RED EPIC

[MarcVanOsdale]

Unless of course it's made by Panavision, Roger.

[octopoli]

i think the RED is only useful in very low light situations mainly for the extra speed it gives but I am shocked people think that metallic tinny look is good. I don't think its much better than the older digital cameras i have seen. Also apart from the Fincher film, most things i have seen shot on a RED hurt my eyes, its like they are sharp but also out of focus at the same time.

I would like to use the Alexa for night scenes and then shoot film in daylight. But I am not sure how it would work out.

[citizen yo]

most things i have seen shot on a RED hurt my eyes, its like they are sharp but also out of focus at the same time.

with good lenses and a good dp, I strongly doubt you'd get the kind of result you describe with the red...

[MarcVanOsdale]

It's an interesting criticism. I see it a lot in Red Footage (even in Social Network and The Informant) that has that electrical look. Does anyone know what it is that gives Red this electric and stale look...it cant just be "use better lenses and get a good DIT to handle the Raw properly" as Social Network was shot with the Master Primes with a very capable DP, and I assume they invested in a good DIT/Post Production process. Is there something about Red's Raw process that gives that look to all of it's footage??

[octopoli]

Firstly, I have seen no footage that their was no digital tiny look coming off the red footage, especially in daylight and it lacks energy that film has. I see very little difference in the red to older hd cameras myself. I think the focus thing may come from these digital after effects, especially softeners. Yes if you know the camera you maybe able to work around its problems, it seems that a lot shoot dark to gloss over the problems or maybe people like the look of it unlike me. A good image is a good image but for my style this camera is impossible for me to use. It's like drinking a $6 bottle of wine compared to a $100. Some will get it and some will not but I am 100% sure that the hype is not justified and the more I dee the camera the worse it becomes.

[Jackson_Gango]

Keep in mind it's very cheap to shoot RED if you know the right people.
When I shoot film, I have to know a lot more people to get what I need for cheap and even if I do get it all, it's still more expensive in the end. I'm young though and my career here is just starting so I'm mostly on low budget projects and my knowledge base may not be large enough to make a prominent point here...

Yes, it is like drinking a $6 wine compared to a $100 wine...but if all you want to do is get drunk, then just buy the $6 wine...

[MarcVanOsdale]

Soon you can get drunk on the AF100 for even less!

[Marco]

There was no DIT on "The Social Network", because they thought, the can handle and judge the Red One MX on their own. I like the movie, but dislike the look. They wanted to achieve something like the look and feel of "Fight Club" with the Red and they failed, in my opinion.

@the electronic look:

The Red-sensor wants to be supersharp and precisely and has also many, many pixels on a "small" sensor, so you get a digital photography-look and this is the secret behind this "electronic look".

@cheap

Shooting on Red is not cheaper than shooting on 35mm, when you do it correctly. You need more lights, more people to work in the camera department (also in postproduction), more makeupartists and another makeup, the production designer and costume designer have to work more precisely, because everything is supersharp and not forgiving like film.

I do not like the Red (till now), but it is sharp. And when you see unsharp moments, then I think, it is a focus puller, who also must work more precisely (it is really hard for focus pullers these days, because so many people think, that everything should be shot with f1.3 and minimum 100mm, which was easier on film; a little bit out of focus on film looks still great, on HD it is the death of a picture)... oh, and yes, good focus pullers are expensive, too

[Jackson_Gango]

Apart from everything else you said that is pretty opinionated really, not so much factual, the one comment that I'm most curious about is:

because everything is supersharp and not forgiving like film.

Are you saying that film is incapable of being as sharp as something photographed on the RED?
And we're talking about watching films in the theater, correct?

You'll have to explain...

[Marco]

Film has a different kind of sharpness. It captures the same amount of details, but HD has this electronic look, which let the pictures look really, really sharp. It is often some kind of hyperrealistic look, especially with the Red. And this is also the reason, why many people say, that Alexa is not as sharp as a Red or another camere. Arri designed the camera with a look and feel of 35mm, which contains an expanded layer of acceptable sharpness (like 35mm). Alexa still looks good, when it is slightly out of focus, like film, Red does not (or any Sony-camera).

I do not understand you last question in relation to the topic.

Maybe my English is not good enough for talking in depth about these technological aspects in our industry


(greatings from a guy who is working as a DIT in Germany for earning some money and who is shooting all of his stuff as a director on 35mm or 16mm, because he dislikes HD, Red and maybe also the Alexa, but it is a step in the right direction)

[Andrew Rieger]

Well even if you don't like the look of Red or the F35 or the Alexa, you may want to start to get used to it. I personally love film. To me, there is nothing more beautiful than Fuji Velvia frames from my medium format Mamiya but the fact of the matter is, film is going to be marginalized in the not so distant future. The movie industry will always try to save money where they can and digital is the answer.

Yes, Red (or any other digital camera) has a stock look and no amount of post manipulation can totally eliminate it. Does it look as good as film? No, because it is not film so stop comparing it to film. There are two totally different mediums. We tend to over scrutinize the image but the audience never notices the difference between the two. I tell people that I am a photographer and they ask me what kind of camera I use and I tell them a Mamiya film camera. They give me this confused look and say "People still shoot film? I thought that went away like 10 years ago." The audience does not care how the images are acquired as long as it looks good and so far Red, Arri, Panavision and others have shown that you can produce great-looking images from digital cameras. At no point did I say while watching Slumdog Millionaire, "Man this would look so much better if it were shot on film."

