouting them, or people like them here, really, I'm not. I understand that everybody has to start somewhere. Heck, most of my early stuff was shot on little 1CCD cameras. But, it's all about the skills. If you're willing to sit down and learn, and spend years honing your talent, than you could very well end up a good camera op or DP. If you think you've got the "eye for it", then sit down and take some time and learn it. But, don't expect that just because you have a big expensive camera, and a 35mm adapter, and tons of lenses, and a great light kit, that you're an incredible DP. That's the point I'm trying to make.)

mike the beginner

07-18-2006, 03:12 PM

QUOTE: If you think you've got the "eye for it", then sit down and take some time and learn it. But, don't expect that just because you have a big expensive camera, and a 35mm adapter, and tons of lenses, and a great light kit, that you're an incredible DP. That's the point I'm trying to make
Last edited by tomthemacman : Today at 09:52 PM.
_________________________________

Good point.

I remember being told some years ago the difference between the good shot and the expert shot. The good shot looks at the target and can hit the bulls eye. The expert shot can hit the target the good shot cannot even see!!

Michael

Gibby

07-18-2006, 03:12 PM

Three essential elements to top-level professional cinematography, videography, and photography: talent, experience, and tools.

Talent you're born with, experience you pay time and dues to acquire, and tools is the easiest by far of the three to get. If you have all three, you'll have a good chance of doing exceptional work. If talent is missing, you should definitely think about choosing a different profession. If experience is the only thing missing, pay your dues and you'll get to your goals. If tools are the only things missing, find ways to get your hands on the tools and you'll get to your goals. Talent is the one critical element that you must have or you're chasing an elusive butterfly that will undoubtedly elude you...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

Haakon

07-18-2006, 05:33 PM

I believe video is video and film is film, and there shouldn't be any sense in trying to make video emulate film.Well RED is neither, it's digital. Zeros and Ones.i like this one... thanks thomas.
Um, standard DV (digital video) is nothing but zeros and ones.

I'm behind Red as much as anyone else on this forum... probably moreso... but their "digital cinema" (a term Dalsa has been using for ages) isn't some huge departure from traditional video technology. Granted, the resolution will be awesome and all of the other features Red boasts is going to make their camera one heck of a product. Personally, I feel that if Red can acheive their goals, their camera is truly going to have an impact on the industry (a feat that my film "purist" friends are quite doubtful of). But that being said, it's not a product we've never seen before. It's just a better one.

Proteus

07-18-2006, 06:19 PM

Sampling frequency is another matter, and really, there's no reason why CDs 16bit 44.1khz is not good enough to perfectly reproduce any sound for a home listening environment.
Many instruments have harmonics that far exceed the audio spectrum. Reproducing all these harmonics faithfully, give the feeling of "air" to the listener and the whole character of the instrument(s) is enjoyed. In a standard 44.1khz CD system there is also phase distortion and other problems introduced at the high end of the audible spectrum.

It's inadequate for recording and post production, but for the home, I know of no speakers that can approach being good enough to do it justice
You could try electrostatic speakers! (more expensive though).

and as you point out,really good headphones get you a lot closer, but they're still way behind the microphone in distortion characteristics.
Sorry if I was misleading by saying “almost zero distortion”. Electrostatics are considered distortion free and are certainly far better in specs than any microphone! The reason is, microphones are passive systems with a surface of much greater mass for their size, while ES headphones are push-pull active systems with a lower than air mass surface that accepts an equal ES force in *all* of its area from both sides!

Take a look at these affordable ES from Koss (1000$ vs 4000$ from Stax and 10000$ from Sennheiser that has been discontinued).
The specs are: 8hz-35khz, 104db, <0.01% distortion!!! Compare this to speakers with >5% distortion and to good microphones 1-2%.
http://www.koss.com/koss/kossweb.nsf/p?openform&pc%5Ees%5EESP950

But, as you may know, I'm a vinyl addict, who listens to music via a vintage tube and horn system, so what do I know about sound quality eh? :-)
Oh no, if I knew I wouldn’t post it in first place; you have more romantic grey cells than I thought! But if you mean you listen via a horn *speaker* system I consider it a plus, while if you listen via a gramophone’s horn… that’s another story! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Ok, that was my last OT post…

Graeme_Nattress

07-18-2006, 06:31 PM

Proteus

07-18-2006, 07:53 PM

I'd love a pair of the big Quad electrostatics, but I've got nowhere to put them :-) My large horns take up all the room! They're Lowther Acousta horns with PM6A drivers that I built myself. I've developed plans for larger horns, but have to figure out how to build them....

Graeme

Very, very good Graeme! I've seen (in photos) horns big as a house...
I understand you must be emotionally (or romantically) connected with their (huge) precense! But you might enjoy music better...
About the Quads, yes these are a very good choice! And famous too!
My experience with ES headphones was with my design incl. an original solid state amp, ultra-low noise, DC-250khz flat (incl. load), direct drive (DC) push-pull@850V, and the quality surpassed a Stax model I heard at that time etc, etc, too long story to post OT….

Proteus

07-19-2006, 05:22 AM

To return On topic,

Dansonras, if we have convinced you, or if there is something more that we can do about it, let us know! :)

double_agent_oo2

07-22-2006, 02:58 AM

I've read this entire thread and, although I'm not a filmmaker but a film enthusiast, I'd like to make some comments.

I like film, actually I love it. The most striking and moving images I've seen in movies have always been on film. Obviously, this is probalby because film has dominated movie making for, um, forever.

I also like the look of digital sometimes (Collateral, An Inconvenient Truth, portions of Sin City). However, usually I abhor the digital images I've seen in cinema (Star Wars, portions of Sin City, most of the stuff posed on DVXUSER).

I think when chosen for their artistic properties, not their convenience or price, both digital and film are valid options. I deplore the comments I've seen made here by zealots saying harsh words about the death of film and how digital will reign king. Presumably, saying things like that makes them feel good about themselves in some sick way. I find it highly alarming when people are so sick that actually celebrate the imminent death of a medium for expression. And for what, so you can have artificial looking clarity, convenience, and cost reduction?

These people, in my opinion, are not artists in the least. Cost effectiveness and convenience should never override artistic integrity. If someone shoots digital because that's all they can afford, then they by all means should shoot digital. If someone shoots digital because they think it is what is artistically called for to tell the story, then they should by all means shoot digital. However, if somone shoots digital because they were too lazy to do the things necessary for film production, or because film would slice slightly into their profit margins, then that's just wrong, IMHO.

Most of the zealots who morbidly welcome the death of film while quoting Robert Rodriguez (maker of such crappy films as From Dusk Till Dawn and Spy Kids) also cite the death of film in still photography. I have to tell you, most of the photography that really strikes me, with the exception of journalism photos, is shot on film. If you can show me some good digital pictures then please point me in the right direction. But as it stands, I firmly believe that digital still cameras are for loser tech guys, untalented amateurs, and portrait/commercial photographers who care as much about art as they do about dog poo.

What I hope will happen in the future is a coexistence of digital and film, each used when they are needed artictically (or by those that desperately need a medium but cannot afford film). An analogy of this coexistence can be the coexistence of the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar in modern music. Although the electic guitar radically changed our musical landscape, the acoustic guitar never went away and still delights music fans today. Just like an artist must pick an instrument that's right for a song, a cinematographer/director should pick the camera(s) that are right for their film. It's all about the art.

But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a 16 year old kid who really loves the look of film.

Graeme_Nattress

07-22-2006, 07:02 PM

But as it stands, I firmly believe that digital still cameras are for loser tech guys, untalented amateurs, and portrait/commercial photographers who care as much about art as they do about dog poo.

While I respect your opinion that you like the aesthetic of film (and why not, it's a great aesthetic that's ingrained in the consciousness of everyone who's a cinema goer), I firmly and totally disagree with your statement above. I am an artist who chooses to work with digital stills cameras. Remember, art is not about a medium (oil, acrylic, watercolour, pastel, chalk, pencil, charcoal, film, video, digital stills, sculpture, etc.) but about "intention". It's about seeing, feeling, doing, creating. I am not a looser tech guy (and because someone understands digital technology, it doesn't make them any less an artist, any more than a film photographer who understands chemistry makes them less of a photographer), nor an untalented amatuer, or a portrait or commercial photographer.

