RED EPIC vs 35mm
- Thread starter nantnee
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Oh dear.
Film still has a number of advantages, not the least of which is a lot more latitude and a better established work flow. The change over to digital is going to be a very, very slow process.
Film still has a number of advantages, not the least of which is a lot more latitude and a better established work flow. The change over to digital is going to be a very, very slow process.
Sound Chaser
Active member
How does film establish a better work flow?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Is this a translation issue? Film has a better established workflow. Meaning there is a huge industry worldwide that knows how to get film from the camera to the big screen. The RED is not there yet and won't be for a long time. Does that help?
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
Film has at least one clear advantage: It exists. Epic doesn't.
Any way, Red is no longer the new girlfriend. The Purple is the one we're all waiting for. It's totally cool and will change everything. It's a revolution.
Nik Manning
Well-known member
yes epic does not exist yet but I have to admit 2010 will be red or epic I guess. One of themajor reasons that studios don't use the existing 1080p expensive cams has a lot to do with availability. They need atleast 3 on the set. So if they sell over 1000 epics there will be a lot of movies shot with it. Red is great but it isn't what the epic will be. Every year more movies are shot digitally. The dam. Ex3 uncompressed is good enough to shoot most movies but with studios it is really about guarantees. Don't experiment or try anything new on a big budget movie.
If Epic exists, where can I buy one :huh:. Also, the workflow is not a long waays alway as Perrone suggested. In fact, it has improved significantly since its inception and Red One's are becoming a lot more common in productions, which will help in the evolution of the workflow. Even Scorcese is using them in his new doc.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
:huh: Somehow I don't think this is anywhere close to the top of the list as to why film is still king on studio features.
Nik Manning
Well-known member
What do you think is top 3 reasons? Lets hear them. Share some wisdom with the community.
I've heard an ASC guy say exactly the same thing. There are way more 35mm rigs out there in rental houses than HD rigs. Sometimes it's as simple as what's on the shelf.
nantnee
Well-known member
I understand the Epic hasn't been released. But, if what it offers is true, then I don't see why it won't dominate its medium. Its extremely difficult to argue about future prospects.
However, even for the RED, I don't see why more major studios don't use it. I only say this due to my ignorance on the topic, but, I still find it interesting.
However, even for the RED, I don't see why more major studios don't use it. I only say this due to my ignorance on the topic, but, I still find it interesting.
I havent seen footage yet. But if its similar to RED, then i just feel 35mm looks better. its a better place to start.
I dont know how many of you have seen 1st generation Dailies of 35mm but its absolutly breath taking when shot well. So is RED, but red, like all HD just isnt Chemicals reacting to light. you dont get the 100% organic analog "uncompressed" reaction to the scene.
I dont know how many of you have seen 1st generation Dailies of 35mm but its absolutly breath taking when shot well. So is RED, but red, like all HD just isnt Chemicals reacting to light. you dont get the 100% organic analog "uncompressed" reaction to the scene.
All God's Formats are equal
All God's Formats are equal
I thought this subject had been beaten to death, but it comes up again and again. I recently heard a film critic/historian/theorist on NPR saying that Hollywood was very conservative when it came to new technology and that's why it was reluctant to adopt digital cameras such as the RED. ~~CRINGE~~
Critters don't know nothing about production. I've shot with the RED build 15 and 16 for commercials and while the image quality was very good, the camera crashed quite a few times with codec errors using redcode 36. What should have been a 12 hour day turned into a 18 hour day. Imagine putting a crew threw that! Now the RED is getting better in the later builds. Also the workflow - it's not that bad as people make it out to be. You just need terabytes at this moment, though both Avid and FC Pro 3 are looking to help the situation with native RD3 editing.
With Hollywood movies usually being in the range over $20 million and up up up, the cost of camera rental and film/processing is a very small part of the budget. So saving on that, which is part of what the EPIC may afford, isn't part of the equation for them. If I was producing or DP'ing a big budget movie in 2009/2010, I would much rather have a couple of Arri 435/535b's on set rather than a RED or EPIC camera for reliability alone.
