Why are RED Cameras Industry Standard?

I notice other users seem to react poorly to the term “high end video”, but to me, high end video is the future. Film, or filmic, is one thing, but as video progresses, it begins to leave film behind.

Film will always have the fact that it is a physical image, and not 1s and 0s, and there will always be a romantic and or aesthetic quality to film.

Video keeps getting better, and the best video cameras make lovely images already.

We are still in the transitional period, so “videoy” or “digital highlights” is still negative, but higher end video, is a new look that stands on its own. It still has a little ways before looking organic, which is where i hope it gets, but in the meantime, highend video will have to do.

At least, i feel, video has begun to free itself of comparisons to film.
 
James0b57 said:
I notice other users seem to react poorly to the term “high end video”, but to me, high end video is the future. Film, or filmic, is one thing, but as video progresses, it begins to leave film behind.

Film will always have the fact that it is a physical image, and not 1s and 0s, and there will always be a romantic and or aesthetic quality to film.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I'm stepping into this morass. You lured me in!

The difference between film and video is not that one is analog and one is digital. I saw some JPEGs of some film images, which were digital at the time that I saw them, Filmtypes: Explore the world of analog film. At the same time, an image from a CCD or CMOS sensor begins its life in hectic analog voltages.

The difference between film and video is not that one is film and one is video. When I see a 35mm movie on TV, it was filmed with a videocamera. That's what telecine is. They point a videocamera at a movie screen. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying. Don't get pendantic at the same time that I'm being pendantic ;)

But I don't mean to be pedantic and catch you on a technicality. I'm just saying that the difference between film and video is hard to define. Let's try to investigate it as clearly as we can.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I don't know why I'm stepping into this morass. You lured me in!

The difference between film and video is not that one is analog and one is digital. I saw some JPEGs of some film images, which were digital at the time that I saw them, Filmtypes: Explore the world of analog film. Meanwhile, an mage from a CCD and CMOS sensor begins its life in hectic analog voltages.

The difference between film and video is not that one is film and one is video. When I see a 35mm movie on TV, it was filmed with a videocamera. That's what telecine is. They point a videocamera at a movie screen. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying. Don't get pendantic at the same time that I'm being pendantic ;)

But I don't mean to be pedantic and catch you on a technicality. I'm just saying that the difference between film and video is hard to define. Let's try to investigate it as clearly as we can.
Click to expand...

Welcome! We have a few more hours before the reddit crew gets to down vote again.

I only referenced “1s and 0s” to emphasize that film will always have something going for it, regardless of image quality. Film is a physical image. Whereas, video is inherently reliant on some other device to create an image. I wasn’t talking about telecine’d, or converted-to-video film, in that sentence. I was talking about the strip itself.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I don't know why I'm stepping into this morass. You lured me in!

But I don't mean to be pedantic and catch you on a technicality. I'm just saying that the difference between film and video is hard to define. Let's try to investigate it as clearly as we can.
Click to expand...

To this question, one of the main differences between video originated and film originated capture is the way things fall apart.

And the way they fall apart is due to their nature and how we respond to it naturally.

In the sweet spot of exposure, the differences between the mediums is less crucial. Hoever once pushed to the extremes, video falls into a very unnatural look, whereas film despite falling apart, retains an organic quality.

Before the 1930’s experimental film makers made films that were not of content, but of the celluloid itself. It was supposed that watching film was enjoyable even without discernable images or narratives. People came to that conclusion in the absence of video amd prior to the existence of the “digital look”.


The audio world went through a similar thing. Mics used to use tubes, and went they transitioned to fet designs, the initial reaction was negative. And again, when recording went from tape to digital, recordist found that tape distortion had a nice complex feel, but digital distortion was almost all or nothing.
 
I am curious about something else. Is film's in-focus-to-out-of-focus transition smoother or is the new 6K res what makes it more noticeable? In other words, the center of the frame in 4K/6K/8K should be far more detailed than the old film - aside of the 70mm masters - with a greater transition to the out-of-focus/bokeh parts, whereas film's far smoother, especially the 16mm that was used often on TV dramas.

PS. First DDD (recording, mix, release) CD's sounded way too harsh and the ADD's, where the original recording was done on the studio reel-to-reel sounded far more pleasant to the ear. I recall Heart's Animals was one of the first DDD CD's out there in 1987 or so and it being perceived as very shrill. The CD players of the era didn't help much either. Sony's ADC were not well liked, although those made by Philips were far more musical. Philips players, especially Magnavox, were the primary mod candidates for the aftermarket tweakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top