Jump to content


Photo

Film Vs. Red


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 30 August 2011 - 02:34 AM

I hope it's kosher to post this here... let me know if not.

Anyways... I've been working on something to make the Red look like film: FilmConvert

Would love to get the thoughts of the film and red camps. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#2 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Director
  • newcastle upon tyne uk

Posted 30 August 2011 - 04:28 AM

Hi Nigel,
It may be worth re-posting with a new title...the title you have may suggest
the usual arguing between film and red, and what you are presenting is a new system and discussion.
best
rob
  • 0

#3 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 August 2011 - 01:01 PM

It's cleaner to color time just once. The DP should make the look in timing, not accept some automated software's idea of color timing. Add grain if you want, it's kinda like making your car smell like a horse.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 30 August 2011 - 01:48 PM

:munches popcorn:

Let's see, so far we have:

Likening film to a horse
The word "Versus" in the title
A rolls eyes smiley right after showing "interest" from both sides as to their opinions


If you still want to be a sucker after all this, you're easier to bait than I am! This thread is a sign from God that I need to quit staring at a monitor, end my break, and get back to work, doing my best to prolong the hastening arrival of this utter stupidity in my workplace. It's inevitable, but God does it cheapen completely the skill and craft of producing beautiful imagery, painting with light, shadows, filtration, lighting, diffusion, and movement.

All anyone wants to "paint" with anymore is a rickety mouse on a bootlegged copy of Photoshop.
  • 0

#5 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 30 August 2011 - 04:00 PM

hmmm. Don't read into my smiley icon. I just can't resist their cuteness. ;)

I guess with that title I was hoping to get people who have an opinion about film and digital to look at the thread, check out the software and give me their opinion.

I had forgotten that it is a religious war with 2 camps:
  • RED is awesome, it's better than film in every way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron LOL!!1!
  • film is perfect and there is no scientific way we could ever possibly recreate it's MAGIC by any means other than plastic and chemicals!!!1!

I personally belong to a 3rd camp. I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive, and I like the advantages of shooting digital.

Is there anyone else out there? Or am I the only atheist in Kansas?
  • 0

#6 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 30 August 2011 - 04:37 PM

Alright, fair enough.


Looking at the differences between the emulator and V3, they are a pretty good match, dare I say it enough to fool me in a blind side-by-side (maybe not in actual motion, but then again shooting film isn't just about a grain structure!)

Of course, a lot of this can be accomplished in a simple grading session, adding contrast.


I'd like to see a larger image, or it applied to a more challenging situation. Of course film is going to see far better into the highlights and digital far better in the shadows. The emulation can't add back shadow detail, or restore blown highlights.
  • 0

#7 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4190 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 30 August 2011 - 11:59 PM

hmmm. Don't read into my smiley icon. I just can't resist their cuteness. ;)

I guess with that title I was hoping to get people who have an opinion about film and digital to look at the thread, check out the software and give me their opinion.

I had forgotten that it is a religious war with 2 camps:

  • RED is awesome, it's better than film in every way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron LOL!!1!
  • film is perfect and there is no scientific way we could ever possibly recreate it's MAGIC by any means other than plastic and chemicals!!!1!

I personally belong to a 3rd camp. I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive, and I like the advantages of shooting digital.

Is there anyone else out there? Or am I the only atheist in Kansas?

See, you've already started out with a misconception, FILM, IF you plan out the work, it just as cheap, if not cheaper than shooting digitally so you're not really an atheist, you're a digital fanatic in politically correct clothing. And as for making digital look like film, it's impossible. Digital looks like digital, and film looks like film. You like the advantages of shooting on digital, own it. Shoot digital. BUT If you want the look of film, shoot film because there is NO OTHER WAY to get that look so you have to deal with the needs of film. This dicussion is nothing more than yet another film vs. digital flame fest. Just let it go and shoot what you want but don't make some bold, been said a thousand times before statement that digital is JUST THE SAME as film, 'cause it's not and never will be. Not saving it's any better or any worse, just different. YOU prefer digital, just say it and move on or better yet, just shoot it and don't mention it at all. B)
  • 0

#8 Robert Lewis

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

Posted 31 August 2011 - 08:35 AM

These exchanges are getting boring!