Graeme

Greg Lowry

07-22-2006, 07:16 PM

But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a 16 year old kid who really loves the look of film.

16? Hard to believe. You're a hell of a writer, kid. I might quibble with some of your statements, but mostly I agree.

But time does march on, and the tools change. Digital imaging is in its infancy. Some of end product is bad, some great, most mediocre -- just like with film. For some markets, film is already dead or on life support. I don't celebrate that, but it's a fact. Nobody laments the loss of 70mm film for big-screen narrative filmmaking more than me.

BTW, with your writing skills you should be writing scripts. Have your people call my people.

double_agent_oo2

07-22-2006, 11:50 PM

While I respect your opinion that you like the aesthetic of film (and why not, it's a great aesthetic that's ingrained in the consciousness of everyone who's a cinema goer), I firmly and totally disagree with your statement above. I am an artist who chooses to work with digital stills cameras. Remember, art is not about a medium (oil, acrylic, watercolour, pastel, chalk, pencil, charcoal, film, video, digital stills, sculpture, etc.) but about "intention". It's about seeing, feeling, doing, creating. I am not a looser tech guy (and because someone understands digital technology, it doesn't make them any less an artist, any more than a film photographer who understands chemistry makes them less of a photographer), nor an untalented amatuer, or a portrait or commercial photographer.

Graeme

Upon review, I think that statement is harsh and unrepresentitive of what I really believe. Digital photography, like digital cinema, is just a form of expression, and it's perfect for certain artistic ambitions. However, what I meant to say is that the claims that film photography is dead are not entirely true because, at least to my knowledge, digital photography has failed to produce superbly striking photography like film has. I don't believe that it's impossible for digital to produce stunning images, I'm just saying that digital hasn't, for the lack of better words, kicked out asses sufficiently to really say that it has killed film. From an artistic standpoint.

Also, when I say techie guys I don't mean people who know the ins and outs of digital photography, but the guys that are more interested in the ins and outs, the cold hard specs, than in the art that those ins and outs can produce.

I guess I just really want to see some good digital photography. Most of the stuff I like is done on 35mm film, medium format, or large format. I need to get me a job so that I can buy a rollieflex or something. If you gave me the choice of either having a totally awesome digital camera, or a totally awesome medium format film camera, I'd take the film camera. But that's just me.

double_agent_oo2

07-23-2006, 12:15 AM

16? Hard to believe. You're a hell of a writer, kid. I might quibble with some of your statements, but mostly I agree.

But time does march on, and the tools change. Digital imaging is in its infancy. Some of end product is bad, some great, most mediocre -- just like with film. For some markets, film is already dead or on life support. I don't celebrate that, but it's a fact. Nobody laments the loss of 70mm film for big-screen narrative filmmaking more than me.

BTW, with your writing skills you should be writing scripts. Have your people call my people.

Thanks. I did get a 5 on my Advanced Placement English test, which is the highest possible score.

I was going to mention 70mm film too, what a perfect way for film enthusiasts to combat the claims of film inferiority. I'd love to see Aronofsky use that for his next film. Fat chance, though.

I can't wait to see extraordinary digital cinematography, but I still wish that mediums were used as a palette instead of a way to cut costs and increase convenience. That seems greed and sloth motivated to me. Although, these things too have the ability to artistically focus a film, so that's an argument too. I really wish 70mm was part of the palette, I guess we'll have to keep dreaming though.

I don't know if I'm well suited for script writing, at least not yet. I need more experiences in life and I need to view more films and read more literature in order to prepare myself for that kind of thing.

Greg Lowry

07-23-2006, 12:24 AM

Well so far digital isn't really that much cheaper for feature film work except at the low end of the production scale. And greed and sloth is rarely found at the production level where everyone strives for the best possible product, whether film or digital. I think you'll change your mind when the digital medium matures a little more. Everything takes time. The introduction of sound and color went through similar phases. Everything has to start somewhere. Feel fortunate that you'll be able to see motion picture imaging go places beyond the wildest dreams of those who invented and developed the medium.

The quality of 70mm will be back in neighborhood cinemas eventually, but it won't be on film.

Graeme_Nattress

07-23-2006, 11:05 AM

Upon review, I think that statement is harsh and unrepresentitive of what I really believe.

Thanks! Just remember on the forum that it's not the same as speaking in conversation when you can easily and rapidly correct something you didn't really mean. I must admit there's been many a time I've written a post on a forum just to delete it all after reading what I've written.

Digital photography, like digital cinema, is just a form of expression, and it's perfect for certain artistic ambitions. However, what I meant to say is that the claims that film photography is dead are not entirely true because, at least to my knowledge, digital photography has failed to produce superbly striking photography like film has.

No, film is not dea by any means and probably won't die entirely for an awful long while yet. I think when people say "film is dead" they mean it more like "vinyl is dead", in that it's gone from 100% of the market to 5% of the market, or is heading in that direction rather rapidly. We've seen it happen not just in distribution formats - VHS is dead, but to audio recording where analogue is dead, etc. So, it is certainly a slipperly slope argumental falacy to say that today, motion picture film is dead, but I think the writing is certainly on the wall.

I think that for digital stills photography, you've just not looked hard enough :-) There are plenty of photographers shooting both 35mm and medium format digital producing fantastic works of art. Michael Reichmann at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ is a good friend of mine, and is one of those photographers who still shoots medium format film when he feels like it, but has also fully embraced digital 35mm and medium format and produces stunning images with both. He also fully understands the digital imaging process and how to get the best out of digital imagaging, and he also takes a very practical - "this is how it looks in practise" approach which I find refreshing. He's not a pixel-peeper.

I'm printing my digital stills on a dye sub printer, and really, I can't say whether it looks film or digital when you view the print. It just looks like a good image. I don't think anyone who's seen my prints would say - haha - that's digital not film - they just see the image as I the photographer intended them to see! And really, whether digital or film, that's all we really want.

Graeme

acrochordon

07-23-2006, 12:34 PM

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/asian_portfolio.shtml

Thanks for the link to luminous.
Here is a quote from his site. I hope he doesn't mind.
"Condensation
A nasty reality of shooting in the tropics is condensation on equipment when moving from air-conditioned spaces to the hot and humid outdoors. This applies to cars, but mostly overnight when the gear has been "cold soaked and freeze dried" in an air-conditioned hotel room, while outside it's 90F + degrees with 100% humidity.

The only solution is to take the camera outdoors a good 20 minutes before shooting, open the bag, remove lens caps (front & rear), and just let it all sit there and warm up. Don't try wiping the lenses dry. Just like your bathroom mirror at home, they'll just fog-up again immediately. Finally, if possible, leave your gear in the trunk of the car rather than in the passenger compartment if you're going to be going frequently back and forth between the air-conditioned car and the outdoors."

Blaine

07-23-2006, 12:45 PM

I guess I just really want to see some good digital photography. Most of the stuff I like is done on 35mm film, medium format, or large format. I need to get me a job so that I can buy a rollieflex or something. If you gave me the choice of either having a totally awesome digital camera, or a totally awesome medium format film camera, I'd take the film camera. But that's just me.
You need look no further than some of the work of Kprince (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/member.php?u=6143) right here on DVXUser. His work is displayed in the Still Photography forum.

Graeme_Nattress

07-23-2006, 02:41 PM

acrochordon, what is the point you're making??

Graeme

Jarred Land

07-23-2006, 02:50 PM

acrochordon, what is the point you're making??

Graeme

I dont think he even knows.. acrochordon is on a whole other planet sometimes :)

Graeme_Nattress

07-23-2006, 03:07 PM

Planet? Galaxy I thought!

Graeme

mike the beginner

07-23-2006, 04:13 PM

DOUBLE AGENT 002: Greg has noticed. I know nothing of this industry but i can spot someone that will be be very usefull. I think you are going to be involved in this game a long time. Someone should give this young chap a job.

Michael

Haakon

07-24-2006, 01:13 AM

blah blah blah...
Sounds to me like you're just as biased and closed-minded as the "zealots" you look to discredit so feverishly. I don't know why anyone would have a hard time believing you're 16...

