Will RED finally be able to replace film?
- Thread starter lboyce
- Start date
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
ok, guys if ya want to get REAL teqnical, then everyone surely knows that REAL analogue does not exist right, you have heard of Zeno's Paradox right? 
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Anhar Hussain Miah
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) Anhar Hussain Miah
okay, let me clarify my question a little bit. I didn't mean to start the "Will digital kill film" debate. I honestly don't care one way or the other. My point was, even though I understand we don't know, can we speculate that RED will be an equal solution to film? Not necessarily "kill" it, but look so close that you'll almost not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Now, before you go out there and tell me that digital is digital and film is film, let me remind you that digital has the potential to emulate just about anything, the technology just has to evolve to that point. I'm referring to digital SLR's, which to my eyes, I cannot tell one single iota of difference! So I know that it is possible.
Now, before you go out there and tell me that digital is digital and film is film, let me remind you that digital has the potential to emulate just about anything, the technology just has to evolve to that point. I'm referring to digital SLR's, which to my eyes, I cannot tell one single iota of difference! So I know that it is possible.
For the most part, yes it probably will replace it for most people.
Purist will always have their 8-tracks, etc.
What ever happened to post-production?...make your film look there.
Some may say its not the same...well most people, whether you like to admit it or not, will never know the difference. (audiences)
Give me a nice big clean image, then let me distort it the way I want.
peace
dalen
Purist will always have their 8-tracks, etc.
What ever happened to post-production?...make your film look there.
Some may say its not the same...well most people, whether you like to admit it or not, will never know the difference. (audiences)
Give me a nice big clean image, then let me distort it the way I want.
peace
dalen
Michael Carter
Veteran
The "digital SLR" analogy caught my eye on this thread...
My DV experience is so-far limited, but I've shot still fashion and product for about a decade. My observations about still film vs. digital do match up with my cinema-viewing experiences...
Before digital became viable for commercial photography, I did have my film stock preferences depending upon subject and feel desired. I'd say 90% of what I did required sharp, crisp imagery, pretty and clean. Even the moody/dark stuff. EVERY fashion or editorial shot i did involving people got at least a 1/3 stop push at the lab; I liked the kick that gives it.
But EVERY scan I had made (I do my own design and production) ended up with some photoshop tweaks. At least some levels or curves boosting; I love the fine-tuning you can do. (And could certainly do with film transferrd to digital).
Digital SLRs have TOTALLY replaced film for me commercially. However, for really moody or experimental stuff, digital has yet to replace film; the grain, shadows, and color saturation are organic, random, and (to my eye), sheer magic. However, my favorite film stocks for this kind of work are going, (the high-speed tungstens with the amazing, pastel grain) or gone (polagraph, how I miss you polagraph!!!! The film of the gods!!!) And not reproduceable in photoshop (and I've used PS obsessively since version 2.0... ain't no way).
Would I film a FEATURE with that look? No. Maybe a title or dream sequence, but I can't see a whole film ("Man on Fire" didn't impress me... the movie equivalent of a so-so woman with too much makeup, fake boobs, and a silly dress).
I COULD see doing a feature with the look of 400 Kodak; that very fine grain that is such a part of the 60's & 70's film explosion; I have yet to see an NLE filter that comes close to the random & organic grain produced by silver & chemistry.
However, when looking through my past work, I find that I achieved a tremendous amount of mood & emotion with good lighting, good talent, and good locations. And achieving that with digital is so much easier, faster, and repeatable, and I know on-set that I've got what I want... no more sleepless nights waiting for the lab delivery.
The point of all this? Something like Red would be kick-butt for 90% of what I could conceive of doing for a "cinema" output.
Film is still magic to me. But it's a heavy magic that works great in the small-dose of a still image; my guess is that digital is fully capable of replacing it for almost all of the feature & short work I could conceive of (or have seen in theaters lately). But, that's just my .02.
My DV experience is so-far limited, but I've shot still fashion and product for about a decade. My observations about still film vs. digital do match up with my cinema-viewing experiences...
Before digital became viable for commercial photography, I did have my film stock preferences depending upon subject and feel desired. I'd say 90% of what I did required sharp, crisp imagery, pretty and clean. Even the moody/dark stuff. EVERY fashion or editorial shot i did involving people got at least a 1/3 stop push at the lab; I liked the kick that gives it.