In my opinion, IMAX looks better than Todd AO but it is way more expensive to shoot. Todd AO looks better than Super 35 but it is way more expensive to shoot. Super 35 looks marginally better than Red or Alexa but it is generally more expensive. Ya I could always throw a fit because I want to shoot on a better format but you work with what you have. Yes, I am jealous that Kubrick was able to shoot 2001 in 70mm but I am sure he would want the digital tools and FX we have today. Sometimes, the top-tier format is not financially feasible. No need to spend the money on something that only two or three people in the audience notice (the difference between Red and film). Ya I notice the difference but you know what, I did not like The Social Network any less because it did not look like it was shot on film. The Hurt Locker's Super 16 does not look as good as 35mm, it's grainy, soft and looks pretty bad at night but it was perfect for the project. As Roger said, it is more about what you do with a camera than the camera you use. Ansel Adams could probably take better pictures with a Nikon 6mp Coolpix than some photography student using am 8x10 view camera.

As much as I don't like 3D, I need to come to terms with the fact that if I were making an epic sci-fi blockbuster, I would need to shoot in 3D. Oh well, move on, make the best movie you can. If given the choice, I will shoot film but if the studio says Red Epic or Alexa with a Pace S3D rig, I'm not going to throw a fit and say "but IMAX looks so much better!" I'm sure even guys like Nolan will realize that digital can free up funding for other aspects of the project.

Keep in mind that as more next generation filmmakers with digital-only backgrounds make the big time, there will be less and less adherence to the film look. Some see this as a bad thing but it is no different than color replacing black and white. I'm sure there were plenty of people in the industry at the time that thought that color was gimmicky. It's like that studio executive once said (for real) "What? Pictures with sound? Who wants to hear actors talk?" I'm glad we have options. Red and Alexa are just more tools in the toolbox.

Keep in mind that film will always be an option. Yes, most future filmmakers will probably be shooting digital but there is certainly a curiosity factor about other formats so film will stick around. Sure color replaced b/w as the main format but it did not kill it off. I see quite a number of student films in b/w. Why? because it is different. I hope that the 2 perf Techniscope process becomes more popular. At 18+ minutes with an 800' reel, the cost savings really add up. Kodak and Fuji will also fight back so its possible that they will find a way to drop the cost on stock and development. Theses are interesting times no doubt.

[citizen yo]

slumdog millionaire wasn't shot on film?

[octopoli]

I think film will be available longer than just a few years. I dislike the idea of fixing the look in post that I hear so often. I just hope the people who make this digital cameras dont offer a million options and just concentrate on a classic simple looking image that can be used with no tinkering and the illumate the metallic and sterile look . I am guessing panavision will be the next to start dealing affordable digital . I heard that also that the future sensors will be 16mm size and even 8mm with the same quality or more than 35mm. Hang on to your bolex switar lenses!

I suppose the key is to work around the problems with digital and a good dp should be able but I hope they get better in the future. People think this is an automatic but who knows what they will bring out.

[Andrew Rieger]

slumdog millionaire wasn't shot on film?

Around 70% of it was shot using the SI 2K, a first gen 2/3" chip no less.

The way digital technology is progressing, it will eventually surpass film in every aspect. But there will always be an appreciation of the unique look of film.

[Andrew Rieger]

There was no DIT on "The Social Network", because they thought, the can handle and judge the Red One MX on their own. I like the movie, but dislike the look. They wanted to achieve something like the look and feel of "Fight Club" with the Red and they failed, in my opinion.

@the electronic look:

The Red-sensor wants to be supersharp and precisely and has also many, many pixels on a "small" sensor, so you get a digital photography-look and this is the secret behind this "electronic look".

@cheap

Shooting on Red is not cheaper than shooting on 35mm, when you do it correctly. You need more lights, more people to work in the camera department (also in postproduction), more makeupartists and another makeup, the production designer and costume designer have to work more precisely, because everything is supersharp and not forgiving like film.

I do not like the Red (till now), but it is sharp. And when you see unsharp moments, then I think, it is a focus puller, who also must work more precisely (it is really hard for focus pullers these days, because so many people think, that everything should be shot with f1.3 and minimum 100mm, which was easier on film; a little bit out of focus on film looks still great, on HD it is the death of a picture)... oh, and yes, good focus pullers are expensive, too

I don't think they were going for a Fight Club look. The DP just happened to be the same, that's all. I believe they wanted a very clean, noise free image and even did some noise reduction in post. From what Fincher has stated, they were very pleased with the look and the Red gave them exactly what they wanted.

Read the ASC article about it: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/Octob ... /page1.php

About needing more lights when shooting Red or Alexa, not true at all. Red and Alexa are quite light sensitive and very clean at ISO 1600 and are in some respects more sensitive and clean than most cine film stocks. The first gen Red was rated at ASA 400 but the new MX and the Alexa are rated at ASA 800. And if the footage is too sharp, you can always use a wonderful invention called the diffusion filter.