Emanuel

07-24-2006, 01:35 AM

Sounds to me like you're just as biased and closed-minded as the "zealots" you look to discredit so feverishly. I don't know why anyone would have a hard time believing you're 16...:evil: LOL :happy:

off-topic
I'm glad to see you! How are you my friend? I was thinking about you some minutes ago... I received your last PM but I'll answer you as soon as possible. I'd like to send you something I'm working now...

Jarred Land

07-24-2006, 01:40 AM

yeah its always nice when Haakon shows up.

Emanuel

07-24-2006, 01:50 AM

He has a nose... What a nose!

We missed you when you're reading without posting. Do a favor to this community and don't get excuses to be away from ourselves. We :love4: your posts!

acoreasc

07-24-2006, 08:28 AM

Double Agent 002

I think it's just the infancy of the format that can hold people back. There is in digital, just like in film, a whole range of rules that need to be learned, utilized and then broken to attain stunning images. I think as the format matures, as does the people that shoot it, the imagery will become more and more beautiful.

I don't know if anything will approach the photography of The Conformist or Road to Perdition, but I know there will be cinematographers who have the talent and experience to pull it off. Also, no one in the digital world, in my opinion at least, has made a Lawrence of Arabia or a Touch of Evil or a The Red Shoes. I think the level of the content must also be raised. Sure, if Lawrence was shot on DV would it still have the majesty of its 70mm brother? Probably not, but the story would still be amazing...I'm sure Freddy Young would have gotten something useable from the DVX!

It is a very exciting time. The rules, hell the whole universe of storytelling is changing. The landscape is about to be blown wide open with all of the new tools we have at our disposal. However, I agree with Nattress. The intent must be what is preserved. The intent is the foundation. The camera, the format.....all must serve the intent. I think the intent of the piece and the resolve of the artisans must be a clear and definitive path. There is no reason not to step off of it, but with the integrity of the storytellers in place...there is no chance of losing your way. The is what I strive for....it may not always work, but I know where I am going.

Oh, and when all else fails, just watch a Powell and Pressberger film. That's a pretty good rule to follow.

taubkin

07-24-2006, 09:12 AM

Let's just hold on a minute. Today, the way to get the most pleasing images, the best way to shoot a film, STILL IS shooting film! Nobody here is saying otherwise! We are just saying that when digital film matures and give us the same kind of results, we're going to see film less and less, and that is not a bad thing!

Nobody here is waving this "film is dead" flag, but we say, let's embrace the future, especially if the future, like RED, gives us young filmakers chance of displaying our art and in the same level as the giants. I'm thrilled because I'm shooting a short on 35mm this year, and if I could, I'd shot everything on 35. But unfortunately...

Graeme_Nattress

07-24-2006, 09:15 AM

The best way to shoot a film, is indeed to shoot film :-) but the best way to make a movie, is to make a movie with whatever medium you're best at :-)

Graeme

Gibby

07-24-2006, 09:16 AM

Food for thought:

Article noted this morning by Mike Curtis on HD for Indies, published in the New York Times, titled "Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but not Without Resistance". RED is mentioned several times...

Good catch Mike! Very relevant to this thread...

Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/technology/24digital.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1153750616-8LwAXeLPLuIvlr1vBF/x/Q&oref=slogin

www.hdforindies.com

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

taubkin

07-24-2006, 10:32 AM

The best way to shoot a film, is indeed to shoot film :-) but the best way to make a movie, is to make a movie with whatever medium you're best at :-)

Graeme

Hehe... I hope you can change this pitcure, Graeme, but let's face it, today, as of right now, film looks better! (well to me, at least) But that is not the point of this thread! The point is that the future of cinematography is digital cinematography! And let's get ready for it!

Graeme_Nattress

07-24-2006, 10:40 AM

Haakon

07-24-2006, 01:17 PM

You see, in my eyes, I don't think film looks better, I think film looks different. Because once you say better, I think something has to be better all around, not just better in some areas, and there are most definately areas where video today is better than film, and areas where film is better than video.

I do see the future of cinematography as digital, but I don't think the visual image will look like either film or video. It will have it's own unique aesthetic.
Besides the notion that Graeme still can't get over the fact that at the end of the day they're still just building a video camera (albeit a rather pimped out one), :) I couldn't agree more with this last comment. And it really is true - digital is just a different media, not better or worse one. At the end of the day the person behind the camera is going to be making the difference, not the tool that was used. I can show you plenty of movies that were shot on film that are downright disgraceful looking. Does that mean that film as a whole sucks? No, of course not. But there are some beautifully shot digital movies as well. And the technology is only getting better every day. To discredit an entire format simply because you don't prefer it is silly. I actually think film and digital acquisition are going to coexist nicely for many years to come - it's rather obvious to see that they model themselves after each other (the properties that make film so desirable are the very properties that RED is trying to acheive with their camera, while at the same time, Kodak and Fuji are squeezing as much DR from their stocks as possible to stay at the forefront) and healthy competition is always good. At the end of the day, though, there's no getting around the fact that digital is growing, emerging, and becoming more successful all of the time, and I don't think it behooves anyone to come onto a forum dedicated specifically to Red and digital filmmaking and completely trash its existence. Isn't it nice that we have choices? For those who feel that there is no future in video, there is plenty of film for you to go out and shoot. For the rest of us, it's great to have new, cutting-edge equipment to experiment with that can only result in new methods and filmmaking ideas. I would think every artist would want to be behind that.

adaml

07-24-2006, 01:26 PM

I for one am glad he believes he's building something other than a video camera.

evinsky

07-24-2006, 01:37 PM

Let me be the one to say it, Film is dying. Maybe not dead yet but anyone who is seriously considering shooting film now is doing so for sentimental or comfort reasons. I don't mean to be harsh but there is no quality difference when in the hands of a talented DP. What film does give you is more room for error. You can be a stop off and film will forgive you. Although if Red comes through with it's 15 stop promise it may well give you the same head room. In the end it's just way more $ to shoot film than the difference justifies, and that is the stake through the heart of film.
Although this is my opinion the studios also share it, as the NY times article is showing. Of course the final nail in the coffin will be digital projection and distribution, once that chain is in place then only the A-list directors will be able to shoot film because only they will be able to command the studios to do so, although I believe cameras like Red will eventually bring these guys over too.
E.

Blaine

07-24-2006, 01:46 PM

Hmmmm. Very interestingk.

taubkin

07-24-2006, 02:14 PM

Okay, I understand what you guys are saying. And I'm not discrediting any format. There are beautiful things shot in video today as well. I shoot video and I take some pride from my work, I'm not just a frustrated video DP!

Unfortunately I prefer the look of film (I say this because I can't shoot film as much as I shoot video nowadays - I love shooting video as well) and I know many here also do. The DVX100 video camera is the hit it is because of this prefference. Maybe it's ONLY a matter of personal taste, maybe it's a cultural phenomenon. But truth be told, I know a lot of people who feel the same way, and, let's be honest here nobody here like the look of 35mm better than high definition video?

Yes film gives more room for error. It also gives more room to the light to behave as it does to our eyes, and more room for nuances and subtleties. The larger latitude really counts for me. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just taking out my frustrations because when I shoot video, the biggest problem for me is latuttude. But I love shooting on film and really seeing the light I wanted.

BUT I, like many here, also disagree from dasonras, and his request to stop progress. One day, digital cameras will look better than todays video, and will be able to compete in the same grounds with film, even if looking different. I don't agree with Graeme that video today is only different from film. I think that all around, film's advantages surpasses video's. I believe though what he says will be true when RED arives. Maybe, RED will be better than film in every aspect, who knows?

Film will die, probably, but today, right now, it's definately not dead.

Haakon

07-24-2006, 09:28 PM

Okay, I understand what you guys are saying. And I'm not discrediting any format.
I was mostly responding to double_agent_oo2 and dasonras' comments - I know you're a little more sensible than that. :)

The article that Gibby posted (courtesy of HD for Indies) is a really good one - speaks volumes about the current state of the industry!

