Will RED finally be able to replace film?

L

lboyce

Active member
So, here's my question: Whenever you talk to someone about shooting your feature with either digital cinema or film, they usually tell you "Sure, you could go with HVX or Varicam and most audiences aren't going to tell a difference, but if you really want your film to look like "Film" than just shoot film" and that's all great and everything but will the RED camera actually be able to render that comment moot? I know we haven't seen anything yet so we can only speculate but will stuff shot with RED at, say, 2k look the same as 35mm film? I mean, I've got an old Canon film slr and a new 10D and I seriously can't tell the difference between the film and the digital. In fact, in most cases my digital looks better!! Is that the kind of revolutionary thing we're talking about here? I haven't really heard anybody discussing this.
 
I don't think anything shot electronically will "look like film". It may look more film-like, but there's a helluva-lot-more separating the two than just resolution, dynamic range and depth of field. It might be that, in time, audiences will get use to the new non-film look, or better ways will be developed to fake the film look.

But if you want it to look like film... :)
 
My opinion is that it will not replace film however it will offer low budget producers to capture a film like image with lower production budgets. With time, and maturity of the optics and post process for this caliber of HD video, it will assume more market share but the multi-billion dollar hollywood industry is deeply invested in film, therefore, I see the change happening slower on top and more quickly adopted with lower budget independent studios. For now, I am happy with the HVX worflow until Red has a proven 2k post workflow at an affordable price point.
 
Stephen W said:
...there's a helluva-lot-more separating the two than just resolution, dynamic range and depth of field...
Click to expand...

Depth of field shouldn't be an issue really, with Red's imager physically being S35. The problem in the past has always been a matter of physics -- which, to put it mildly, is difficult to get around. Smaller imagers will always suffer from some DOF issues simply because of physics.

It's the same with 8mm 16mm and 35mm. 8 and 16 have a... what's the word... broader? deeper? DOF than 35, simply because of the physical size of the film. 70mm has an even shallower DOF than 35mm. There are tricks you can use to reduce this difference, but it will always exist on some level or another.

In theory, 8mm is roughly the same as 1/3" CCDs and 16mm the same as 2/3" CCDs. Of course, I've never bothered to test this, so I'm just going off of what I was told in cinematography class.

To me, DOF is one of the most important issues, as 35mm and 70mm are pretty close to what we are used to seeing with our eyes. Not exact, but enough for it to feel natural.

As for that other stuff, beats me. :)
 
Finally be able to replace film? Who wants film replaced?

Digital video can never be considered a film replacement as long as it's tethered to a storage computer.
I like being able to store all the data of film in a simple cannister.
 
Er Digital SLR anyone??

How many pros (paparazi) still shoot on 35mm film these days? (ok so film is not quite dead, but then again its not exactly being used as much as it use to be)


I think Red *IS* the Digital SLR version of the Cinema world.

Plus the fact that an all Digital Workflow will mean you will see *MORE* resolution than if it was shot on 35mm then digitized then edited then re-printed and duped etc, etc.

One last point:
you've got the resolution, you've got the lattidue, you've got the progressive motion signature, you've got the Shallow DOF, AND YOU STILL SAYS ITS DOES NOT LOOK LIKE FILM?!?1?

"I Pity da foool" :costumed-smiley-047

Anhar Hussain Miah
 
lboyce said:
So, here's my question: Whenever you talk to someone about shooting your feature with either digital cinema or film, they usually tell you "Sure, you could go with HVX or Varicam and most audiences aren't going to tell a difference, but if you really want your film to look like "Film" than just shoot film" and that's all great and everything but will the RED camera actually be able to render that comment moot? I know we haven't seen anything yet so we can only speculate but will stuff shot with RED at, say, 2k look the same as 35mm film? I mean, I've got an old Canon film slr and a new 10D and I seriously can't tell the difference between the film and the digital. In fact, in most cases my digital looks better!! Is that the kind of revolutionary thing we're talking about here? I haven't really heard anybody discussing this.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to burst your proverbial bubble (and I realize this forum is meant for productive discussion about such topics) - but I just wanted to point out that this subject is the apex of subjectivity and is IMHO a pointless thing to discuss - I mean it's almost as subjective as a (and I may be getting a little over dramatic here) question of existentialism.

