RED changing cinema

[tonacidigital]

All these years, I have been so accustomed to watching movies with all the film grain and noise. It's almost as if I have been wearing a pair of dirty glasses and not knowing it....but now..after watching the crystal clear footage from RED, I now realize how dirty my glasses have been.. I can see clearly now!! =)

Thank you Jim..and the RED TEAM.

 

[hawaj]

Strange. I am actually pretty used to film grain. Its kind of magic and I like to add grain in photoshop or in video composing to get different look. It just nicely blend everything together.

But you are right its time for change that paradigma.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

There were already low noise, grain free Digital 35mm cameras. I wouldn't say RED is changing anything on that front.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

That's what I've been saying for a while now, why see everything with distortion and grain?

If an actress has a blemish or two, f*** it. Digital cinema is noise free, sharp, and bound to take over in due time.

 

[Barry_Green]

You can always add grain in post. So you can have it both ways.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Meh. Back when anamorphic lenses came in, people agonized over how to hide the distinctive artifacts they produced. Then, everyone stopped worrying about it. Now, some people even try to emulate that look with non-anamorphic footage, because of the "epic movie" associations it has for people.

We're going to see the same thing happen here. People will agonize over how to make the footage from digital cinema cameras look like it was shot on film for a while. Then, everyone will quit worrying about it, and the new super-clean digital look will just be accepted as the way a modern movie is supposed to look. Then, when the next big thing comes along (HDR cinema cameras? 60p as the new theatrical standard?), some people will try to emulate the look of the RED and other first-wave digital cinema cameras, because of the associations people will, by that time, have with that look.

 

[acehole111]

The dancing salt crystals in film do have a certain magic to them. Its akin to the glimmering lights that you see through eyes.

 

[Poi Boy]

That is the beauty of red images; you have the ability to make any look you want from grainless and pristine to golf ball size grain grunge. Totally cool!
Aloha
-A

 

[Digigenic]

Meh. Back when anamorphic lenses came in, people agonized over how to hide the distinctive artifacts they produced. Then, everyone stopped worrying about it. Now, some people even try to emulate that look with non-anamorphic footage, because of the "epic movie" associations it has for people.

We're going to see the same thing happen here. People will agonize over how to make the footage from digital cinema cameras look like it was shot on film for a while. Then, everyone will quit worrying about it, and the new super-clean digital look will just be accepted as the way a modern movie is supposed to look. Then, when the next big thing comes along (HDR cinema cameras? 60p as the new theatrical standard?), some people will try to emulate the look of the RED and other first-wave digital cinema cameras, because of the associations people will, by that time, have with that look.

Even though I agree with your initial observation on how nostalgia influences the recycling of certain artistic tastes, I think you're neglecting to see the potential to move out of the traditional cinema environment into something much more interactive, like virtual-reality entertainment.

By no means am I saying cinema or the particular tastes for various forms of it will die; I'm simply saying that people had over 100 years to condition their tastes to traditional cinema, therefore it’s understandable why they would have such a strong sense of nostalgia geared towards that era. However, in this case, people really won't be given that same time frame to be conditioned and become sentimentally attached to what they're currently experiencing before it develops into something completely different.
The technology is moving way too fast.

It's pretty simple to see that when most forms of communication among people is expressed multi-dimensionally; naturally, most of their entertainment will be delivered in the same fashion.

 

[pablovi]

A good expose Negative and it release print if it had been taking care off, are practicallly grainless, almost all of the new emulsions are grainless, infact it's hard to get some grain with the new emulsion you have to push the film sometimes more than two stops. Anyway, there are some cameras out in the market right now who shot in 4K. But non, has the latitude and versatility of film. And based on that RED grabs, it won't repalce anything in film. It doesn't look better than film, it's catching up on it, but there still a long way to go.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Anyway, there are some cameras out in the market right now who shot in 4K. But non, has the latitude and versatility of film. And based on that RED grabs, it won't repalce anything in film. It doesn't look better than film, it's catching up on it, but there still a long way to go.