Emanuel

07-24-2006, 10:40 PM

Häak, man of details, I particularly liked your "double_agent_002 and dasonras' comment". It reminds me those sales promotions when you're taking two for the price of one... genre yours WAL*MART. Here in Europe it can have other names but when happens it works in the same way. :costumed-smiley-047

J.R. Hudson

07-25-2006, 12:22 AM

Thank God for 24p and In Digital We Trust.

Film is dying. No question about it and I'm not crying about it. Embrace the future gentlemen or be left behind because it is wide open. We are sitting in the middle of a a technological revolution that no other filmmakers have ever been at. This isn't merely the invention of Talkies or Three Strip Technicolor; this is a true evolution that is changing entire industries from Camera manufacturers to film companies to motion picture studios.

I see a bit of trolling in this thread and I see a bit of naivete but mostly I see people embracing and helping this future happen now.

The end result is what we put on the screen. The tools are being handed to us whether we are working professionals or wannabes or everything in-between and I see people lambasting this.

Charles Duell once "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Now that's pretty narrow minded aint it ?

-

Film is terminal.

Emanuel

07-25-2006, 12:24 AM

John, you spoke and said all.

Jarred Land

07-25-2006, 08:55 AM

Film is terminal.

Thanks John.. thats my favorite quote this month.

Proteus

07-25-2006, 02:48 PM

I find it highly alarming when people are so sick that actually celebrate the imminent death of a medium for expression.

Let’s make things clear: The medium of expression here is NOT film. Film is just a recording medium. The medium of expression is Cinema! Although it started with film, it can continue with any suitable recording medium our evolving civilization provides.

Likewise, in still pictures, the medium of expression is Photography. Not film, not digital, not glass plates or whatever. Photography is the art being recorded on all these mediums.

Note that in other art forms, an alternative “recording” medium might require very different techniques which will result in a different look and eventually in a different expression. But that’s not the case with film and digital. These recording mediums are too close, so their minor differences can’t affect expression style that much and the essence of Cinema or Photography remains the same.

An analogy of this coexistence can be the coexistence of the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar in modern music.

Although the electic guitar radically changed our musical landscape, the acoustic guitar never went away and still delights music fans today.

Just like an artist must pick an instrument that's right for a song, a cinematographer/director should pick the camera(s) that are right for their film. It's all about the art.

This is not a good analogy.The difference between these two instruments is far greater than the difference between film and digital. These instruments have a very different sound and feel that leads to a different playing style and expression. Even aesthetically they are different. Also, the acoustic guitar is more portable, it doesn’t require cables amplifiers and processors and you can pick it and start playing instantly, wherever you are.
There is just no competition between the two.

Once more, that’s not the case with film and digital.

Both mediums can be used to capture the *same* artistic expressions of your actors, and the *same* filmmaker’s intentions and both can be projected on a large screen for the same audience to enjoy and appreciate.

There are differences in the procedure, but these differences do not affect much the artistic result; the essence of the cinematic experience or expression remains the same.

And yes, digital imaging has not yet matched and surpassed all film’s strengths, but it is getting better and better everyday.
So it’s a matter of time until digital offers everything that film offers today and a lot more. Then, the market will adapt and someday there will be no point to shoot on film. Then cinema should celebrate its new recording medium… :)

Greg Lowry

07-25-2006, 03:12 PM

Then cinema should celebrate its new recording medium… :)
Just as informed people in the digital world appreciate the enormously valuable legacy of film origination and all of its tools and techniques, most of which are directly applicable to digital production.

taubkin

07-25-2006, 03:34 PM

Now we're talking straight!

And Haakon, no biggie man! My bad!

Proteus

07-25-2006, 03:54 PM

Just as informed people in the digital world appreciate the enormously valuable legacy of film origination and all of its tools and techniques, most of which are directly applicable to digital production.

Of course! Nothing comes from nowhere or can be born from zero.
The New is taking advantage of the Old’s experience. This is the base of the civilization and the way technology evolves.
And Digital will continue from there…

Greg Lowry

07-25-2006, 04:12 PM

Stating the obvious is sometimes useful for those with limited perspective in these matters due to youth or inexperience. What's obvious to some isn't so obvious to others. The evolution of imaging technology to the digital domain is inevitable, but those who for some reason view film as the "enemy camp" or can't wait for the demise of film should think twice. Most theatrical releases (95%+, I believe) are still originated on 35mm film with good reason. And more 16mm film was sold last year than the year before.

Proteus

07-25-2006, 04:34 PM

I estimate that it will take no more than 10 years before celluloid will be proved technically obsolete. But the market will not change so fast.
Something that might boost the use of digital cameras is that soon there is going to be a new wave of 3D stereoscopic productions and perhaps there is going to be a preference for HD+ cameras for many reasons...

Greg Lowry

07-25-2006, 04:39 PM

Something that might boost the use of digital cameras is that soon there is going to be a new wave of 3D stereoscopic productions and perhaps there is going to be a preference for HD+ cameras for many reasons...
Stereoscopic 3D is my current area of activity so I wholeheartedly agree that digital is the best solution for image capture, exhibition, display and viewing.

Proteus

07-25-2006, 04:43 PM

Stereoscopic 3D is my current area of activity...
Ha ha, I didn't know that! Mine too!

Greg Lowry

07-25-2006, 04:44 PM

Great minds, Proteus, great minds. haha

Proteus

07-26-2006, 03:29 AM

I think that you people that really want to see film go should ask yourselves why you're so happy about that, that's all.
Well, I’ve just got this answer from …myself:

-Because I’m not sentimentally attached to celluloid,
-I find new things more interesting than old ones and I like to explore them and experiment,
-I don’t like to repeat my grand-grand-grand-father’s achievements and choices,
-I expect that something newer and better will replace it,
-I consider more important the *essence* of cinema,
-starting with a more capable medium, the artist will be able to focus on higher levels of creativity, closer to that essence to make art and compete and
-the lower cost and higher convenience will increase competition and that will lead to less businessmen, more artists and better movies.

Haakon

07-26-2006, 04:49 AM

Yes I have a bias toward film, but I'm just trying to stress that artistic integrity should play into what medium something gets shot on.

:snip:
I'm sure you would love for me to react to all of your completely inappropriate personal attacks, but I'll leave that to the mods.

I will say, however, that I'm completely surprised that anyone here lets you get away with saying that someone who shoots digitally has less artistic merit than someone who shoots on film. How you can believe in such a ludicrous concept to begin with is beyond me, but you should have more class than to blanketly judge an entire spectrum of filmmakers based on their medium of choice.

Graeme_Nattress

07-26-2006, 06:56 AM

Haakon, I've called double_agent_oo2 on that very point you make. Whereas we accept that movie makers can make movies using their favourite medium (be it film, video or digital, or whatever) I cannot accept that someone should dictate the reasons why someone should choose their recording medium. There's no one media that has more inherent "artistic integrity" than another. They're all valid, and all beautiful in the right hands.

Graeme

ZaneIsNumber1

07-26-2006, 09:07 AM

EDIT:
This post referred to one that has since been deleted. No need for it now.

ZaneIsNumber1

07-26-2006, 09:36 AM

RED is not video in that you can only have the above if you've chosen them! In essence, RED is the mysterium sensor, and a number of ways to record that data. Sure, you can record as video, but you don't have to. You can record RAW sensor info and post process it to make it look how you want. You could even extract the RAW data and write your own image processing pipeline tools to give the images your own unique look that looks like nothing else. To me, that's the key difference.

So, is the difference fps or resolution or....? No, I think it's all about choice, in that RAW allows you to choose your own processing afterwards. That to me is the main difference.

Graeme

How much choice will we get from REDCODE? Can we expect a hit to the dynamic range if we shoot with REDCODE instead of RAW? I ask because of concerns regarding the additional costs (equipment, storage, etc) associated with RAW recording. But your statement makes me think RAW is the way to go for the cinematic look I am after.

I've been reading up on cineform RAW in the Silicon Imaging camera. Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like a great way to maximise choice while addressing the storage problem.

Are RED following their lead? (This idea did come in second place in the think tank!). Or is it all hush hush for now?

