I invite all voices to please join in on this conversation. I really need some solid evidence in order to back your opinion. Let’s discuss it like this… First and foremost, which camera should I shoot with? Next, what budget range should you shoot with the Red or 35mm film?
The Red One
or 35mm film
Tell me why you would shoot with the RED ONE or Film. The advantages and disadvantages. Take off the gloves and let me have it. I’m leaning to the Red One…more like reaching for my wallet.
49 responses so far ↓
1 Jake // Nov 20, 2008 at 12:35 am
Red, RED, RED!!!
Film is dead. I don’t mean that in a pompous or arrogant way as so many others in this era mean it.
I mean it like this:
Originally film was the only option (from wwwwaaaayyyy back in the day), video was/is crap and you had to use film to be respected. This is no longer the case. Films such as Apocalpto, Remote, Zodiac, Superman Returns, Soderbergh’s two Che films, the Star Wars films and I believe (could be wrong) Peter Jackson’s new film Lovely Bones have been shot entirely in some form of digital medium, not just the RED. These are today’s most respected, forward thinking, innovative filmmakers – Singer, Fincher, Soderbergh, Lucas, and Jackson. That’s not even mentioning movies like Wanted that used RED’s for fx work. (for more info on films shot on RED visit red.com)
Additionally, lets look at what the negative’s are of shooting film:
- At minimum a one day turnaround on footage. More than likely more than that unless you can/will be a priority for a transfer house. Yes you can have playback on set, but it looks like crap, requires extra extra crew and is not a good approximation of what you are getting. No WYSIWYG with film without a much higher budget.
- The workflow is now down to two options, shoot on film, transfer to dvcam w/ timecode, edit, then master back to film OR shoot on film, transfer to HD/D5 etc and then master the HD, never going back to film. The second is infinitely cheaper, less time intensive, and nowadays you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. However in theory you are losing information from the second option by going to a ‘smaller’ image, so film becomes a waste of money again at that point.
- You guys work a lot like I do, very hands on, very interested in being a part of the equation. Unless you (and by that I mean your team) are experienced film DP’s you will not get the look of your work to translate to film. And if you do, it will be through post, which is again why you would want to use RED 4K, which is even a larger original image then 35mm.
- And ultimately, the only person who might possibly be impressed nowadays is Spielberg, the last hold out. Yes, he would be impressed, but he wouldn’t look down on a ‘nonfilm’ film either.
The upside to RED:
- Instant feedback – have a nice monitor and you’ll be able to see the pore’s on the actor’s faces.
- Instant edit – if you were to set up your production/postproduction workflow right within a day of shooting you’d be able to see an edited scene, with color correction with minimal hardware needs
- Image size – 4K vs. 35mm image size puts RED at an advantage. Yes you have to shoot off speed footage at 2K, but still that’s what they did Spiderman 2 DI’s in to get the best image quality.
- Audio sync – Yes you have to still run cable, etc. but having your audio synced on set vs. syncing in post is so much nicer, even if you ADR the entire thing, at least you aren’t going through the trouble of having to spend time building a scratch track.
- It’s a money saver – Using a RED allows you to save money and/or put it towards other items like hiring bigger name actors, etc. It’s amazingly easy to find ‘name’ actors willing to come work on a film that gives them something they want – the chance to be a lead, the chance to play against type, the chance to make a film that is ‘fun’, among many others.
Ultimately, the age of film distributors wanting only films shot on ‘film’ are gone. Yes there might still be some, but a good movie gets bought, a bad one *might*. Make a great film and it won’t matter if you shot it with an old VHS camera tethered to a VCR. People will want to see it and people will want to buy it.
But shoot on RED. If anyone tells you that you *have* to shoot on film they are scared of the unknown, Don’t be that guy, be the guy that says he wants to make a sci-f movie about a young kid named Skywalker.
That’s who you want to be.
Hope that helps.
Jake
2 Andy Coon // Nov 21, 2008 at 1:31 am
Jake,
You are wise beyond your years. And know your shit too. Thanks for sharing your take.
3 Scott Simmons // May 11, 2009 at 11:19 pm
You know all those things Jake said are pretty much true … though the whole 4K frame size being an advantage over the 35mm frame size is pretty much no really an advantage as you’d never see the different in the finished product. The big advantage IMHO of well shot 3-perf 35mm film is it still has latitude and a “look” that RED can’t quite match yet. When we see 35mm roll into the telecine it still has an aesthetic that RED footage hasn’t matched just yet. But where you compare EVERYTHING … I’d have to have a helluva lot of $$ on my shoot before I chose 35mm film.
4 The Editblog » It’s A Boy Linkage: May 09 // May 17, 2009 at 11:12 am
[...] Help a filmmaker out: FCProducer is looking for comments on RED vs. 35mm film. [...]