Now, never mind the fact that film is beautiful. For get the fact that the RED currently has a far more limited latitude than even the Sony F23. One day years from now the EPIC 645 with 9K resolution will be a mature product line that won't crash and will give you Vistavision or IMAX 65mm quality with truly 11-13 stops of latitude. But wouldn't it be really awful if you called up Claremont Camera or Panavision and you could no longer rent a film camera? The same way you can no longer find 3 tube video cameras to get that BBC look.
It's almost like people want film to GO AWAY. As image makers, it's great to be living in an age where we have so many image making tools and formats at our disposal. Celebrate in your choices. It's what you see in your head that will decide what format to shoot on.
Myself, I own a few Arri 16mm/35mm cameras. They don't change as much as video and they're really cool tools. But most of my jobs are on HD.
All God's Formats are equal
I thought this subject had been beaten to death, but it comes up again and again. I recently heard a film critic/historian/theorist on NPR saying that Hollywood was very conservative when it came to new technology and that's why it was reluctant to adopt digital cameras such as the RED. ~~CRINGE~~
Critters don't know nothing about production. I've shot with the RED build 15 and 16 for commercials and while the image quality was very good, the camera crashed quite a few times with codec errors using redcode 36. What should have been a 12 hour day turned into a 18 hour day. Imagine putting a crew threw that! Now the RED is getting better in the later builds. Also the workflow - it's not that bad as people make it out to be. You just need terabytes at this moment, though both Avid and FC Pro 3 are looking to help the situation with native RD3 editing.
With Hollywood movies usually being in the range over $20 million and up up up, the cost of camera rental and film/processing is a very small part of the budget. So saving on that, which is part of what the EPIC may afford, isn't part of the equation for them. If I was producing or DP'ing a big budget movie in 2009/2010, I would much rather have a couple of Arri 435/535b's on set rather than a RED or EPIC camera for reliability alone.
Now, never mind the fact that film is beautiful. For get the fact that the RED currently has a far more limited latitude than even the Sony F23. One day years from now the EPIC 645 with 9K resolution will be a mature product line that won't crash and will give you Vistavision or IMAX 65mm quality with truly 11-13 stops of latitude. But wouldn't it be really awful if you called up Claremont Camera or Panavision and you could no longer rent a film camera? The same way you can no longer find 3 tube video cameras to get that BBC look.
It's almost like people want film to GO AWAY. As image makers, it's great to be living in an age where we have so many image making tools and formats at our disposal. Celebrate in your choices. It's what you see in your head that will decide what format to shoot on.
Myself, I own a few Arri 16mm/35mm cameras. They don't change as much as video and they're really cool tools. But most of my jobs are on HD.
karapetkov
Well-known member
Film looks cool but it's expensive, complicated and bad for the environment.
Evolution, Morpheus, evolution... like the dinosaur.
Evolution, Morpheus, evolution... like the dinosaur.
Hunter Hampton
Carbonite Member
Film is HUGELY misunderstood from people with video backgrounds (like me!)
As someone who came from a broadcast video environment to now being in a film production environment (and currently only owns film cameras), Here is what I have learned.
In short:
Film isnt as expensive as you think, in fact for nearly every budget I have worked with, we could have shot film for nearly the same price or cheaper than HD (and we could have had a faster workflow!)- No I'm not kidding.
Film workflows are faster than you think, you can shoot film today and have back anything you want tomorrow morning. (from a print to a 2K-DCP to ProRes HQ- or even SD)
Film still has a technically better image, but forgetting about technical things, you can fully understand this by taking your favorite digital camera and then take a super 16mm camera loaded with kodak 7201, go outside on a pretty sunny day and shoot some pretty people- The digital image will look really GOOD- but the film image will look GREAT.
Film cameras work, and you can see and hear them working- if something is wrong- you will notice. They are amazing works of engineering but they are also amazingly simple and predictable to use for the operator.
Film works WITH YOU, what I mean is that you just get great images, you can make huge exposure mistakes with film and still get a nice image- try over exposing digital by 3 or 4 stops. Its a tool that is very forgiving- and thats a good thing when your working fast on a budget. (and imperfect like myself!)