But EVERY scan I had made (I do my own design and production) ended up with some photoshop tweaks. At least some levels or curves boosting; I love the fine-tuning you can do. (And could certainly do with film transferrd to digital).
Digital SLRs have TOTALLY replaced film for me commercially. However, for really moody or experimental stuff, digital has yet to replace film; the grain, shadows, and color saturation are organic, random, and (to my eye), sheer magic. However, my favorite film stocks for this kind of work are going, (the high-speed tungstens with the amazing, pastel grain) or gone (polagraph, how I miss you polagraph!!!! The film of the gods!!!) And not reproduceable in photoshop (and I've used PS obsessively since version 2.0... ain't no way).
Would I film a FEATURE with that look? No. Maybe a title or dream sequence, but I can't see a whole film ("Man on Fire" didn't impress me... the movie equivalent of a so-so woman with too much makeup, fake boobs, and a silly dress).
I COULD see doing a feature with the look of 400 Kodak; that very fine grain that is such a part of the 60's & 70's film explosion; I have yet to see an NLE filter that comes close to the random & organic grain produced by silver & chemistry.
However, when looking through my past work, I find that I achieved a tremendous amount of mood & emotion with good lighting, good talent, and good locations. And achieving that with digital is so much easier, faster, and repeatable, and I know on-set that I've got what I want... no more sleepless nights waiting for the lab delivery.
The point of all this? Something like Red would be kick-butt for 90% of what I could conceive of doing for a "cinema" output.
Film is still magic to me. But it's a heavy magic that works great in the small-dose of a still image; my guess is that digital is fully capable of replacing it for almost all of the feature & short work I could conceive of (or have seen in theaters lately). But, that's just my .02.
danny d
Carbonite Member
Sorry to say this is really intresting, for the commercial feature filmmakers, please call your producers reps, sales agents, distribution and financing companies and ask the question, will film or digital? as we speak today the truth is more and more productions that seek buyouts and distribution will need to shoot film super 16mm (with a DI scanned TRANSFER) and 35mm.
a few years ago, producers and distributors were hoping feature film audiences would easily accept digitally originated material, the staggering losses compelled them to stick wiith the traditional formats. this was not due to the quality but rather the overwhelming number of new amatuerish, and unskilled videomakers with prosumer cameras making movies. film is still the king no doubt. but in advertiser supported television digital will take over. TV features will still mostly be shot in film. The work flow is still very simple. from a traditional filmmakers point of view its very easy to shoot and conform with film. digital is still in its early stages, aquisition, processing and storage is sitll a big tedious and expensive issue with digital formats
a few years ago, producers and distributors were hoping feature film audiences would easily accept digitally originated material, the staggering losses compelled them to stick wiith the traditional formats. this was not due to the quality but rather the overwhelming number of new amatuerish, and unskilled videomakers with prosumer cameras making movies. film is still the king no doubt. but in advertiser supported television digital will take over. TV features will still mostly be shot in film. The work flow is still very simple. from a traditional filmmakers point of view its very easy to shoot and conform with film. digital is still in its early stages, aquisition, processing and storage is sitll a big tedious and expensive issue with digital formats
danny d
Carbonite Member
cont, RED is actually a concept and product everyone should definetly be intrested in with 2k resolution and pl mounts it will e way better than the ARRI D-20 WHICH really is on the HVX'S level at 20 times thes the price. i dont mean qaulity-wise, i mean unlike the hvx, its really an engineers camera, it takes fifty steps b4 you can do anything with what you shot. same for the dalsa's, the vipers etc. look online everybody that shoots those cams has a grey beard and or a phd in video science (just joking). get RED-ONE 20k cam, shoot 2k, buy a decklink card 1K, get an eSATA PC from FRY'S 1K, GET SATA II EXTERNAL HARD DRIVES 1.5K, EDIT AND COLOR IN PREMIERE (ADOBE STUDIO 1.2K), ADD EFFECTS IN AFTER EFFECTS, THATS 25 G'S COME TO CALIFORNIA A WHOLE LOT OF GREAT ACTORS WILL WORK FOR FOOD, GET ALL YOU SALES REPS, LAWYERS, PUBLICISTS, FANCLUB---------ETC ALL FOR $200.00(NOT TRUE) OR GET YOUR UNCLE JIM AND HIS FRIENDS TO ACT, ($40 FOR PIZZA, $400 FOR BEER). THIS RED CAMERA IS GOING TO BE SOMTHING ELSE
Stephen W
Well-known member
danny damah said:
Having used the D-20 I have to take exception to this statement. To date, it is the nearest thing to a "Digital Film Camera" that is available. It is very much designed for those who are used to traditional film cameras and techniques and, on my shoot, sat comfortably side-by-side with an SR3.