Have you seen Flyboys? Not a great movie, but it looks like film. To the average unknowing viewer.... it is film.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Even though I agree with your initial observation on how nostalgia influences the recycling of certain artistic tastes, I think you're neglecting to see the potential to move out of the traditional cinema environment into something much more interactive, like virtual-reality entertainment.

[...]

It's pretty simple to see that when most forms of communication among people is expressed multi-dimensionally; naturally, most of their entertainment will be delivered in the same fashion.

Will we get virtual-reality entertainment? Sure. I don't think it'll evolve directly out of digital cinema, though. I think it'll evolve out of today's gaming platforms. And I don't think it will do much of anything to reduce the demand for movies. There's widespread demand today for both interactive and non-interactive entertainment. I don't see this changing. One is not really a substitute for the other, any more than, say, sculpture is a substitute for painting.

 

[pablovi]

Have you seen Flyboys? Not a great movie, but it looks like film. To the average unknowing viewer.... it is film.

No, I haven't, is not out in my country yet. But probably most of the pople watched it on film, there are very few digital cinema proyectors. I have yet to see a totally digital production that looks like film.

RED is not out yet, but the 4K cameras on the market doesn't have the latitude or versatility of film and all the cinematographer that have used them will agree. I think 4K video is great as an adittion to aesthetic choices and the palette of a Cinematographer, but it won't replace film, at least for a long time. With the new DI and the 3 perf cameras, right now it's faster and maybe cheaper to use film, than a 4K camera.

 

[Poi Boy]

In a very short time at most film will be the exception;seven years tops.
Aloha
-A

 

[Chris Kenny]

No, I haven't, is not out in my country yet. But probably most of the pople watched it on film, there are very few digital cinema proyectors. I have yet to see a totally digital production that looks like film.

Well, digital projection doesn't look anything like film. There's no jitter, no flicker, no dust, no scratches, no reel change warning dots, and no grain. And things only stand to get better, as theaters move to 4K. Plus, it looks like there will actually be theater certification programs for digital projection. At least in the US, this never caught on with film presentation, so you'll occasionally see really atrociously bad projection.

Yes, with modern film stocks you can get an amazing camera negative... but film is already vastly inferior to digital for distribution.

RED is not out yet, but the 4K cameras on the market doesn't have the latitude or versatility of film and all the cinematographer that have used them will agree. I think 4K video is great as an adittion to aesthetic choices and the palette of a Cinematographer, but it won't replace film, at least for a long time. With the new DI and the 3 perf cameras, right now it's faster and maybe cheaper to use film, than a 4K camera.

I don't think it will be all that long, honestly. Keep in mind that while the human eye can resolve ~20 stops over time, this involves pupil dilation and chemical changes in the retina. It actually takes 30 minutes for the chemical changes necessary for full dark adaption to be complete! The human eye can resolve far less than 20 stops at any given instant (that is to say, within one image).

The upshot of this is that you probably can't tell the difference between 15 stops and 20 stops (20 stops being the most optimistic number I've ever seen for film's latitude; most people put it at 11-13). 20 stops gives you more room to push, if you need to, but if you shoot what you need on set (and with things like live histograms, this isn't so hard with digital cinema), film's latitude advantage is already reaching its end. (It might last another year or two. Specialty CMOS sensors are already over 15 stops, but most aren't.)

If we ever get to sensors that can resolve ~25 stops (bigger than the difference between noontime sunlight and starlight), you won't even need to set your exposure in the camera. Heh. It'll just capture the full range of contrast you're likely to encounter in the everyday world all at once. We'll probably be there in 10-15 years. And screen vendors are already talking about screens with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios (~20 stops) in the next few years, so in 10-15 there might even be something to show that footage on in all its glory. Imagine the possibilities for horror movies where the dark scenes are really dark, not just fake movie dark, so you actually have to wait for your night vision to kick in a bit to see the action.