We have not yet seen any RED footage - and even then ... could this question really be awnsered? ... I mean, unless God comes down and says: "Hi everybody ... ah, yeah ... I just wanted to add another commandment - ah, the RED camera is really bad ass - and the pictures it produces look better than film so ... yeah, you can put away the spools now ..." My point is this ... make your own decision, if you want to use film - use it, if you want to use digital - use it - and formulate your own aesthetic opinions ... Personally, being a young filmmaker - I am going to keep my options open to all formats and technology.

That being said, I must say that I am more than excited about RED - and I believe it will be a wonderful option - I can't wait to get a chance to use and see how I like it - the specs thus far suggest greatness.
 
Last edited:
I think people need to get over the "does it look like film?" topic. People want digital to look like film because film is what we are used to. If our movies look like the "norm", our profesional careers will be taken seriously. I am of the opinion that upcoming digital technology will surpass film. Why do people want the superior format to look like the lesser?

I think film is great. There is a lot to it, and it is an art people can master. I DO think that with technology that can "potentially" produce a sharper, clearer, cleaner picture, people should not try to "bring it down" to a lesser form of media (in the future).

Film is only one media that can create a movie. Why not embrace the new technology, experiment, and create new things? Digital seems to be in our near future...why imitate when we can create anew?
 
SexyPants said:
I think people need to get over the "does it look like film?" topic. People want digital to look like film because film is what we are used to. If our movies look like the "norm", our profesional careers will be taken seriously. I am of the opinion that upcoming digital technology will surpass film. Why do people want the superior format to look like the lesser?

I think film is great. There is a lot to it, and it is an art people can master. I DO think that with technology that can "potentially" produce a sharper, clearer, cleaner picture, people should not try to "bring it down" to a lesser form of media (in the future).

Film is only one media that can create a movie. Why not embrace the new technology, experiment, and create new things? Digital seems to be in our near future...why imitate when we can create anew?
Click to expand...

Damn Straight.

If video is to "surpass" film in quality then film can not be used as the basis for comparison.

I'm sick of everyone treating video as an imitation of film - it is it's own unique medium.
 
Last edited:
Film Is Dead

Film Is Dead

FILM IS DEAD and has been for the past five years. You guys really need to get out of your garage filled to the brim with your records, 8 track tapes, tapes and your flock of seagulls album. People get over film it's overrated, I have. Wait for the RED camera because it will come, an it will put the last pile of dirt on the grave of FILM.


QUESTION: If film is going still going strong, then why has every major film and camera company made a digital solution?
 
Tv

Tv

:furious3: OK! Then why is it a big deal? Why is every camera that comes out trying to be film? Maybe its movie magic. If you have ever shot 35mm and shot HDW-F950 or Viper system then you know there is a huge difference. They are both good and different in there own ways, but I'm sorry film takes it and it always will until some one emulates it. Not saying digital is no good but there is something about film that developers are missing. Its not resolution or clarity but its the fantasy and feel of what film creates. Stories can be told in any medium but you can tell the difference between film and video and yeah HD or 4:4:4 digital is video. So look, how much money do you want to spend? How good of a movie maker are you? What kind of look are you going for? You can make the best movie with a VHS camera but it will never look like 35mm Film. However if someone makes a digital camera that emulates film to the T lets see who says its an infearer camera. Rent a SR2 16mm for a week instead of buying all these 3K to 10k cameras and see why the look of film is such a big deal. I'm so sick of this topic. Each formate is what it is. My question to you is what do you do and what are you looking for? Will RED finally be able to replace film? NO!
 
evenblink said:
FILM IS DEAD and has been for the past five years. You guys really need to get out of your garage filled to the brim with your records, 8 track tapes, tapes and your flock of seagulls album. People get over film it's overrated, I have. Wait for the RED camera because it will come, an it will put the last pile of dirt on the grave of FILM.