It is a simple camera to use (if you know your film cameras), fits into existing and understood post-production workflows and, like RED, is capable of 2k (more than in fact) and uses PL mount lenses (with the added bonus of an optical viewfinder).
You're right about Digital Filmmaking in general though. The initial push (on the back of the CineAlta and Varicam) stuttered to a halt a couple of years back in feature productions, and there has been a significant increase in the use of film since. With the Genesis and D20 there is obviously an attempt at a second push, one that could now be dominated by RED. But it's gonna take a significant change of mood in the industry for most people to switch from film.
Video camera manufacturers have been working almost exclusively for the past fifteen years to mimick celluloid acquired images.
Huge effort has been lavished on resolution, the ill-conceived 30 frame and 60 frame systems like ShowScan, progressive imagers and true 24 frame cadence.
The principal camera used in digital cinema is the Sony CineAlta. CineAlta is a about as close as a company like Sony (read: once totally focused on broadcast rather than filmmakers) could have hoped to get in its early foray into film-style production form-factor and functionality.
Saying that digital production is going in fits and starts or that there is a wholesale discount of its viability is a bit off the mark. Some studios might well have decided to, for the time being, take a wait and see on digital acquisition, but it is decidedly the medium for an entire emerging generation of content creators.
For television, there is complete saturation where film once was the only imaginable option. Narrative drama, sitcom, documentary, reality and magazine productions all utilize HD systems now - with even primetime single-camera shows jumping over every season.
As the audience becomes more accustomed to the digital cadence, the hits will go into the column of digital favor and the misses will go wherever they go.
Filmmakers must be happy with the choices they have. Every feature on film cameras you see in mainstream production is the result of generations of user-to-manufacturer collaboration - from the heater in your eyepiece to the sunglass hook on the back of every Panavision Platinum in the field.
RED promises (and by that I mean contractually committed to those who made a deposit) to further this collaboration-already-in-progress toward an even better functional result.
e
Huge effort has been lavished on resolution, the ill-conceived 30 frame and 60 frame systems like ShowScan, progressive imagers and true 24 frame cadence.
The principal camera used in digital cinema is the Sony CineAlta. CineAlta is a about as close as a company like Sony (read: once totally focused on broadcast rather than filmmakers) could have hoped to get in its early foray into film-style production form-factor and functionality.
Saying that digital production is going in fits and starts or that there is a wholesale discount of its viability is a bit off the mark. Some studios might well have decided to, for the time being, take a wait and see on digital acquisition, but it is decidedly the medium for an entire emerging generation of content creators.
For television, there is complete saturation where film once was the only imaginable option. Narrative drama, sitcom, documentary, reality and magazine productions all utilize HD systems now - with even primetime single-camera shows jumping over every season.
As the audience becomes more accustomed to the digital cadence, the hits will go into the column of digital favor and the misses will go wherever they go.
Filmmakers must be happy with the choices they have. Every feature on film cameras you see in mainstream production is the result of generations of user-to-manufacturer collaboration - from the heater in your eyepiece to the sunglass hook on the back of every Panavision Platinum in the field.
RED promises (and by that I mean contractually committed to those who made a deposit) to further this collaboration-already-in-progress toward an even better functional result.
e
Gibby
Red Savant
Overland - we have similar backgrounds and business models, and I agree with your post. Well said...
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Dalen,
I don't think you were commenting on my post, but you raise a really interesting point on film color versus digital color. I personally despise the "painterly scenics" as realized in LOTR, SW, KK and the new crop of SFX-heavy pieces in recent years.
I liken it to the look of Technicolor 3-strip processes - the colors are amazing, but absolutely and decidedly unreal looking. Hi there! Everyone looks like George Hamilton, except more red!
The new digital matte benchmark (as introduced to us by LucasFilm's MatteWorld) isn't photo-realistic, it's cartoonish and I dislike it immensely.