As far as cost goes, digital is cheaper for productions with budgets small enough that the cost of film stock is a significant expense, and on higher budget shoots, the cost differences aren't going to matter one way or the other. Digital probably will end up being a little cheaper, though. If you're going to do a DI anyway, digital saves you the cost of scanning film, and will probably have significant on-set workflow advantages as the technology is refined.

 

[laguun]

No, I haven't, is not out in my country yet. But probably most of the pople watched it on film, there are very few digital cinema proyectors.

thousands and thousands of cinemasscreens are going digital right now.
one example...
http://www.carmike.com/DigitalEntertainment.aspx

I have yet to see a totally digital production that looks like film.

we often mix 35mm and cinealta here. if we intend to marry them in D.I., people can´t tell. But i think adding 33LP or tapenoise to a CD will go out of fashion soon.

RED is not out yet, but the 4K cameras on the market doesn't have the latitude or versatility of film and all the cinematographer that have used them will agree.

hmm, if james cameron, george lucas, jean-jaques annaud, robert altman, david fincher, lars von trier, michael mann, mel gibson, robert rodiguez and dozens others etc do not qualify as cinematographer... otoh i personally couldn´t imagine going back to 35mm, it was a great time with film for me from 90-02, but since then we are fading it out here: because we get the shots we want and are more versatile.

I think 4K video is great as an adittion to aesthetic choices and the palette of a Cinematographer, but it won't replace film, at least for a long time.

hm, i remember the _exact_ same statements in digital still/ photochemical still discussions regarding SLRs always in 99-01, less in 02-03, and 04/05 canon & nikon stopped producing photochemical cameras. you might reread your statement and compare it to the forums for still photography of 1999-2002.

you did notice that ARRIs and PANAVISIONs most sophisticated cameras are digital already?

With the new DI and the 3 perf cameras, right now it's faster and maybe cheaper to use film, than a 4K camera.

sorry, but this is 100% wrong.

the opposite is true.

for an average fullfeature you have to add 50-100K$ for 35mm production as basis, if you go DI, double it. 10 minutes stock are below 10$ on my cinealta. on my 35mms it was QUITE different...

 

[Purple]

Here's a handy diagram for all latitude freaks:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/3.html

Conversion table:
10 stops = 3,0 orders of magnitude = 1024 linear digital steps
11 stops = 3,3 orders o.m. = 2048 steps <= RED
12 stops = 3,6 orders o.m. = 4096 steps
13 stops = 3,9 orders o.m. = 8192 steps
14 stops = 4,2 orders o.m. = 16 384 steps
15 stops = 4,5 orders o.m. = 32 768 steps
16 stops = 4,8 orders o.m. = 65 536 steps
17 stops = 5,1 orders o.m. = 131 072 steps <= Human instantaneous vision
18 stops = 5,4 orders o.m. = 262 144 steps
19 stops = 5,7 orders o.m. = 524 288 steps
20 stops = 6,0 orders o.m. = 1 048 576 steps
25 stops = 7,5 orders o.m. = 33 554 432 steps

The linked article puts human instantaneous luminance vision range at 5 orders o.m., so 17 stops would be more than enough to capture any picture humans can see at once. RED is only 6 stops (or 1.8 orders o.m.) away from this goal. Nice

 

[Glazarus]

If we are to have the extreme HDR like our eyes have, we need a sensor that can individually change exposure for each individual pixel.
A kind of dynamic exposure that, if you shot an interior scene with a window to a bright sunny landscape, all pixels that are effected by the bright spots change exposure levels so it don't burn out.

The result should be that, just like your eyes, you can see the bright sunny landscape but still see dark corners inside the room.
That would be true extreme HDR and I'm still waiting for such a dynamic sensor. Now, that would be revolutionary...

 

[acehole111]

If we are to have the extreme HDR like our eyes have, we need a sensor that can individually change exposure for each individual pixel.
A kind of dynamic exposure that, if you shot an interior scene with a window to a bright sunny landscape, all pixels that are effected by the bright spots change exposure levels so it don't burn out.

