RED changing cinema
- Thread starter tonacidigital
- Start date
tonacidigital
Well-known member
pablovi said:
http://red.com/workflow.htm
pablovi said:
RED is going to change this and I don't think it will take a decade.
tonacidigital said:
You don't have a real image of what you're shooting, just like film. Handling 323MB/s is very hard, so you'll need a very high end workstation along with an array of fiber optics HD's with one hell of storage space. And that's only for 24fps. The ammount of time it will take to render the corrected RAW image to something usefull is high. Probably longer than developing film. You'll need high speed to compete with film, and right now the most a 4K camera can handle is 48fps, I think, I might be wrong.
So, all in all the workflow will take as long or longer than film and you still have disadvantages. That's why I say it will take longer. Until the technology can deliver a camara with the same latitude, fps options and versatility of film and a post-production system to handle the bandwith necesary for 400mb/s is more common and cheaper. Then it will replace film. Saddly I think the industry as we know it will die, there won't be a need to have movie theaters, as there will probably be a 4K projector or 100" 4K screen at affordable prices, the people won't have the need to fully appreciate a film in a theater.
firewallet
Well-known member
Not the only work flow.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Well, Jim and Graeme are promising that. For the next first half of 2007 -- that's what I have @RED's_documentation received from there. And 27 MB/s @24fps that's what we can find out regarding a 4K shooting using the REDCODE (red.com). The great news from IBC -- open thread:pablovi said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70333
Last edited:
Emanuel said:
According to their website the Recode codec is only for 2K or less.
http://red.com/techspecs.htm
i hate to say - but there is no way to go 4k on _film_, one has to go _fully_ digital for 4k workflow, no matter if you do a modern colorcorrection, full DI, VFX or title. And _scanning_ film is additional hassle, which in the best case will you give - RAW, from scanned film.pablovi said:
so, i don´t understand what you are talking about. if you want a decent DI, you have to go additional, expensive steps with film, not with digital shooting.
once more - in the universe of film i am living in, there is _no way at all_ to check what you are doing, except - dailies. you can´t check what you shot. in digital cinematography you can. you cant_have_ luts, you have to trust a very long chain of supliers (filmstock), storage (our last shooting was in the desert, 35mm second unit in that heat was more than critical), dev/ lab (were many things can go wrong).pablovi said:
that all causes delays (hours for film, seconds or minutes for digital), risks (defective negatives can´t be backed up, digital can), costs (100 minutes worth of shooting backed up cost thousands and will decrease quality, digital will be inexpensive and perfect) and need many additional workers who have to communicate and have to be managed. film is slow, expensive, risky and doen´t give you instant complete control over your work. digital is rather the opposite.
digital cinematography has been gaining its momentum every single year since its first steps in ~99-00. meanwhile sin city, superman, star wars, miami vice, collateral, zodiac, superman etc are nothing to write home about. the audience makes digital cinematography super succesful and loves it.pablovi said:
pablovi said:
1st, i hope 4k will be etablished, but right now >90% is @2k. 65mm is better than 35mm, but died anyhow. to make that clear: the audience doesn´t notice 2k and almost all digital blockbuster so far have been 1080 or 2k, not 4k. the same is valid fpr most film-shot, digital post blockbusters.
a) the past
your assumption is not a good capitalistic calculation.
When we bought our fully digital cinematic workflow back in 2001/2, we had to spend ~750.000$. lenses, cinealta-cams, class 1 HD monitors, measurement, on-line 709 NLE editing, colorcorrection systems, VTRs... on average, our movies as service, co-producer or producer since then were 50-150.000 cheaper each, when compared to our classical 35mm calculation. it took less than 2 years to fully win it back and since then we are winning money.
b) RED.
The camera is 17.500$ this is not expensive, this is fantastic.
the redcode makes storage inexpensive. read a little bit about the workflow and you will understand, that if red delivers, it will shave off tens of thousands of every full feature in any aspect: stock, production, storage, delivery.
And finally, a few quotes of cinematographers for you:
Michael Mann : „Film doesn´t record what our eyes can
see at night. That´s why I moved into shooting digital
video in high definition – to see everything the naked eye
can see and more.“
James Cameron: „We came back with the reels, we
projected it in 35mm, and it was absolutly gorgeous. (...)
The stuff looked beautiful, the blacks were rich, the
color reproduction was excellent, the clarity was
absolutly perfect, and we had an hour of runtime
everytime we closed the housing.“
shooting "SIN CITY" for Tarantino and Rodriguez, Jimmy Lindesy :
„When you are shooting a film like Sin City, visual details are everything.
You need the kind of crisp and sharp details the HD captures.“
David Finscher, who also after "fight club" switched from film to digital:
“Having the material available to you on High-Def the second after you
shoot it, meant postproduction isn't after the fact anymore. It's going on
simultaneously as you're shooting.”, which fits Rodriguez annotation to
postproduction: "[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]Do not cut on film. Film is your enemy. You may be
shooting on film but don't cut on film.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]Everything is on computers or video these days.
Film is slow, film is expensive, film is not creative - film take's too long. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans serif][SIZE=-1]".
