RED EPIC

[Roger]

A digital camera does not light the shot any more than it can tell you where to put the camera or how to frame the image. And the idea that a shot can be 'fixed' in post is absurd.
Now, it is possible to do a lot in CG, almost anything, if you have the time and money. The image can be completely replaced and formed anew just as if it were motion capture material for an animated film. But this is all quite different from supposing that the Red Camera or the Alexa can shoot the film for you. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I still believe that shooting a film which resonates with the viewer requires a human component!
Greg Toland was a master at manipulation of the image using glass shots, split screen etc. etc. but imagine what he might have done with digital tools! The question whether digital is 'better' than film is not of primary importance and, besides that, I believe it to have been answered. What is important now is to discuss how these new tools can be used to make more interesting and visually stimulating 'films'.

As to film's 'unique look'. I believe that to be bogus too. I am certain that it is entirely possible to manipulate an image captured by the Alexa that would pass as one taken from a film negative. All that is required is some slight defocusing, a constriction of the colour space and the addition of digital grain. By suggesting that the 'unique look' of film owes more to the properties of film emulsion than to the cinematographers who created the imagery does a great disservice.

[octopoli]

I used to watch grapes of wrath once a week. I would have enjoyed Toland playing around with modern technology. I think its probably a real exciting challenge to work with new cameras and find ways to make them look great. I just could not stomach the metallic look of the red for the brief time I used it, I am not sure if after effects can fix that or not.

[Andrew Rieger]

Roger, you are 100% correct about the fact the final captured image requires human input to be effective. I guess when I stated that film had a unique look, it was more based on technical differences between film and digital but I agree that with post work you can make digital look very close if not identical to film. I guess I am a little tired of all the film vs. digital arguments. You can do stunning things with both, just pick the best tool for the job. Sometimes it will be film sometimes it will be digital but there is no perfect format that is the end all method of shooting, in my opinion.

By the way Roger, you mentioned your wish for an Alexa with an optical viewfinder and I am pretty sure that they will still make one but you also may want to keep an eye out for the Aaton Penelope Delta which actually built a digital camera into a film magazine shaped back, like a digital back on a Hasselblad. Essentially, it is a film camera with a digital back, complete with optical viewfinder. Should be the closest thing to shooting film with a digital camera.

Here is a good video discussing the camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1YArNUFbo

Arri makes some of the best film cameras in the world but there is something special about the Aaton. Its just so comfortable, hard to describe.

[MarcVanOsdale]

Roger

Have you noticed any difference in the rendering in motion of the Alexa. It almost sounds like you are saying that you could "degrade" the Alexa image by constricting and desharpening in order to make it look like film. Do you think there is any reason now to shoot on film?

Marc

[filmbob]

I will be LMAO when the Red Company will win the technical achievement award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

So will everyone else.

[filmbob]

A digital camera does not light the shot any more than it can tell you where to put the camera or how to frame the image. And the idea that a shot can be 'fixed' in post is absurd.
Now, it is possible to do a lot in CG, almost anything, if you have the time and money. The image can be completely replaced and formed anew just as if it were motion capture material for an animated film. But this is all quite different from supposing that the Red Camera or the Alexa can shoot the film for you. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I still believe that shooting a film which resonates with the viewer requires a human component!
Greg Toland was a master at manipulation of the image using glass shots, split screen etc. etc. but imagine what he might have done with digital tools! The question whether digital is 'better' than film is not of primary importance and, besides that, I believe it to have been answered. What is important now is to discuss how these new tools can be used to make more interesting and visually stimulating 'films'.

As to film's 'unique look'. I believe that to be bogus too. I am certain that it is entirely possible to manipulate an image captured by the Alexa that would pass as one taken from a film negative. All that is required is some slight defocusing, a constriction of the colour space and the addition of digital grain. By suggesting that the 'unique look' of film owes more to the properties of film emulsion than to the cinematographers who created the imagery does a great disservice.

That's why if we ever get enough money to actually shoot one of our next films on film, I am offering you the job.

[octopoli]

i feel like some of these after effects of softening etc could start ruining peoples eye sights (more than it already has in the past). I really have think it needs to be tested more. I find watching HD really hurts my eyes and especially when they use artificial softs etc. But I may just be grumpy too. I do think real analog filters and softer lenses are less harsh than these computerised effects. Maybe I don't know what I am saying exactly. I just think the audience is sometimes a guinea pig.

I saw a British documnentory the other day shot on a RED and I know for fact they used a post effect to soften the film as they felt it looked way too harsh and it really really hurt my eyes while watching.

[Roger]

I have to say that I don't see any issues with the digital images I have been getting for the last 5 weeks and I see no reason to alter them in post in any way. My only reason to consider adding 'grain' would be to create a particular 'look' for certain sequences rather than to mimic film. I see absolutely no reason to 'soften' the image or manipulate it in any way. My point was that when you add a little digital grain to the image it is virtually impossible to distinguish it from film. I am talking here about uncompressed images captured by the Alexa rather than the Red camera, my only experience of which has been viewing films shot with it.

[octopoli]

the alexa sounds great. good news on that.

[citizen yo]

I have to say that I don't see any issues with the digital images I have been getting for the last 5 weeks and I see no reason to alter them in post in any way

Couldn't agree more

[Arben]

It was just announced that "Hobbit" of Peter Jackson will be shot on Epic and I believe neither Peter Jackson's or David Fincher's multimillion film productions do not use Red cameras because that are "close" or "mimic" the film look, they simply are after a NEW LOOK.

[Roger]

I think that only makes sense! What we are trying to do as cinematographers is create images that work for a story, not mimic some technical process of producing images that dates back to the beginnings of photography. That makes no sense to me at all. However, film could, be said to be some kind of benchmark for 'quality' of reproduction of the image we see in front of us. Few digital cameras seem to reach that benchmark right now and it surprises me that that's not obvious. Just a sad reflection of....

[Andrew Rieger]

Roger, do you think that digital will become the new benchmark in the near future? Red and Sony certainly think so, probably Arri and Panavision as well.

[Roger]

As I said, if you regard film as the benchmark, right now I regard only one digital camera as being capable of competing with it in terms of both resolution and colour rendition. As to the future? I think new cameras coming out in the next few years will advance the possibilities for image capture way way beyond what is presently possible with film.

[octopoli]

true. its clear that more dynamic cameras will come out, but sometimes that doesn't make things better. look at music in the 60s, 70s and 80s, 90s and now.. the better the digital equipment got in general the worse the music got.. look at disco.. it was a mix of real orchestras and real drums with synthetic keyboards (kind of like a DI these days is with a mix of old and new) then in came 90s and 2000s and you could kind of do what you want but it didn't make music better in my opinion. I suppose I am one of these guys who doesn't move with the times.. I think anyone who is a great DP will do a good job with whatever they have, but what concerns me is the 'industry' and all the image manipulation I will have to suffer.. but at least great DPs should always exist and do things well. I also don't get excited about the next big thing.