5 Jon Chappell // May 21, 2009 at 3:40 am
Since we’re on the topic of resolution comparison – if you were to take a 35mm negative and keep scanning it at higher and higher resolutions, you would still be able to resolve new details up until 8K. So *theoretically* film resolution is double that of the RED.
I say theoretically because once you start messing with it in post, you lose data so the release print that goes to cinemas is less than this. But it starts off with much more.
And don’t forget that the RED uses a Bayer pattern which means that 3/4 of the data is interpolated. So essentially you have 1K of actual data and 3K of estimated data. But this isn’t really much of a problem unless you push it too far.
Also, digital cameras are far more prone to artifacts due to the regular arrangement of their sensors. Film uses randomly-sized and randomly-placed grains that minimize artifacts such as moire (e.g. when someone wears a checked shirt that flickers on screen).
If you hire a good DP, you should not have to worry about what the footage looks like, so that is a moot point.
But having said that, I would probably still use the RED solely because of its price. Not only is the camera cheaper but it is also quicker to set up, saving time on set. But be aware that post production for the RED is still very much a work-in-progress so your post team would have to be prepared for possible issues.
6 Bill Graves // May 28, 2009 at 11:19 am
In my opinion, well shot film still has a look that (at this point) can’t be matched by video. Recently, I was watching “Out of Africa” in a friend’s home theater. Wow! It reminded me just how beautiful film can look. And for that matter, I don’t think RED is the best looking HiRes camera, the new Sony that I saw at NAB (don’t remmber the model #) looks much better. But in today’s market, cheap and easy rules. Maybe Eastman should come out with a film that “looks like video”.
7 John Redmond // Jun 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If you want the best picture quality, the only thing that can beat 35mm is IMAX, which is still film. Red doesn’t really compare to 35mm, the only good reason I’d shoot on digital is if I wanted an ultra realistic look, otherwise the only reasons I can think to shoot on digital is that it’s cheaper, quicker and easier. Notice none of those have to do with picture quality, all practical considerations not artistic.
You want forward thinking filmmakers; Spielberg, PT Anderson, M Night Shyamalan and Oliver Stone are all committed to 35mm.
Film is not dead, until digital can do the same look, which it can’t. Imagine if Lawrence of Arabia was shot in digital. Shudder.
Also digital is stuck in the age it’s shot in, the quality you get now is the quality you will always get, whilst with 35mm it’s constantly improving. Just look at the Wizard of OZ remaster, it looks incredible, and it was shot in 1939.
8 Andy Coon // Jun 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Something I failed to mention. This should make the decision a lot easier. We are shooting a $300,000 budgeted movie. Some involved want it on film, but the crew and producers want to shoot it with video because the budget can spread to actors instead of processing and film stock.
9 Jon Chappell // Jun 23, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“Also digital is stuck in the age it’s shot in, the quality you get now is the quality you will always get, whilst with 35mm it’s constantly improving. Just look at the Wizard of OZ remaster, it looks incredible, and it was shot in 1939″
If you shoot RAW on the RED you have those advantages too. They just released a software update that improves image quality in previously shot footage.
10 jack patrick // Jun 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm
wow. great article.
sounds like it was written by the owner of red or something.
pretty funny to me how people won’t admit or maybe do not have the eye any more for beauty.
film is unmatched. its money that forces this issue.
even with film lenses it looks digital. and to me its no fun. too bad money rules.
11 Sean // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm
John, that’s not true. Just because you shoot RAW doesn’t meant you’re going to always improve the quality. A digital cameras resolution is fixed, its color, latitude, etc. is set once shot.
Also RED claims to shoot at 2K, however that doesn’t account color depth and other factors that are just as important. If you look at a DPX file, which is the standard film file authorized by Kodak for 2K, the RED falls extremely short of all the specs, even well below the Viper and the F35.
If you want to talk about QUALITY of image, ask a colorist at any professional transfer house what image looks best, and 100% of the time they will say film.
12 Jon Chappell // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:17 am
Sean, *some* aspects are fixed, yes. But many are not (which is the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place) so my statement still stands.
See this thread for an example of an unusable shot that was rendered acceptable by improvements to the debayering software:
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=431410&postcount=171
13 Mixwerk // Aug 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Jake,
your are so right. That`s the way to live your life. But remember, Luke Skywalker had to beat his own father, so are always two side of one medal. Right ? Anyway – keep on blogging.
14 Mike // Oct 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
You know – as long as movies cost up to 100′s of millions of dollars and theater ticket price are close to $15 – I’d like to be spoiled – shoot it on film and keep the lab guys & delivery drivers and all the extra guys that work…working.