Graeme_Nattress

07-26-2006, 09:40 AM

Jarred Land

07-26-2006, 10:10 PM

Well, it's the sensor that gives the dyanamic range, and the next task is to record as much or all of that as possible in as high a quality as possible, and as flexibly as possible. All I can say for now is that we know what we have to do :-)

Graeme

yes the sensor gives the latitude.. but the processing is just as important in preserving that range. You got your work cut out for you Graeme.

ZaneIsNumber1

07-27-2006, 01:43 AM

All I can say for now is that we know what we have to do :-)

Graeme

Thought I'd get a response like this! But seriously, thanks for replying. I was just fishing for information, but I guess we'll have to wait for the official codec announcement.

What you say does give me confidence that you will deliver the best codec for the camera. Cineform RAW is a big selling point for the SI camera and I'm curious to see how you guys address it.

Graeme_Nattress

07-27-2006, 06:24 AM

Processing of that dynamic range is indeed an issue. You've got to make it look "pretty", without blowing out the highlights. It can be done though... :-)

Graeme

adaml

07-27-2006, 07:46 AM

It can be done though... :-)

Graeme[/QUOTE]

Yes, indeed. That's what I like to hear. :)

Graeme_Nattress

07-27-2006, 07:49 AM

Should I say, not only can it be done, it will be done?

Graeme

mike the beginner

07-27-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:Should I say, not only can it be done, it will be done?

Graeme
_______________________________________

Any chance of removing the ? mark:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Michael

Jarred Land

07-27-2006, 08:04 AM

ha ha ha yeah i think Graeme's barage of confident posts happened before coffee time.. i can see "?" mark turn into a " ! " pretty quick.

J.R. Hudson

07-27-2006, 01:13 PM

Well, I’ve just got this answer from …myself:

-Because I’m not sentimentally attached to celluloid,
-I find new things more interesting than old ones and I like to explore them and experiment,
-I don’t like to repeat my grand-grand-grand-father’s achievements and choices,
-I expect that something newer and better will replace it,
-I consider more important the *essence* of cinema,
-starting with a more capable medium, the artist will be able to focus on higher levels of creativity, closer to that essence to make art and compete and
-the lower cost and higher convenience will increase competition and that will lead to less businessmen, more artists and better movies.

Great post !

Go ahead mods, delete my previous post if it'll make Haaken happy.

Are you giving me permission ? Please refrain from the general combative nature of your posts Double_Agent. I am positive we can discuss this without the general negative vibe you are creating.

And Film is coming to an end. The purist approach is respectable but Proteus nailed it. Proteus went yard on that last one.

Jarred Land

07-27-2006, 05:40 PM

ha ha.. you know you in trouble when John comes out to play.

double_agent_oo2

07-27-2006, 06:12 PM

Are you giving me permission ? Please refrain from the general combative nature of your posts Double_Agent. I am positive we can discuss this without the general negative vibe you are creating.

And Film is coming to an end. The purist approach is respectable but Proteus nailed it. Proteus went yard on that last one.

If Haaken really all that offended by the criticism, then permission granted.

I don't think my posts are particularly combative, I just kinda hate it when I go on a messageboard community and some guy walks in and thinks he can dish it out and make broad comments and never get anything in return. However, it's your board: run it as you please. I apologize, but it wouldn't have happened if some legitimate, more respectful, criticism to my posts would have been made.

And, I'm not a purist for crying out loud, reading my posts should get that across. I just appreciate artistic integrity. And the digital purists, the ones that welcome the death of film, are just as bad as film purists. So what if film is on it's way out, I know that just as well as the next guy, but I don't understand comments people make celebrating its death.

Haakon

07-27-2006, 07:29 PM

I don't think my posts are particularly combative, I just kinda hate it when I go on a messageboard community and some guy walks in and thinks he can dish it out and make broad comments and never get anything in return. However, it's your board: run it as you please.

And, I'm not a purist for crying out loud, reading my posts should get that across. I just appreciate artistic integrity. And the digital purists, the ones that welcome the death of film, are just as bad as film purists. So what if film is on it's way out, I know that just as well as the next guy, but I don't understand comments people make celebrating its death.
The problem I have with the general nature of your posts is that you don't seem to pay attention to what's being said and your response to me was a childish personal attack that called the integrity of my work into question. Walking in here with a banner saying "he can dish it out but not take it" just doesn't hold up when I have never once said that you don't have artistic merit or called one of your projects out individually to assail it on a public forum. I don't even know who you are - do you even have any production credits? Have you ever shot a frame of film before? I should point out that someone with 9 posts to his name, absolutely no information in his profile at all, and a completely anonymous handle like "double agent" probably isn't going to gain instant respect as far as credibility is concerned. Yes, I'm opinionated, and yes, sometimes my opinions do not go along with the majority of the crowd. But I am always respectful of the hard work of others. Also, if you aren't aware, I'm a DP; someone who's responsible for lighting and the development of shots. I'm not a writer.

Regarding being a "purist," please look back at the very first post of this entire thread (which, the last time I checked, is where the subject matter of a topic originates). The guy flat out says "I am somewhat of a purist. I believe video is video and film is film, and there shouldn't be any sense in trying to make video emulate film." The post that you responded to when you started getting all worked up here was mine, which said "I was mostly responding to double_agent_oo2 and dasonras' comments...". So as much as I'm sure you'd love for this to all be about you, it's not. In fact, dasonras was the one whos original post started all this nonsense, and although the whole "film vs. digital" debate will probably continue to rage on for years (hey look, here's a whole topic where you can purge all of your pent up celluloid wet dreams in one place! (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=62229)), THIS forum is about Red - about the advancement of digital cinema, and about its proliferation in the marketplace. If you're anti-Red or just don't want to see digital technology continue to make strides in the industry, then this probably isn't the place you want to be posting! In general, yes, I do think that some of your comments have been a bit close-minded and elitist, though I respect your right to say those things. You just need to be aware that on a public discussion board, people are likely to discuss your opinions - especially ones that are more extreme or polarized. But there are rules on this forum, and personally attacking someone or their work is one of the things that just flat out isn't allowed. Even aside from the "rules," respect for someone and their work is generally considering a nice thing.

What's ironic is that I'm one of the most moderate people I know when it comes to the whole film vs. digital debate. I think film can look beautiful. I think digital can look beautiful. I think they can both look pretty wretched, too, when not handled properly. That being said, there is definitely cause for excitement, in my opinion, about the new advancements being made in digital technology - particularly with Red, who are making the conveniences of the digital workflow available to shooters while maintaining a high level of quality at the same time (and at a reasonable cost to boot!). Why wouldn't I be thrilled? But I have never ever said "death to film!" (please, search through every one of my posts on this forum over the last two years) and I have never been on a platform "celebrating its death." While I do prefer many things about shooting digitally, I even made a comment just a couple of pages back that said, "I actually think film and digital acquisition are going to coexist nicely for many years to come - it's rather obvious to see that they model themselves after each other." Does that honestly sound like the ramblings of a "zealot" (your term) to you?

I see now that you've edited your post and included an apology. I appreciate that. Just please be aware in the future that there is a difference between discussing an intangible theory and slandering someone's work. Perhaps if you do ever attempt to shoot something in the future, you'll realize how much work it takes. As they say, "it isn't as easy as it looks."

Let's get back on track and continue to focus on Red - at least in this forum. I recommend this topic be closed as it is divisive in nature and the Red digital behemoth is coming whether people are happy about that or not. There is another topic (as I referenced earlier in this post) where people can banter over whether shooting film or shooting digitally makes someone a better person.

ole_jorgen

07-28-2006, 01:27 AM

Things like the RED camera is a part of something new and good
A more fair evolution in moviemaking. The best movies wins anyway.

Isaac_Brody

07-28-2006, 08:03 AM

Here's an interesting review on Michael Mann's Miami Vice. Mann shot Vice on high def video and the review talks a little about how Mann chose to use video because of it's aesthetic qualities. Just thought it was pertinent to the ongoing silly debate of film vs video/digital.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/movies/28vice.html?8dpc

Mann is the man. :)

Gibby

07-28-2006, 08:46 AM

"...Mr. Mann, in collaboration with the brilliant cinematographer Dion Beebe, treats not as a convenient substitute for film but as a medium with its own aesthetic properties and visual possibilities. The depth of focus, the intensity of colors, and the grainy, smudged finish of some of the images combine to create a look that is both vividly naturalistic and almost dreamlike."

