Keep video and film seperate please!

Graeme_Nattress said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Graeme
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Proteus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post !

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

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.
 
John_Hudson said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
double_agent_oo2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!), 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.
 
Last edited:
Things like the RED camera is a part of something new and good
A more fair evolution in moviemaking. The best movies wins anyway.
 
"...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
 
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.
 
Greg Lowry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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