15 Fred // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“maybe eastmen should come out with a film that looks like video”
They already do , 5299 (vision 2 HD), it is essentially vision 2 without the color layer, it was designed for the TK age and is often used in TV, it has a huge amount of latitude (15-16 stops) and is easy to manipulate in post due to the extra color data created by forgowing the filter layer.
16 Alex // Dec 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Drawing a comparison between a video camera and film is silly, IMHO. The Red camera is another video medium; albeit one that’s soft with poor color rendering. An experienced film crew is faster at getting shots off on film than with a Red (or Viper, or F35, or whatever). Because of film’s far superior latitude and color rendering, less lighting is required to get a quality shot. Budget-wise, once you cross a certain threshold, the money becomes a wash. DITs, downtime, technical problems still plague high-end video shoots. As a director, I don’t want to waste my crew’s and talent’s valuable time deciding on exact looks on set. Experience dictates what certain film stocks look like, how far they can be pushed in post, and what process will be applied in development. I usually let the concept decide the format (except on very small budget shoots, where you’re working in video with a limited lens selection). There have been a few occasions where the look of HD/video was chosen specifically for the look over film. Someday, video will surpass film; but at this moment, it’s not even close. Additionally, lensing cannot be understated – get the best glass you can afford – even if working in video. To me, the lenses are almost as important the medium.
A couple of years ago, we did a bit of an experiment – we shot a feature on Super 35mm. We had a crew of four people, and very limited lighting. Admittedly, the script was a bit rushed as it was more a technical test than anything else. The total budget, including post was under $100k. It took 30 days to shoot and about a year to post. It’s now out at Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, etc. It is possible to shoot film cheaply; you just have to plan carefully.
My $.02.
17 Eric Leach // Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 am
I am just looking at what people are saying and I could not resist commenting on these reasons to shoot digital:
- Instant feedback – have a nice monitor and you’ll be able to see the pore’s on the actor’s faces.
Not sure that actor or actress wants to have that much shown on a movie screen.
- Instant edit – if you were to set up your production/postproduction workflow right within a day of shooting you’d be able to see an edited scene, with color correction with minimal hardware needs
True, but if your on a tight budget you will probably want to spend a little more time in the prep and planning than spending the time it takes to set up editorial on location every morning.
- Image size – 4K vs. 35mm image size puts RED at an advantage. Yes you have to shoot off speed footage at 2K, but still that’s what they did Spiderman 2 DI’s in to get the best image quality.
4k Compressed is no match to 35mm. Yes when you look at RAW data you will have a large latitude that some may argue is greater than film. But have you ever looked at a 35mm Neg?
There might be 1 4k projector that a colorist would approve in Hollywood right now. They cost a fortune, and are not as good as the 2k Projectors.
Also, have you actually seen footage on a large screen of Red 2k? Its barely the quality of 1080, and if its a fast moving object, forget about it. It really falls a part. For the small screen it might be an option, but for large projection/theatrical you would have to at least go back and shoot the high speed on the phantom (and thats only 4k up to 500fps, 2k to1000fps) to maintain quality, and then you might as well just go back and shoot hi speed on 435 because the cost comparison is virtually the same between the phantom and film.
- Audio sync – Yes you have to still run cable, etc. but having your audio synced on set vs. syncing in post is so much nicer, even if you ADR the entire thing, at least you aren’t going through the trouble of having to spend time building a scratch track.
I dont do sound. But again, any reputable sound man and production company is going to be recording it separately anyways.
- It’s a money saver – Using a RED allows you to save money and/or put it towards other items like hiring bigger name actors, etc. It’s amazingly easy to find ‘name’ actors willing to come work on a film that gives them something they want – the chance to be a lead, the chance to play against type, the chance to make a film that is ‘fun’, among many others.
Oddly enough its about the same amount of money. You can shoot 3 perf, 2 perf 35mm or even Super16 and still have equal or better image quality. Having shot features on both film and digital, the cost is the same. Do to the demand of Red Cameras these days, you are paying top dollar for gear. Since most owner operators cant spend the 300,000 for a set of Cooke lenses, they are subject to having to pay top dollar at the larger Rental Houses that have inventory. And further more, you should never use a gimic to sell your movie. Bottom line, if the script is good, you will be able to find people to do it. A lot of actors don’t want to waist their time doing something that they think is going to be shot on a home movie camera. You can have all the gadgets in the world, and if the script sucks, the script is not going to suddenly turn into a masterpiece. You can shoot any format, and if the script is good, it will intergrade and help tell the story with out drawing attention to “the format”.