George Lucas : „I will probably never ever shoot another film on film.“
these quotes, btw, refer to 1080p, sony cinealtam not 4k digital. Panavision Genesis records 1080p, Sony 750,900,950 as well and the Arri D20 is rather ~3k, btw. And on the 1080ps blockbuster after blockbuster is produced, since years.
if you think that reality won´t change, you will be up for the same level of surprise still photographers have already had.
digital audio workstations killed multitrack tape.
DTP killed the scissors and glue.
CD killed 33LP.
digital photography already killed photochemical film. only our slower and very conservative niche of moving images still has a substantial photochemical amount in shooting. in postproduction its long gone. for good. and it won´t stop there. the decade of transition already has started.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Good find. Maybe it needs to be updated. Besides that link above-mentioned @my_post, follow this Jim's statement here:pablovi said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=693803#post693803
Jannard said:
Last edited:
Chris Kenny
Well-known member
pablovi said:
This part of the web site hasn't been updated. RED announced at IBC that you'll be able to record REDCODE RAW 4K to on camera digital magazines (basically just 2.5" hard drives), with a data rate of around 27.5 MB/s. Assuming a workflow emerges that allows this low data rate to be maintained throughout, you will be able to finish a 4K movie on a $3000 workstation with $1500 worth of hard drives hooked up to it.
Two years from now, cut those prices in half. Four years from now, cut them in half again.
firewallet
Well-known member
Well, you did not qualify your statement with "real uncompressed 4k".
Storytelling doesn't begin and end with 4k. Narratives have been- can - and will be shot on whatever level of available formats. But, I see what you mean, but it is not the "be all and end all"(even within this camera system)---but I don't want this to be a circular debate. The economics of aquisition for 35 and RED are not congruent. Especially, once the acquisition system and post have been used more than once. Everytime I have shot film, it was never "wiped clean" and returned to me for re-use. The economic benefits are immediate. Pre-pro, Shoot, Post, Distro.----Repeat.
laguun said:
Of course you can go 4k with film, thera re 4k telecines(rank) and 4K scanners.
I agree with Mann, video has that higher sensitivity in the low lights, and I loved Collateral and Miami vice, but it doens't look like film, it's and aesthetic choice and a very good one.
And with Fincher too, that's my whole point, right now shooting at 4k, takes as long as shooting film. You have the same and more disadvantages. And it's at least as expensive.
And I have yet to see a 2k or 1080p movie with a cinematography that can challenge a greta film cinematography.
firewallet
Well-known member
Hey Laguun nice post.
Chris Kenny said:
Well if they can pull that off, that would be a great advancement, since HD and system bandwith doesn't evolves that fast, having a 4k compresssed srteam at 27MB/s is quite remarcable, but I don't know how can they can pull that off. And let's see how much compression it has.
That is a remarkable news.
firewallet
Well-known member
You miss my point.
tonacidigital
Well-known member
laguun. nice post. love how you laid out the inevitable death of film.
pablovi: "ince 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. "
To address this..Stuart in this thread talks aout raw playback..:
"You might wish for the option to switch VF and monitoring outputs between two different color correction settings - say basic REC 709 and your colorized FX version - but you wouldn't want to show the RAW footage to your client....
Trust me you really wouldn't.
Good news is RED ONE lets you follow the first path, so this isn't an issue.
__________________
-----
Stuart English
RED Workflow Wizard"
From other posts I have read..it appears that you can certainly bring a 1080p monitor at the very least (or perhaps a 4k monitor which may be availble at end of next year if apple comes around to making one) which would allow you see your footage right there on set. My question to you is, how would this be just a "kodak" preview?
pablovi: "ince 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. "
To address this..Stuart in this thread talks aout raw playback..:
"You might wish for the option to switch VF and monitoring outputs between two different color correction settings - say basic REC 709 and your colorized FX version - but you wouldn't want to show the RAW footage to your client....
Trust me you really wouldn't.
Good news is RED ONE lets you follow the first path, so this isn't an issue.
__________________
-----
Stuart English
RED Workflow Wizard"
From other posts I have read..it appears that you can certainly bring a 1080p monitor at the very least (or perhaps a 4k monitor which may be availble at end of next year if apple comes around to making one) which would allow you see your footage right there on set. My question to you is, how would this be just a "kodak" preview?
tonacidigital
Well-known member
pablovi said:
According to this chart, I'd say this 4k workflow is confirmed at this point:
http://red.com/download/redcine.jpg
I think I remember reading somewhere that the RED team did say the difference between RED CODE raw and uncompressed is practically indistinguishable visually.
tonacidigital said:
Rigth now the cameras shooting digital cinema, only allow you to monitor the image in a lower resolution and/or without color corretion, on some you can import a LUT to the monitor to represent a color correction you previously established or in some you can create that LUT on the field, just like with the Kodak ssytem, you shoot with a digital camera and the in a laptop you create a LUT and it will show you a aproximation on what you may be getting at the end. But shooting Raw doens't let you monitor the actual image, because it's only RAW data you still need to give it a white balance, color corrected, give it a gamma, etc... right now these camera s function as a film camera where you don't see the final image until CC.
We still don't know what RED can do, but right now that is the workflow.