Keep video and film seperate please!
- Thread starter dasonras
- Start date
Gibby said:
jesus that almost brought a tear to my eye.
post of the day so far. Thanks Gibby.govindaBLU
Member
tear.....
Some
Some
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.
Some
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.
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.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
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)."dasonras said:
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
Red Team
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
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
Red Team
dasonras said:
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
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.dasonras said:
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...
Last edited:
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!Graeme_Nattress said:
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!
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.
Secondly, yes, VIDEO IS A UNIQUE ART FORM, however, it should remain UNIQUE and not attempt to emulate the true look of film.
taubkin
Veteran
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!-
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
Red Team
dasonras said:
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
Red Info
Red Info
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.
Red Info
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
Red Team
Haakon said: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.
Haakon said:
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
Red Team
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
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