Review of “Miami Vice”, by A.O. Scott, NY Times, 7/28/06

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

Mann and Beebe did what any professional director/cinematographer team should do: collaborate to decide what medium would most effectively illustrate the story and emotions they want to portray. They weren't trying to re-make Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind! Sounds like digital video was the correct choice for their project...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 09:06 AM

Isaac_Brody

07-28-2006, 09:19 AM

No such forgiveness will be offered to any of you by the depth of field police.

:thumbsup:

Weston

07-28-2006, 09:22 AM

If 3-D filmmaking comes to fruition shallow depth of field will be rendered obsolete.

Gibby

07-28-2006, 10:52 AM

I'm going to check out Miami Vice today. BTW, in his review, Mr. Scott misuses the term "depth of focus" when he should have used "depth of field". But he's no cinematographer so we forgive him. No such forgiveness will be offered to any of you by the depth of field police.

Actually I would guess that Scott's stating "depth of focus", instead of "depth of field", was intentional. The article was written to be read by a general readership of a newspaper, not necessarily by media production professionals. If even some media production pros mis-state the term depth of field (even on this forum!), how in the world could Scott expect the non-professional readership of the NY Times to have the foggiest idea what "depth of field" means? By using a term of "depth of focus", Scott at least had a chance that the article's non-pro readers would get the drift on what Mann and Beebe were trying to achieve.

As a sidelight to my main business, I write a lot of magazine articles, and I give guest speaker talks on the media business. I always have to gage the "tech speak" of my articles and talks to the level of media expertise of each particular audience. I go more technical for pros, and explain it in easier to understand terms for beginners. Scott's article readership is essentially beginners, so I think he intentionally used a more descriptive term - and I probably would have done the same thing If I was writing his article for that particular publication and audience.

Gibby
Red #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

mike the beginner

07-28-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote: I'm going to check out Miami Vice today. BTW, in his review, Mr. Scott misuses the term "depth of focus" when he should have used "depth of field".
___________________________________________

Gibby i am sure you are correct in your assumption but it was useful for Greg to point out the fact. Us beginners and less knowledgable forum members have had some great tutorials from you guys recently with regards lenses, DOF & FOV, focal lengths and so forth. We dont want to be getting confused again when we read articles like that...now :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 12:45 PM

Jarred Land

07-28-2006, 12:59 PM

so true..

Gibby

07-28-2006, 01:23 PM

I was, in fact, making a bit of joke for the benefit of the readership here. Geez. Depth of field is the correct term, not depth of focus. Deep focus would have been a better layman's term. It's also an industry term. Sometimes movie reviewers and industry writers throw in terms they think they understand when they don't.

Yeah, I got your joke immediately - and it was a good one! Obviously depth of field is the correct term. Deep focus may have been a better laymman's term, but depth of focus would mean about the same thing in the brain of most layman readers of the NYT. They wouldn't know or care that deep focus was an official term in our industry. Scott writes a fair amount on the media industry. I suspect he knows that depth of field is the correct term, but was simply trying to clarify to media-ignorant readers that focus depth was what Mann and Beebe were after.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 04:44 PM

OK, now I've seen Miami Vice. It certainly isn't a deep focus movie, that's for sure. Selective focus is used in a fairly conventional way. Composition, on the other hand, is decidedly ... odd. They use the increased depth of field of the 2/3" format to shoot in very low light (sometimes very, very, VERY low light) while still having enough depth to see backgrounds. Sometimes the images look like grainy, underlit S16, sometimes like slick 35mm. Whatever serves the story is fine by me.

acoreasc

07-28-2006, 05:47 PM

I just came back from a screening of it too....not with Greg, although he is a nice fellow...
I thought it was strange how there was almost no set rules in the context of scenes....there is all types of differing noise levels and seeming shutter speeds and even the way some of the video is rendered - almost 30p in some spots. Some of the stuff looks available light....with nothing used as a key...some of the open ocean stuff in particular is extremely noisy, but I must say that overall the imagery works in the vein of the story.
I wouldn't say the movie is necessarily beautiful, but the dirty, grungy and artificial images closely relate to the thematic elements of Mann's story. It certainly never looked, or even tried to look, filmlike...some of it even started to pull away from being cinematic in my opinion, but I think this goes towards what a lot of people have been talking about - the medium is cinema, but the format is digital...and this is definitely an emphatic embrace of that type of visual storytelling.

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 05:58 PM

It's not as visually stylized as, say, Tony Scott's most recent movies have become, but as you point out there are no discernible rules from scene to scene or even shot to shot. It's always interesting to see a major director taking chances, even if he's not always successful.

acoreasc

07-28-2006, 06:13 PM

Agreed - certiainly not as pyrotechnic in terms of slow motion, layered dissolves, and jump cutting. I would say though that I think it takes balls to make a picture that looks so unconventional in terms of a hollywood action picture of a known property. At least Collateral was almost a character piece with a limited cast. Miami Vice was "MTV Cops" for the time, and I think it is a risk to turn out something so rough in its execution that has as big a scope as it does...has Miami ever looked less like a tourist spot?

acoreasc

07-28-2006, 06:17 PM

the movie itself....I'll have to go to cafe for that

D_and_G

07-28-2006, 06:49 PM

It's funny you mentioned Miami vice Greg. I was going to start a thread on it , the Viper and RED.

So, I went to Vice to see how Mann handled the Viper, and how its images came out on the silver screen. Now, to preface all my remarks I know that Mann's production had the BEST equipment, lenses and post production workflow All that being said, they did have to use a camera that is comparable (spec-wise) to RED. Hence, the question that I had throughout the movie, mainly, Will RED perform at the same level or better than the Viper ?

I've looked over the specs on both cameras (that we know) and unless I am missing a tech point (which is possible), I think it will. RED has a S/N ratio of 66db compared to Viper's 54db has over 11.4 million pixels, versus Viper's 9.2 million. And although I don't know how the 3 2/3" Viper's CCD's compare to the one Super35mm CMOS of RED, I can't imagine a huge advantage. Now, as to the differences in RAW output, and/or RED code, it seems a little early to do comparisons, but all else being equal I don't see an advantage that the Viper has over RED.

Thus, to answer that long comparison, "yes" RED could achieve a similar picture as Miami Vice (given 35mm primes, good DP etc...). In fact, i have a Miami script (written awhile ago) that i had stuck in a drawer due to financial considerations. However, if RED delivers on the dynamic range, color fidelity, and amount of useable data, that they are claiming, then it probably will be a different story. Particularly when you don't need 3 gennies and three trucks worth of lights to film in low light scenarios (not saying that you "don't" have to light, just light "differently" and less expensively)...

IMHO, there were some gorgeous shots in Miami Vice that were equal to or better of 35mm. Granted, the night exteriors were gritty, but as aforementioned, they suited the story and thhe aesthetic Mann was going for.

For the rest of the movie, i'll head to the cafe'. But if anyone thinks i've missed something in my estimation i'd be glad for you to chime in :beer:

RED # wish I was higher

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 07:21 PM

As I wrote in another thread, the Viper uses a system of smaller sub-pixels that account for the 9.2 million pixels you refer to. This is a misleading number. The actual spatial resolution of the Viper sensors is just 1920x1080 at full resolution. As you know, RED's maximum spatial resolution is 4520X2540 on an S35-sized sensor. It would have been impossible to achieve the same result on Miami Vice from a larger sensor using S35 format lenses.

Here's an excerpt about the Viper from the other thread:

It should be noted that the Viper sensors do not, strictly speaking, each have 9.2 million pixels. The Viper uses an ingenious sensor design with 4320 small vertical "sub-pixels" and 1920 standard sized horizontal pixels which allows the sensor to be electronically configured for optimum 720p and 1080p in 16x9 and widescreen mode (2.37:1) without cropping the sensor, thus maximizing spatial resolution for all formats. Not all of these sub-pixels are used for every format. The maximum number of full-sized pixels is 1920x1080. The 9.2 milllion number is actually: 1920 pixels x 4320 subpixels = 8,294,400 effective pixels (really a combination of sub-pixels and full-sized pixels). The 9.2 million number is really a marketing (or engineering) number more than a practical one. I don't know why Thomson Grass Valley uses it because it can result in confusion.