The result should be that, just like your eyes, you can see the bright sunny landscape but still see dark corners inside the room.
That would be true extreme HDR and I'm still waiting for such a dynamic sensor. Now, that would be revolutionary...

that shouldnt be too hard yknow... great idea.

 

[pablovi]

I think it's going to take at least 1 decade for the workflow of 4K to have the advantage on Film, right now it's still a very cumbersome. In Still phtography, the advantage is seeing the picture moments after you take it, in 4k that's not possible right now, since non of the cameras rigth now gives you an accurate image of what you're doing, you are shotting RAW, even if they have a monitor than can acccpet LUTs and see something similiar, is still just like the Kodak "preview"(look manager) system.

I'm not saying it won't replace comercial film shooting, but it's still a long way from doing it.

BTw, the rental of the 4k Cameras right now is very expensive, the same with the amount of storage and bandwith you need to capture the RAw images.

A few quotes of cinematographers:

Rodney Charters

I was impressed with the latitude – it has enormous latitude in the shadow areas; my big complaint about the camera when I first used it on 24 was that it was much more contrasty in the shadows than the film stock I was used to using.

You have to use an aggressive amount of diffusion in order to make it more filmic (note: I do not have the advantage of going out to a film release, which softens and blends together in a way that is neither film nor digital, just satisfying as a final image), You’ve always had to diffuse with video and you still have to with the Genesis – I used a classic soft ‘1’ on this shoot for everything, then I went to ‘2’ when I was shooting Molly because it was the thing to do. I would never do that on film. Film would look mushy with a number 2

Would I use the Genesis for 24? Well, there is still the issue that was a fundamental one to me shooting 24 in the way we do, which is that the operator’s timing in his viewfinder has a lag. My key operator on A Camera is Guy Skinner, who works handheld and is right in the thick of it all the time, working right alongside the characters – Keifer regards him as another actor in the scene. Guy relies on his timing being so precise that it doesn’t throw Keifer off the performance of his character’s dialogue (you’ve seen it hold Kiefer in CU as you track backwards: he is pushing you, his phone rings, tag the phone in his pocket, hold a beat, rise with it as he says, “Bauer”. This is always at high speed and requires precise and elegant frame timing). After we’d finished with the Genesis on season 4, Guy said he felt it took him out of the scene, whereas with an optical finder he felt a part of the scene; with an electronic finder he feels like a voyeur and viewer, and his timing is affected by the lag. He said he could get used to it, but I said, “why should we?”

But just because Annie Leibovitz shoots digital now does not mean that the same slam-dunk has taken place in the motion picture industry. Although the last sitcom to shoot film has finally shut its doors and all are now shot on HD, this is not the case with one-hour drama. Of the 30 to 40 pilots being prepped for shooting at this moment, and of those considered by the networks to have the most potential, all are being shot on film

Of the three reasons we chose not to go with the Genesis camera in season 5, the most important was that in a daylight test against the Panavision XL/Kodak 5429 Vision2 Expression combination we were able to resolve many more stops of latitude in a bright southern California sunlit exterior, being able to easily hold a black actor in the shadow foreground and still retain the detail across the road at a construction site with its hot bare earth and concrete. For the 24 Season 5 Ontario Airport interior/exterior, I was able to hold our terrorist in the foreground one stop down at f/2, exposing at T2.8 while behind him I could see the parking lot and the cars passing on the approach to the airport terminal. Then the sliding doors opened and the ND9 on these doors slide back to reveal a sunny exterior. Now I have lost that three stops of ND on the glass and the exterior exposure jumps to between T45 and T64 and all of it was still intact on the negative. It looked burnt out, but perfectly naturally so. I don’t believe I could have done that shot on video, whether Genesis or Viper or HDV. So in an uncontrolled world I think at the moment that films still gives me an advantage when shooting 24.