motion blur film vs video look

[jamestmather]

You are very right. The simplest diagnosis of this is history - in the same way that black and white is used to simulate old footage because as an audience we were used to seeing old footage in BW - the same can be said of the video look - historically it has been generally used for cheaper drama and news.

The converse is also true - we are use to seeing low dof/ high dynamic range images at 24fps to represent high-end filmmaking. Its all simple association.

The myth that punters are unable to differentiate between one look and the other is similar to going to a concert to see someone playing the stradivarius - simply put - they may play the concert on a five dollar fiddle but the more discerning members of the audience will notice the difference - the rest may not or simply may not care :huh:. Who is to say?

But it's the people who can tell the difference that I'd be interested in catering to as both a Dp and a director - Not the people who couldn't care less.

One other thought - while the RED camera may well technically revolutionise filmmaking at the low to mid range - it will have very little impact, I think. on the hollywood model. Stock and lab costs generally are around less than 10% of a typical hollywood budget. It's Above the line fees that are crippling budgets at the moment not equipment rental. Films also are becoming more expensive, not less. Fewer are being made and every one of the studios is looking to hit a 400M$ home run every time. The biggest problem is getting audiences out to the cinemas to see movies in general. Almost as much is spent on advertising as the production cost itself. Red may make inroads to the studio system (it probably will) but not directly as a result of being cheaper.

 

[alacritymedia]

Tentpoles in my eyes, arghh

Tentpoles in my eyes, arghh

I track with James on the theory that at the level of the big studio pictures that the cost of film is a low priority. In fact, I would think that for A-list directors and their favorite DPs that the studio will allow them to use pretty much whatever tools they request on the bigger budget fare. I am quite interested to see if the RedOne becomes popular for FX heavy shows, which are a big percentage of the so called "tentpole" features. The over emphasis on these films is due to the coattail effect they can have on the studio's parent company stock price, but that is another thread.

Where I diverge from James is that I believe the RedOne and the digital workflow it is so perfectly suited to, will, once initial resistance is overcome, become the first choice for most Hollywood films regardless of budget. Why? A digital workflow right from the camera head integrates more smoothly into pretty much every aspect of modern post-production. FX and MoCo will love it, everything rock stable with no weave or registration issues and a mathematically definable pixel grid at the foundation. It may take a year or two to dial it in but when every pixel has a defined value for color and density then color timing becomes repeatable. Yes, there will always be an emotional component to color grading that is more art than science but the technical challenge will be much less. No telecine expense for DI, etc.

The artistic palette of an organic medium like celluloid has a certain magic that many of us love, both in spite of, and because of, its flaws. A select few of the big name directors and DPs will be able to demand to use film for many years and will likely make great art with it. I look forward to enjoying the work they do and the deep emotional chord it will strike in my soul, I love the art. But back here in the land of commerce, and any of us who work in this business know it is an industry, the financial upside of streamlining post-production will sell the producers and the studios. As digital projection penetration into the theatres rises and the simplicity/ low cost of making HD masters for home delivery is understood the savings on the distribution side will come into play. Whether it is the RedOne or some other electronic cinematography camera, the die is cast - it is only a matter of time.

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19

 

[Finner]

I think Blair hits mark here in saying that a digital work flow is the key to RED's success. In fact I could see companys, maybe even RED comming out with digital looks that you just run your raw footage through giving you options of a variety of different looks. Just like the choice of a film stock look but unlike a film stock you are not forced to stick with that look if you choose to go with a different look later. Right now if a new film stock that you like better comes out after you have shot your project you are out of luck, but with raw digital we will have the option to make big look changes right until the last moment (As long as you have lit appropriately for the look). To me that kind of versatility is incredible.

The earlier bickering about which is the best look (fps,shutter) seems crazy. The best look is simply which look best tells the story period. I know which looks I like best but sometimes I have to go a different way to best tells the story. Take for example a SCI-FI movie set in the future may play best with a look none of us have ever seen before and help seem like the future. Maybe better to look at it this way, Anthony Hopkins is a great actor that looks great on camera but his look may not quite be the right choice to play the part of Martin Luther King in a movie. Sure this sounds silly but different camera looks for different projects is just as important.

 

[jamestmather]

I agree with Blair about the inroads digital will make in the coming years (I think film will be redundant in about ten years - a few die hards will hold on to it and maybe people like Stephen Spielberg will continue to shoot on film and edit on a Flatbed film editor) but in the main I do believe it will be the main production format for most films (my point was that Red's cost initiative will not be a factor on this process as far as big film is concerned - when they're paying Tom Cruise, they won't care if they got the camera a little cheaper). The digital workflow will surely sell it in the long term. The studios won't jump on Red through until it's proven as a system, I would think. Studios are giants, and giants move slowly.

The resisters remind me of soundmen ten/twelve years ago when DAT first came out - All the soundmen claimed that DAT had terrible (audio) dynamic range compared to the $8000 stereo nagras they had all just purchased- "No Bass and the top end is Rubbish" etc - A year later they were all on DAT (And now a lot of them are on Flash drives). I suspect the same will be true of film cameras over the next ten years. That said - I see fewer resisters these days in general. With the Genesis and the D20 out there, most people seem to think digital is an inevitability.