D_and_G

07-28-2006, 07:48 PM

Hmm, bare with me Greg, but does that mean that RED will outperform the Viper (since RED uses 4520x2540 of its active pixel array) ?

And doesn't Vipers 3 chip design give it an advantage since it can capture RGB separately?
Perhaps, they are on an equal footing if we consider only onboard recording 2K scaled ?

edit:
It would have been impossible to achieve the same result on Miami Vice from a larger sensor using S35 format lenses. I don't quite get this. What about using 2/3" lenses or 16mm on RED?

RED # wish I was higher

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 08:04 PM

I think it's better to think of the Viper and RED as different tools with different strengths.

RED should be capable of higher image quality due to the increased spatial resolution of the sensor. We can probably also expect that the RED will boast better performance with respect to sensor speed (light sensitivity) and dynamic range, as the Viper uses a five year old sensor technology. As for 3 2/3" CCD v. single single CMOS with Bayer pattern, based on experiences with the ARRI D20, it appears a single sensor outperforms 3 x CCDs when the full sensor is used but the difference isn't as great as some might expect. Will a 2/3" or S16 windowed RED sensor with Bayer perform as well or better than the best 2/3" 3 CCD cameras? I don't know. Nor does anyone else. It'll be interesting to find out. Until we see the actual performance of the RED camera, it's all opnion, guesswork and speculation.

For Miami Vice, the 2/3" format and lenses allowed for a style that wouldn't have been possible with 35mm film or large sensor digital. The technology appears to have very directly impacted the style, just as it did for Mann's Collateral.

D_and_G

07-28-2006, 08:41 PM

Until we see the actual performance of the RED camera, it's all opnion, guesswork and speculation.

For Miami Vice, the 2/3" format and lenses allowed for a style that wouldn't have been possible with 35mm film or large sensor digital. The technology appears to have very directly impacted the style, just as it did for Mann's Collateral. Lol. That's part of the fun. :)

Seriously though, these discussions have tangible results for me, regarding allocation of budget, possible pre-production on projects etc ... but I do understand that there is only so much comparison that can be done without real world testing and verification.

I don't quite understand why RED wouldn't perform similarly to the Viper if you put high quality 2/3" lenses on it. Perhaps the fact that it would only be 4:2:2 1080p.

I'll tell ya though, the HVX vs. HDV cameras shootout was technically comfortable to understand, but the RED vs. Dalsa vs. Genesis vs. Viper one is going to be a trip. I guess some of these suppositions will be run up the flag pole (as it were).
IMO, a definite test should be the Viper in videostream mode vs. RED 2K scaled w/35mm lenses and RED 1080p w/2/3" lenses. I know it's only 4:2:2, but i'd still like to see a comparison.

PS - I don't need the incredible depth of field Mann was trying to achieve (which he did marvelously btw, ex's. clouds at night, city lights atmospheric bounce), just the low light capabilities. :beer:

:dankk2: for the help Greg. Also, do you think it's worthwhile to read some of the workflow papers on the Viper, in preparation for RED ?

Cheers.

RED # wish I was higher

Greg Lowry

07-28-2006, 09:12 PM

I don't quite understand why RED wouldn't perform similarly to the Viper if you put high quality 2/3" lenses on it. Perhaps the fact that it would only be 4:2:2 1080p.
My doubts (such as they are) have to do with the quality that's achievable from a 2/3" format section of the RED sensor with Bayer filter v. a 2/3" 3 x CCD camera. I think the only camera using a single 2/3" sensor with Bayer filter is the Silicon Imaging SI-1920HDVR camera, but I haven't seen the results. The reports I've read are favorable, but I'll need to see to believe.

PS - I don't need the incredible depth of field Mann was trying to achieve (which he did marvelously btw, ex's. clouds at night, city lights atmospheric bounce), just the low light capabilities.
With some fast lenses on the RED you should be able to turn the lights off and shoot. :)

D_and_G

07-28-2006, 09:31 PM

With some fast lenses on the RED you should be able to turn the lights off and shoot. :)hehe. more possibilities... :beer:

RED# wish I was higher

Gibby

07-28-2006, 09:57 PM

I don't quite understand why RED wouldn't perform similarly to the Viper if you put high quality 2/3" lenses on it. Perhaps the fact that it would only be 4:2:2 1080p...I know it's only 4:2:2, but i'd still like to see a comparison.

4:2:2 colorspace isn't the only proposed spec for RED in 1080p. As verified by Stuart English and Graeme Nattress, Red may be able to record 1080p 4:4:4 RGB internally, and also may be able to output 1080p 4:4:4 RGB via HD-SDI. If those projected specs stand, a 4:2:2 colorspace will not be your only option in 2k, 1080p, and 720p. You could also shoot 2k and either crop it down to 1080p 4:4:4 RGB in camera before you send it out via HD-SDI, or crop it in your NLE. Bottom line: if those specs are finalized, 1080p 4:4:4 RGB via RED with quality 2/3" lenses, may compare nicely with the results from the Viper - if not surpass it. It will be interesting to see...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

David Newman

07-28-2006, 10:24 PM

Regarding using 2/3" lens and center cropping to 1080p. Yes this will be very like shooting the Silicon Imaging camera which I have shoot with (read about that and see the HD results here : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2006/07/silicon-imaging-in-48-hours-success.html.) But technically bayer center cropping is not quite 4:4:4, as bayer image doesn't have every primary per photo-site. Although you can extract a surprising amount of detail, but it will not quite reach the level of a Viper.

D_and_G

07-28-2006, 10:36 PM

That's good to know Gibby.

I know all these specs aren't finalized, so anything is possible. I guess, I just wanted to reiterate how excited I was seeing "Miami Vice" on the big screen, knowing that RED (if it delivers) plays in the same "ballpark" as these other heavy hitters.

This was the first movie for me, that married the artistic + technolgical in the digital realm, with an acceptable film out image. (for others, it may be an earlier digi movie) The fact, we as consumers have the chance to own this gear is something i've been waiting for.

Now for Ibc :beer:

PS - Even the preliminary specs are revolutionary. Before one change. Indeed, even if Jim delivers a Ferrari Spyder instead of an Enzo, i'll be chuffed :beer: :beer:

REd # wish I was higher

Gibby

07-28-2006, 10:50 PM

Thanks for that insight David...

D & G: I haven't seen Miami Vice yet, but I'll check it out in the next few days. My wife always ribs me about not just enjoying a movie, rather than analyzing the production values of it. Like the rest of you, I can't shut off the dual-track brain system of simultaneously enjoying the story and evaluating the tech/artistry values. Watching more footage is like a postman taking a walk on his day off, but we all love what we do, so it's a pleasure to check out someone elses work!

No doubt...we'll all be stoked to get our hands on that new Ferrari, whatever the model, and take it for a roadtest...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

JTmoney

07-29-2006, 12:50 AM

The camera of choice for Michael Mann was the Sony F900 ,when he made Collateral. Don't know about Miami Vice. I,m hoping one could pull off the same low light capability with RED! I would be very pleased

Greg Lowry

07-29-2006, 01:02 AM

Sorry to disagree, JT, but the Viper was the A camera on both Collateral and Miami Vice (I think they had six Vipers on MV). Mann himself estimated that 80% of the digital work on Collateral was shot with the Viper. The Sony F900 was used mainly when they needed on-board recording for Steadicam, etc.

Here's a good article on Collateral's use of the Viper:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2076963

adaml

07-29-2006, 01:08 AM

If I recall correctly, the viper had just come out when Collateral was shot and there were workflow issues. It wasn't that he prefered the look of the Sony. There's a great article in American Cinematographer.

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

Greg Lowry

07-29-2006, 01:10 AM

But technically bayer center cropping is not quite 4:4:4, as bayer image doesn't have every primary per photo-site. Although you can extract a surprising amount of detail, but it will not quite reach the level of a Viper.

Thanks for putting meat on the bones of my concern, David.

adaml

07-29-2006, 01:14 AM

From the ASC article on Collateral:

The production began shooting with a pair of Vipers, but Cameron testifies that “by the end of the first day, we switched to two F900s as our main cameras.”