In fact, foreground elements realized digitally also have a soft "stretchy-gooey" appearance that breaks the forth wall for me each and every time.
e
I don't think you were commenting on my post, but you raise a really interesting point on film color versus digital color. I personally despise the "painterly scenics" as realized in LOTR, SW, KK and the new crop of SFX-heavy pieces in recent years.
I liken it to the look of Technicolor 3-strip processes - the colors are amazing, but absolutely and decidedly unreal looking. Hi there! Everyone looks like George Hamilton, except more red!
The new digital matte benchmark (as introduced to us by LucasFilm's MatteWorld) isn't photo-realistic, it's cartoonish and I dislike it immensely.
In fact, foreground elements realized digitally also have a soft "stretchy-gooey" appearance that breaks the forth wall for me each and every time.
e
danny d
Carbonite Member
Stephen W said:
oh I SEE, MUST ADMIT I HAVE NEVER SEEN A D-20 PRODUCTION OR THE CAMERA IN ACTION. I SAW THE ACTUAL CAMERA AT CINEGEAR EXPO HERE IN LA, AND AS EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE SCIENCE GUY/ DP YOU NEED A DI SOLUTION TO WORK WITH THE FOOTAGE. NOT INDIE FRIENDLY THERE.
I HAVE SEEN THE GENESIS ON A MUSIC VIDEO SHOOT, WHERE I WAS A PA, THE WHOLE CREW WISHED THEY HAD AN AATON 35-III, THE SIMPLEST GUEIRILLA FRIENDLY 3 PERF CAM. THE PRODUCTION COMPANY WANTED TO TRY NEW THINGS. DISASTER SHOOT. I MUST ADMIT THE POST PRODUCTION WAS A BREEZ, WITH NO DEGRAINING, TOEING ETC. THANKS TO THE PANAVISION ENGINEER EVERYTHING CAME TOGETHER AT A GREAT TIME COST. OH YEAH THE LENSES WERE IMPECABLE
Stephen W
Well-known member
Aahh, inverted caps, eyes hurt...
I simply ran the footage out to HDCAMSR deck, the post workflow for which is fairly straightforward.
What was explained to you may be the "film mode" where the RAW footage is recorded but then needs to be "processed" using LUT's before it becomes useable and is then a 2k+ image.
The RED ONE will do exactly the same thing, only in 4k
danny damah said:
I simply ran the footage out to HDCAMSR deck, the post workflow for which is fairly straightforward.
What was explained to you may be the "film mode" where the RAW footage is recorded but then needs to be "processed" using LUT's before it becomes useable and is then a 2k+ image.
The RED ONE will do exactly the same thing, only in 4k
khmuse
Tech Guru
An excellent point. In the end, we always seem to find the granularity of nature, that is until we discover that there seems to be yet another layer to be understood (string theory as an example).Anhar Miah said:ok, guys if ya want to get REAL teqnical, then everyone surely knows that REAL analogue does not exist right, you have heard of Zeno's Paradox right?
Anhar Hussain Miah
Film is granular in nature, but does exhibit a more "analog like" nature to it having more than just two states. Digital is currently binary but is not necessarily limited to binary, its simply currently the most practical scheme.
I am excited by the announcement of the Red, but feel that it is a much more evolutionary than revolutionary product.
Time will render all this speculation moot.
nice k. Evolutionary just may be a better name for it. Revolutionary is a good word to describe the price point, but the camera certainly is an evolution of all cameras before it.. skipping one or two evolution steps of course.
khmuse
Tech Guru
Hey Jarred,
Lets hope that RED's "final" price is as revolutionary as we all hope. I have seen too many early announcements of the price point of a yet to be released product driven by a marketing decision. Then, as reality rears its ugly head, price is adjusted to reflect the actual costs (development costs, materials, processing, support, overhead, profit...). If the Red comes even close to its current quoted price, then it will fall into an extremely rare catogory...
again time will tell.
Lets hope that RED's "final" price is as revolutionary as we all hope. I have seen too many early announcements of the price point of a yet to be released product driven by a marketing decision. Then, as reality rears its ugly head, price is adjusted to reflect the actual costs (development costs, materials, processing, support, overhead, profit...). If the Red comes even close to its current quoted price, then it will fall into an extremely rare catogory...
again time will tell.
khmuse said:
Well, I guess thats why if you reserve it, you get it at the price point listed now. (and even get a refund if you change your mind.)
But does make you wonder, the fact that it locks you in at that price point, that perhaps it has crossed their minds to raise the price?
peace
dalen