Keep video and film seperate please!

D

dasonras

Well-known member
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.
 
Sorry, but this is a silly idea. I think you're on the wrong board. Would you care to define "video" for us?
 
Last edited:
I agree, that's silly. Does that mean I can't use my virtual guitarist either or my drum loops? What about laster printing, I am designer maybe we should only print offset. No offense Dasonras, if you can afford the Arri, more power to you, however the big studies are moving more and more away from real 35mm, just to fake it digitally.
 
so since 95% of 35mm films are scanned digital to 2 or 4k edited, colored, VFX Added and then reprinted back to 35mm that meants that those films should be called video sence it didn't stay film. Or you could just start out with a 4k image and print out to 35mm. WOW we skipped a whole step, in production that is money. So your idea is flawed. Digital (video as you call it) and film are the same things now. they are just making a camera that can give the same resoultion of film.
 
I think the point is that the worlds of video and film have been slowly converging for many years and RED is really a product of that convergence. Under the circumstances, this RED group is really an unusual place for a "video purist". For example, if HD is included in your definition of video, does that mean that 24p falls outside of your definiton as 24 fps is really a film frame rate? I'm sure you get my point. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just a bit baffled by your position and would welcome an explanation.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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):
Joseph_Nicéphore_Niépce.jpg


________________________________________________
Zoopraxiscope moving picture projector in 1879 by Eadweard Muybridge (1830-1904):
muybridgeportrait.jpg
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:
180px-Fratelli_Lumiere.jpg
lumiere-cinematographe.jpg


________________________________________________
RCA Victor sound camera.
The world's first 16mm optical sound-on-film camera introduced in 1935:
rca.jpg




FAST FORWARD IN TIME....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The RED camera ...to be released... :)
 
Last edited:
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
 
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 ****. 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.
 
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
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
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
 
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:)
 
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
 
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.

Graeme said:
As for 24p, sure - people want it, but I'll be shooting 60p myself :-)
Click to expand...

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)! :)
 
Proteus said:
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)! :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Good Start....

Good Start....

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