Don't know if it's true but anyway thought I'd share.

Greg Lowry

07-29-2006, 01:19 AM

Interesting contradictions. Especially when one is made by the director himself.

"The Viper isn't the only camera Mann is using to shoot the movie, which he describes as a "multimedia" effort. He's using the Sony CineAlta high-definition camera, as well as shooting film, but of the roughly 80% of the finished film Mann estimates he's captured digitally, about 80% originated from the Viper."

Go figure.

According to the American Cinematographer article, Cameron was replaced by Dion Bebe three weeks into the 12 week [Collateral] production. A reasonable assumption is that Bebe used the Viper more when he took over the DoP duties.

adaml

07-29-2006, 02:14 AM

That does seem like a reasonable assumption. As hands-on as Mann seems to be, I can't imagine that he doesn't know what camera he's using.

I have to say, I love what he's trying to do regarding low-light shooting, night-time ambiance, etc.

JTmoney

07-29-2006, 04:56 AM

Greg, Good articel gives me more insight. I was going off what Mann had said, in the making of Collateral DVD. Not the best source for information

mike the beginner

07-29-2006, 05:15 AM

regards the ASC article, the more you read the whole article the more they seem to use the viper.

Heres a part i found VERY INTERESTING given that the viper is a 2/3rd lens. Quote:
At the filmmakers’ request, Thomson also added weight to the back of the Viper to make it more balanced for handheld operation; the camera was initially very difficult to handhold without the added ballast of a magazine hanging off the back of the camera. “Our A-camera operator, Gary Jay, an amazing operator who has worked with Michael for many years, and our B-camera operator, Chris Haarhoff, were really able to work these cameras to their advantage,” says Beebe. “An odd byproduct of the HD world, especially with so much handheld operation, was that our focus pullers, John Grillo and Glen Brown, ended up working primarily via remote focus, sitting at the monitor. The HD monitors are so crisp and sharp that the best way to judge critical focus is simply to watch the monitor.
_______________________________________________

With the Red camera and using s35mm lenses handheld will be much more difficult. Red with 2/3rd lenses (going by the comments above) might also be difficult. Is this something we should be worried about:(

PS I am saying this only in the context of what i have read up so far here and elsewhere.

Michael

evinsky

07-29-2006, 05:52 AM

I don't think it will be that hard, one trade off of having less DOF is that it's easier to see when thing are really in focus. As long as your monitor is up to the challenge.

Gibby

07-29-2006, 07:57 AM

With the Red camera and using s35mm lenses handheld will be much more difficult. Red with 2/3rd lenses (going by the comments above) might also be difficult. Is this something we should be worried about:(

Shoulder operation: Use an ajdustable shoulder mount. Many already exist, plus I would hazzard a guess that RED will produce one. Slide camera forward or backward on the mount to center balance for each different lens/accessory setup.

Hand held: Use RED 3 Handle system with top handle forward to get balance point over the lens, or if using RED One Cage, use sliding or clamp-on counter weights on rails to help balance the load.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

D_and_G

08-04-2006, 08:51 PM

For anyone interested, or who's followed this thread, there was a Very Interesting article on the making of Miami Vice in "American Cinematographer" magazine.

Apparently "Vice" used Vipers, Sony Cinelalta T950 and F900's. I bought the mag just to see what the issues are for workflow concerning high end digital acquisition (not that i'll be doing a $125 million feature tomorrow, but what else can you compare narrative feature blow up to film RED too?)

The article hits on dynamic range, need for a massive amount of light (the way they were shooting) and some tips and techniques. I'll try to find a link :beer:

REd # wish I was higher

D_and_G

08-04-2006, 09:14 PM

Well, since G is away, and i'm bored (i thought i'd quote the article a bit to get feedback ).

Here's some quotes from the "American Cinematographer" article I found interesting :

"The HD cameras have less latitude in the highlights than film, and that was the tricky part to negotiate", he (Beebe) continues."We had to find a daylight look that was bold and interesting but would ultimately work to protect our highlights. Summer in Miami is a variety of extremely bright sun, haze and heavy clouds - very tricky exposure-wise. The most challenging situations were when we were shooting day interiors against very bright exteriors. We had one location looking out onto Biscayne Bay with huge floor to ceiling windows and open doors. We had set a mandate with our exposure that we worked from the background forward. This meant exposing for low ambient light for our night work and lighting to stop, or, in this situation, exposing for our highlights then bringing the interior up to meet the exposure for the interior. When possible, I tried to work within a 1-2 stop latitude between the highlights outside and the key light on the actors. With film, I could easily have made that with a 3-4 stop latitude, but with digital cameras, 2 was the most I would do, and for our look was the best appproach."

That required a great deal of light; lighting actors to a T22 to match exterior highlights is no small feat. For the Biscayne Bay location Beebe positioned three 18K HMI's about 12' from the actors to get them within a stop of exterior highlights.So, is a 1-2 stop difference the norm for high end digital ? I know their shooting an extreme - but I was wonderin '. Obviously, you have to protect your highlights with digital.

We actually ended up creating an aluminum casing for the Vipers, which also stood out to protect the body and make them more robust We knew these cameras were going to be runnning around in a lot of exteriors, heat and humidity, on boats, in cars and in jets.This makes RED look pretty good. I suppose the solid fabrication body and cage would lend itself to durability. Along with third party add ons (cage modifications?) of course.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/5258/1154750706.jpg

:beer:

RED # wish I was higher

D_and_G

08-04-2006, 09:43 PM

Just as on "Collateral", the Viper was set to Videostream (RGB) mode so such adjustemnts could be made on set. In the uncompressed mode, no internal signal processing is possible, because the RAW data from the three CCD's is transmitted directly to the recording device; in Videostream mode, the cameras full processing menu is available to manipulate the image. The output is 4:4:4 dual stream HD-SDI 22 bit RGB data. This data is then recorde to Sony HDCAM SR SRW-1 decks at 4:1 compression.

I also find it intersting, that Beebe used waveform monitors, 27" HD monitors and a custom look up table (LUT's) to emulate the look of the film print (back at the video village). Some of the topics and ideas, we've been talking about here, and how to get the same result on a lower budget. It's interesting that Mann sacrificed the RAW output for the ability to use the full processing menu on set. Another topic about RED (which format will you choose ? )

Although a lot of work went into refining a fiber optic tether for the Vipers, "we had varying succcess with the fiber lines and had to resort to the larger copper lines, quite a few times", says Beebe. I like RED's solutions better.

" Vice" also used the T950 for scenes like the race boat, where they separated the imaging system , which can be separated from the body for up to 50 meters. That kinda' sounds like Gibby's idea about underwater photography with RED. :beer:

Throughout the shoot, Beebe worked almost exclusively with the new Carl Zeiss 6-24mm Digizoom, even though he carried a set of Digiprimes. "We pretty much lived on the Digizoom, and it was a great tool for us. Michael really likes to utilize the zoom for specific emphasis, especially with handheld cameras".I noticed that watching the movie (but only because I was assessing the tech). He uses it amazingly, creating a sense of dynamism, subtlely. How much does the Zeiss go for ? (kidding). He also used 435's and 235's for highspeed and underwater work. (I don't remember any underwater work, unless you count the shower haha)

One more quote :

"Building on our experiences from "Collateral", we set some pretty strict guidelines as to how to expose, especially faces, and what percentages were acceptable to avoid ddiigital noise", he continues. "On night exteriors, I tried to keep the exposure values at around 30 or 40 percent, never letting them fall below 20 percent and kept the gain at +3db most of the time, rarely going tp +6 db. It's tricky, because you can look at the monitor and think the exposure looks great, and when you check the exposure values on the waveform you find it's too low. When it's too low, you get noise, and often you can't see the noise on the monitors. The only way to know for sure is to check the image on a large screen ".Ok, buy digital projector to screen dailies - check !
Don't freak out if you are seeing an aesthetic image that will be diffrerent (in post) and on the big screen ? - check !

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Whew, lots to think about, prepare for.
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/5258/1154750751.jpg

RED # wish I was higher