These are two totally different tools, for different applications- but recently digital cameras have been trying really hard to be film cameras- It doenst take a dummy to realize that some people will pay out the butt to get an image that has the "film-look". 35mm adapters, 24p, variable frame-rates, cinema style gamma curves, film look plugins, film camera style set-ups... But you can shoot real film!- and save your self the headache of trying to make digital look like film (it may come close- but it wont be on par)
There is a saying that goes, "Respect the position, even if you dont respect the Man". Film has been around for a long long time and has had a huge investment from all over the world with people from all different backgrounds... (Thomas Edison even invented a type of motion picture camera in 1891!) Dont throw around anti-film comments because people who know better will just think your stupid for doing it. Film isnt anywhere near dead and new cameras, regardless of resolution, are not going to replace film anytime soon.
With that said, Digital has just as many advantages as film- they are just different. From live viewing of your near-final image to near-instant editing. But all of this talk is totally meaningless, you need to try out the different tools, pick one and use it. Don't sit on a web forum making absolute comments about stuff you don't know about or understand- try it out and see.
I say this from working with tons of video equipment from Beta, D-9, and DV to Varicams, F-900's, and Red Cameras;
If you strive for a film-like image, look into film, you will shocked at what you find (in a good way!)
The reason why many studios, producers, directors, production companies, clients, audiences and other cinematographers still prefer film is simply because it currently makes for the prettiest image. Its just that simple.
As someone who came from a broadcast video environment to now being in a film production environment (and currently only owns film cameras), Here is what I have learned.
In short:
Film isnt as expensive as you think, in fact for nearly every budget I have worked with, we could have shot film for nearly the same price or cheaper than HD (and we could have had a faster workflow!)- No I'm not kidding.
Film workflows are faster than you think, you can shoot film today and have back anything you want tomorrow morning. (from a print to a 2K-DCP to ProRes HQ- or even SD)
Film still has a technically better image, but forgetting about technical things, you can fully understand this by taking your favorite digital camera and then take a super 16mm camera loaded with kodak 7201, go outside on a pretty sunny day and shoot some pretty people- The digital image will look really GOOD- but the film image will look GREAT.
Film cameras work, and you can see and hear them working- if something is wrong- you will notice. They are amazing works of engineering but they are also amazingly simple and predictable to use for the operator.
Film works WITH YOU, what I mean is that you just get great images, you can make huge exposure mistakes with film and still get a nice image- try over exposing digital by 3 or 4 stops. Its a tool that is very forgiving- and thats a good thing when your working fast on a budget. (and imperfect like myself!)
These are two totally different tools, for different applications- but recently digital cameras have been trying really hard to be film cameras- It doenst take a dummy to realize that some people will pay out the butt to get an image that has the "film-look". 35mm adapters, 24p, variable frame-rates, cinema style gamma curves, film look plugins, film camera style set-ups... But you can shoot real film!- and save your self the headache of trying to make digital look like film (it may come close- but it wont be on par)
There is a saying that goes, "Respect the position, even if you dont respect the Man". Film has been around for a long long time and has had a huge investment from all over the world with people from all different backgrounds... (Thomas Edison even invented a type of motion picture camera in 1891!) Dont throw around anti-film comments because people who know better will just think your stupid for doing it. Film isnt anywhere near dead and new cameras, regardless of resolution, are not going to replace film anytime soon.
With that said, Digital has just as many advantages as film- they are just different. From live viewing of your near-final image to near-instant editing. But all of this talk is totally meaningless, you need to try out the different tools, pick one and use it. Don't sit on a web forum making absolute comments about stuff you don't know about or understand- try it out and see.
I say this from working with tons of video equipment from Beta, D-9, and DV to Varicams, F-900's, and Red Cameras;
If you strive for a film-like image, look into film, you will shocked at what you find (in a good way!)
The reason why many studios, producers, directors, production companies, clients, audiences and other cinematographers still prefer film is simply because it currently makes for the prettiest image. Its just that simple.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Spot on Hunter!
Nik Manning
Well-known member
Yes spot on Hunter. I was going to say the exact same thing. 