Jump to content


Photo

Film Vs. Red


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#41 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1609 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:12 AM

The perception of "quality", however, is highly subjective. What pleases one does not necessarily please another, which is why, in an earlier posting, I posed the question why this could not simply be respected.


I agree that quality is subjective but this is to a point. There comes a point where trends do seem to point to certain mediums over others. For instance, most people feel that a THX certified sound system sounds better than a clock radio. I cant tell you why this is but it does seem to be the case. Most people will also tell you that tube amplifiers sound better than solid state...again, I dont know why this is.

And the untrained people I have talked to, who know nothing of the Film VS digital argument, they have said that when they look at movies (that they are later informed were shot on film) that they look "colorful", "have depth", "rich". The digitally acquired footage usually gets remarks like "flat", "soap opera like", "too much like real life", or even "harsh."

If quality is totally subjective, why is there such a leaning toward film even for those who are not informed? Is it programming because of 100 years of film or is it because of how humans perceive quality?
  • 0

#42 Robert Lewis

Robert Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Other
  • United Kingdom

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:08 AM

I agree that quality is subjective but this is to a point. There comes a point where trends do seem to point to certain mediums over others. For instance, most people feel that a THX certified sound system sounds better than a clock radio. I cant tell you why this is but it does seem to be the case. Most people will also tell you that tube amplifiers sound better than solid state...again, I dont know why this is.

And the untrained people I have talked to, who know nothing of the Film VS digital argument, they have said that when they look at movies (that they are later informed were shot on film) that they look "colorful", "have depth", "rich". The digitally acquired footage usually gets remarks like "flat", "soap opera like", "too much like real life", or even "harsh."

If quality is totally subjective, why is there such a leaning toward film even for those who are not informed? Is it programming because of 100 years of film or is it because of how humans perceive quality?


I didn't actually say that "quality is totally subjective". I said that it is "highly subjective", which is somewhat different.

I do agree, however, that "quality" is a concept that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define or explain.

This then leads to the question of why it is that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film really do believe, if indeed they do, and if they do, they should seek to impose their choice (whether it be to record or project digitally) on those who happen not to agree with them. Whether they really do believe what they say is raised into question by acknowledging that the search for a digital equivalent to the "quality of film" goes on.

Perhaps this is the point at which the whole thing returns to the issue of cost, that is to say that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film do so because at a particular point and depending on what the relevant business interests are, it is more profitable.
  • 0

#43 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:54 AM

Nigel,

You're from NZ ?

At least in Wellington ?

Aside from the Park Rd Post and Weta - those safety googles look very familiar ;)


Well spotted :)
  • 0

#44 Jenna Whitney

Jenna Whitney
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Student

Posted 19 November 2011 - 11:42 PM

Would anyone like a copy of a CD on HD cameras? It is a compilation of interviews on HD technology, but it's not exclusively the RED camera, and some of the cinematographers and directors do shoot both on film and HD format. I'm very curious to hear opinions about the interviews, and can send a free copy, it's a great resource on HD technology. If anyone's interested feel free to send me a message.

Edited by Jenna Whitney, 19 November 2011 - 11:43 PM.

  • 0

#45 Trevor McClung

Trevor McClung
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Student

Posted 27 May 2012 - 05:48 AM

How much did the video camera cost you? And how many hours of post did you need?
I bought a 35mm cam for $900.
Bought 2 U16s for a total of $700 and I can shoot a feature for the price of a few days rental of an arri alexa.
How much was your camera to buy or rent?
  • 0

#46 Mei Lewis

Mei Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:13 AM

There's also the question of why it is that those who claim that film imagery is better than digital really do believe, if indeed they do, and if they do, they should seek to impose their choice (whether it be to record or project using film) on those who happen not to agree with them. Whether they really do believe what they say is raised into question by acknowledging that the search for a digital equivalent is know mostly reduced to a search for some poorly defined "quality of film".

Perhaps this is the point at which the whole thing returns to the issue of cost, that is to say that those who claim that film imagery is better than digital do so because at a particular point and depending on what the relevant business interests are, it is more profitable. (If you can convince producers that film is no more expensive but that you are one of the few who has the skills to work with it you're more employable).
  • 0

#47 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1645 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:59 AM

I know this thread was almost dead so sorry to bump it.

Just wanted to say that I find that getting a better final image for me is easier in film. This may be because it requires competent colorist to be in the chain while digital productions often overlook this important step, asking the editor to color rather than someone who has dedicated his life to color. It certainly has something to do with the dynamic range that film offers and can help fix my mistakes in lighting and exposure.

While the Alexa probably comes close enough in the latitude arena, I can't own one of those cameras for $1500 like I can my crystal Arri 2C. I can pick it up any time I want a go out and shoot. No insurance needed and I get to really know the camera.

In most professional situations I would probably go with an Alexa or RED but for lower budget situations where the image is truly important (like doing a promo for a vineyard) I'd bring out the 35mm and have fun. I just know that camera and it's results better.

I have more film in my fridge than I know what to do with that I picked up for next to nothing. HD transfers on a Spirit with a competent colorist can be had for $.09/foot. Processing for $.14/foot. For me, the results are worth it on smaller projects.
  • 0




Paralinx LLC

Zylight

K5600 Lighting

Lemo Connectors

Ritter Battery

Cinelicious

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Glidecam

The Slider

Robert Starling

CineLab

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

NIBL

Pro 8mm

CineTape

Abel Cine

System Associates

K5600 Lighting

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Robert Starling

System Associates

Rig Wheels Passport

Cinelicious

CineTape

The Slider

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

NIBL

Glidecam

Lemo Connectors

Visual Products

CineLab

Pro 8mm