Why, oh why, cannot it not be accepted that those who prefer to record images in digital form for whatever reason are free to do so, and those who prefer to record them on film are also free to do so? Instead, we get "discussions" which are more often than not merely an attempt to present what in reality can only be a subjective view as though it is an objective view, or what is nothing more than opinion as though it is fact? Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"? Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?

I just wonder whether those who start such "discussions" are trying to convince themselves of what they say they believe, rather than others.

Edited by Robert Lewis, 31 August 2011 - 08:37 AM.

  • 0

#9 Pav Deep

Pav Deep
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2011 - 09:37 AM

I just have to add my point of view; In a 'professional' environment where people are getting paid for their skills and talents shooting digital is not always as cheap cheap as people make out though for many it's easier. Few think about 'real' things like labour and other resources such as transport and insurances, which are the most costly elements of any production, in most cases stock is a very small part of production costs. I know many people who have switched to digital from film believing that digital is cheaper, but in all cases the costs for shooting digital keeps going up.

P
  • 0

#10 Mr Jeff A Brown

Mr Jeff A Brown

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 01 September 2011 - 12:28 PM

Quite amusing that everyone defaults to thinking this is a film/digital argument!

Don't people realise that this is a software that Nigel's company has written? It's just an opportunity to get feedback. It maps color at the debayer stage of the R3D files and is really rather good.

First post long time reader.
  • 0

#11 Matthew W. Phillips

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

Posted 01 September 2011 - 03:10 PM

Quite amusing that everyone defaults to thinking this is a film/digital argument!

Welcome to the forum! I think it is just the provacative way in which the OP chose to word his thread that is causing all the problem. ;)
  • 0

#12 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 01 September 2011 - 07:40 PM

Why the now-outdated red standard? Most top DP's agree the Alexa wins hands down in getting closer.
  • 0

#13 David Desio

David Desio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • california, USA

Posted 01 September 2011 - 08:56 PM

I think What Nigel was saying is that for the smaller productions that can get a digital camera thrown in the mix for a part of the DP's rate, film is way out of reach. As the budget's become more legit, that gap seems to shrink rapidly. BUT, try convincing a penny-pinching producer who questions your choice to rent HMI's for a shoot or better yet, hire a 1st AC AND a 2nd, that the project could be shot on film for about the same amount of cash.

Edited by David Desio, 01 September 2011 - 08:57 PM.

  • 0

#14 Matthew W. Phillips

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

Posted 01 September 2011 - 10:42 PM

I think What Nigel was saying is that for the smaller productions that can get a digital camera thrown in the mix for a part of the DP's rate, film is way out of reach. As the budget's become more legit, that gap seems to shrink rapidly. BUT, try convincing a penny-pinching producer who questions your choice to rent HMI's for a shoot or better yet, hire a 1st AC AND a 2nd, that the project could be shot on film for about the same amount of cash.


David, me thinks you should not deal with such Producers if you actually want to make a living. As you know, Profit = Revenue - Expenses. And the wear and tear on your gear makes you very unlikely to profit if you are getting a low rate to begin with. I would think all DPs would push for film as a sort of test of what class of Producer you are working with. Unless of course you like being a bottom feeder.
  • 0

#15 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:08 AM

Alright, fair enough.


Looking at the differences between the emulator and V3, they are a pretty good match, dare I say it enough to fool me in a blind side-by-side (maybe not in actual motion, but then again shooting film isn't just about a grain structure!)

Of course, a lot of this can be accomplished in a simple grading session, adding contrast.


I'd like to see a larger image, or it applied to a more challenging situation. Of course film is going to see far better into the highlights and digital far better in the shadows. The emulation can't add back shadow detail, or restore blown highlights.