QUESTION: If film is going still going strong, then why has every major film and camera company made a digital solution?
Click to expand...

Every major company has made a digital solution because Sony (and Lucas) developed the F900 initially - and companies compete - that's what they do. I think you need to look up the defenition of subjective - previous posts have book ended this rediculous argument.
 
Aside from wondering why people keep riding this merry-go-round flame war of Film vs. Digital:violent5: , I am also wondering if there is any chance we could add a spell checker to this forum for those of us too angry to do it ourselves? Tee hee.
 
Yeah I think RED will replace film, for some people in a certain price bracket. Just like DV cameras replaced film on the low end for many people. Doesn't mean film disappeared. I know people who still shoot super 8 and 16mm. Heck I'm one of them(though rarely). But most people have switched to video because of price and ease of use.

The thing about the high end though, is that the higher you get, the less costly film becomes. When you get into the Hollywood ballpark of a million+ dollars a movie 35mm is just a typical cost. The way DV tapes are a typcial cost to those on the low end. So RED (or cameras like it) have to present to those productions a different set of features that would be appealing to them, such as ease of use, faster response, ect.

I don't think RED will replace film for all major productions, but I think it will help the chain reaction that leads to a swell of ultra hi-def cameras that will, eventually. Even so some people will still shoot film so long as it's still being made. But the bulk of the future is definitely digital. It's just a matter of when.

As far as the film look. What most people really want is the suspension of disbelief. That which helps us fall into a story and believe it. Some movies shot on 35mm don't even have that. Ever been to a movie where you said "man that was corny"? And yet I've fallen into it with movies shot on 1 chip DV cameras. Vinterberg's 'Festen" comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
it is because the companies are understanding that film is a dying format. Digital is the future. You don't see sony making 8 track tapes do you?
 
Andrew M said:
I'm sick of everyone treating video as an imitation of film - it is it's own unique medium.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - and the most successful movies shot digitally are the ones that have a unique visual style that plays to the advantages of the format rather than try to mimic the "film look" (Sin City for example).

Anhar Miah said:
Plus the fact that an all Digital Workflow will mean you will see *MORE* resolution than if it was shot on 35mm then digitized then edited then re-printed and duped etc, etc.
Click to expand...

This is an issue that can (and has) been argued backwards and forwards ad-infinitum. What needs to be understood is that "resolution" is not something that can be applied to film - 35mm does not have "resolution" as such, resolution is something you use to (attempt to) objectify video quality.

Of course, we then start to get into an argument about "ah yes, but how much can the human eye actually perceive" (whatever the answer, it's far more than can be reproduced artificially!)

evenblink said:
it is because the companies are understanding that film is a dying format. Digital is the future. You don't see sony making 8 track tapes do you
Click to expand...

Not true. According to Arri the number of projects shot on film has dramatically increased in the last couple of years and there's been a drop-off in interest of digital alternatives. George Lucas made a comment a few months ago that the number of filmmakers interested in Digital has more than halved in the last year.
 
Last edited:
Neil Burner said:
:furious3: OK! Then why is it a big deal? Why is every camera that comes out trying to be film?
Click to expand...
I don't know if every camera is trying to be film. Every camera IS trying to have a cinematic quality that has the same feeling that movies have. Just because film is the medium doesn't mean that it is better than every other format. The arguments I have heard are not valid, the images that are captured and how they are presented are what matters.

Here's an analogy.. A company designs a new mp3 player that is square with rounded corners. The press will instantly say its an Ipod knockoff. Maybe its not a knockoff, maybe its just the most simple and elegant way to make the product. For cinema, 24P is just the most simple, elegant, and accepted way to present images. The medium will always change, the content will be the same.
 
I am going to end this whole debate. People laughed when talkies came about...now every movie is a talkie, people said that mainframe's were the way to go...now we have pc's...and every movie, be it digital or Film(aka analog) is edited in a digital realm via the PC. So all your film images and sound are turned in 1's and 0's anyways. :)

So to each his own. We're all friends.

Once a new technology rolls over you, if your're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road."
-- Stewart Brand


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top