Thanks for the feedback.
I have a video here so you can see it in motion 1080p.

It's true that we can't add back shadow or highlight detail, and the non mx doesn't really have that many stops, but the MX and alexa are so close as to make dynamic range a moot point i think.

I have now shot color charts from black to blown out for 23 different stocks and 8 digital cameras. One day soon I'll write a blog post about it.

And yeas, you can do all this in grading if you're talented enough. Like most things, this is just designed to save you time.

Edited by Nigel Stanford, 02 September 2011 - 04:09 AM.

  • 0

#16 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:10 AM

Quite amusing that everyone defaults to thinking this is a film/digital argument!

Don't people realise that this is a software that Nigel's company has written? It's just an opportunity to get feedback. It maps color at the debayer stage of the R3D files and is really rather good.

First post long time reader.


I was asking for it with that title, I realize that now! Lesson learned :)
  • 0

#17 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 September 2011 - 06:08 AM

Well, I disagree that the MX or Alexa are "there." You run into problems with color space (not that it doesn't get chopped off with film scanning anyway) and blown highlights with the best digital cameras. It seems they've worked very very hard to avoid this in the test footage.

In the real world, it isn't nearly as easy to avoid clipping. It seems, from what I've seen in the test, they exposed the SPARKS to get detail back out. Even if the software were so great it could guess detail, or pull severely overexposed details out of crummy scans, clipped images, in that case there would be noise if it were severely blown out and brought back.


Will have to take a look at the footage when I have a better connection, but that should give a far better idea of the software's ability, especially if it is in HD without too much compression.
  • 0

#18 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 September 2011 - 06:13 AM

These exchanges are getting boring!

Why, oh why, cannot it not be accepted that those who prefer to record images in digital form for whatever reason are free to do so, and those who prefer to record them on film are also free to do so? Instead, we get "discussions" which are more often than not merely an attempt to present what in reality can only be a subjective view as though it is an objective view, or what is nothing more than opinion as though it is fact? Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"? Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?

I just wonder whether those who start such "discussions" are trying to convince themselves of what they say they believe, rather than others.



In a properly budgeted film, it IS more expensive than HD, about 10% on a low-budget shoot. Of course, if you expect to pay no wages, get deals make everything for free, the next "Clerks" (usually a delusion) it can be a lot more expensive. Personally I'd rather shoot digital than to expect to get everything for free/exploit people. If I were making a low-budget movie with friends who believed in it too, I'd still feel obligated to try to give them *SOMETHING*

Skilled labor shouldn't be free.
  • 0

#19 Matthew W. Phillips

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

Posted 02 September 2011 - 02:57 PM

Skilled labor shouldn't be free.


Spoken like a true union man ;) Surprisingly, out here film projects are so rare (I mean film in the literal sense) that people would gladly work for free to be in front of a real cinema camera with stock in it instead of being in just one more DSLR movie. Seriously, it is sad. People on here always discuss RED vs Film or Alexa vs Film but the reality I see here all the time is more like DSLR vs Film which, to me, is not even a contest at all.
  • 0

#20 Nigel Stanford

Nigel Stanford

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:13 PM

These exchanges are getting boring!

Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"?


I didn't say I think digital imagery is best. I think film looks nicer, or else why build a product to make digital look like film?

Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?


Really?

I produced a movie in 2007 shooting on a viper to uncompressed DPX, and backing each 30 minute magazine, about 350gb of data to an LTO3 tape twice. At the time, the tapes were about $80. So each 30 minutes cost $160 of materials. Shooting R3D is much much less data than uncompressed DPX.

I assume you know how much a 1000 foot roll and development costs.

How can this even be an argument?
  • 0


Visual Products

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Lemo Connectors

Cinelicious

Zylight

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Abel Cine

NIBL

Aerial Filmworks

Robert Starling

K5600 Lighting

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

System Associates

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

NIBL

Glidecam

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

K5600 Lighting

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

Pro 8mm

Cinelicious

System Associates

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Lemo Connectors

Visual Products