I should have started with this first, but the second part was too tempting:
Additionally, lets look at what the negative’s are of shooting film:
- At minimum a one day turnaround on footage. More than likely more than that unless you can/will be a priority for a transfer house. Yes you can have playback on set, but it looks like crap, requires extra extra crew and is not a good approximation of what you are getting. No WYSIWYG with film without a much higher budget.
Turn around time for backing up data takes the same. That is a fact. You still need hard copies of your footage. If you loose that file info, that day is a loss with out back ups, and on a small budget, you don’t have money to go back and re shoot.
- The workflow is now down to two options, shoot on film, transfer to dvcam w/ timecode, edit, then master back to film OR shoot on film, transfer to HD/D5 etc and then master the HD, never going back to film. The second is infinitely cheaper, less time intensive, and nowadays you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. However in theory you are losing information from the second option by going to a ‘smaller’ image, so film becomes a waste of money again at that point.
Most people would agree, that when down sizing from a large format to one that is not able to handle the same amount of info, its better to have too much and not need it then to need it and not have it. Having more info to start with eliminates the generation loss going back and forth between formats. So its not really a waste of money…
- You guys work a lot like I do, very hands on, very interested in being a part of the equation. Unless you (and by that I mean your team) are experienced film DP’s you will not get the look of your work to translate to film. And if you do, it will be through post, which is again why you would want to use RED 4K, which is even a larger original image then 35mm.
Unfortunately in the world where producers and studios are paying lots of money to DPs to shoot these very expensive movies, its a given that you know what you are doing. If you don’t, you get fired, and they hire someone who does. Seen it happen. People don’t just go in to a room and start shooting, there is planning, because with planning you save time and money. Actor schedules, location, weather etc etc.
- And ultimately, the only person who might possibly be impressed nowadays is Spielberg, the last hold out. Yes, he would be impressed, but he wouldn’t look down on a ‘nonfilm’ film either.
There are quite a few that feel its not quite there, or it just doesn’t work for their movie.
And since his cameraman has won 2 academy awards shooting film and been nominated for movies that where shot on film, it might be a tough sell to go digital.
Bottom line, story. If your story sucks. Your movie will suck no mater what you shoot it on.
Theres my 2 cents…
18 Jon Chappell // Jan 6, 2010 at 4:25 am
“4k Compressed is no match to 35mm. Yes when you look at RAW data you will have a large latitude that some may argue is greater than film. But have you ever looked at a 35mm Neg?”
35mm negs have a resolution of around 8K or so, however fewer and fewer people are doing neg cuts nowadays. The vast majority of Hollywood movies are doing 2K or 4K DI so it’s really only a few Hollywood stalwarts and indies that are still doing neg cuts.
I was talking with a lady from a film processing lab the other day and she claimed that a lot of people were abandoning 2K and doing their DIs at 1080p nowadays on HDCAM SR (apparently there is some kind of add-on board you can buy that reduces compression) which she claimed is indistinguishable from 2K. I don’t know how true that is.
IMO what matters is not how many pixels you have, it’s how many the audience notice.
“Turn around time for backing up data takes the same.”
Depends how you back it up. But you do not need to sit around and wait for it to backup before you can view it and work with it so I’m not sure this time delay would make a difference.
19 Jon // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Film is still the best Now days digital is geting all the credit for how good it is but its the digital thats holding back the quality film is there already with plenty for the future the digital right now dosent give justis to what films potental is I loved the 70 mm movies that were shot on 5/70 amazing well i think were kinda going backward if we stop film now it would be a long time be fore we got it back that said I think there are uses for both formats youll have to decide but film dos stand the test of time.
20 Adam - popcorn eater // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:02 pm
There’s something organic, emotional and ceremonial about film, like carefully cleaning a vinyl record and lowering the stylus and knowing that you’re hearing something that’s never been through any “near enough” digital “approximation”.
I walked out on “Public Enemies” because in my opinion it had no heart – but the kicker for me was that it was awful to look at – the noise at the sharp junctures between light and dark reminded me of images from a cheap consumer digital still camera.
Mike – “You know – as long as movies cost up to 100’s of millions of dollars and theater ticket price are close to $15 – I’d like to be spoiled – shoot it on film and keep the lab guys & delivery drivers and all the extra guys that work…working.”
Totally agree.
21 Andy Coon // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Adam, I couldn’t agree with you more. If you have the budget shoot with the best.
I wish I walked out of Public Enemies not because of the look but because the film sucked. Felt blah, and added nothing to a well known story.
22 Jon Chappell // Feb 13, 2010 at 1:20 am
Public Enemies looked bad because it was poorly shot, not because it was digital. I have seen poorly shot 35mm film and it looks just as bad. A skilled DP can make anything look good.
23 Ed Hobbs // Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 am
Red is an incredible format for the price and as video cameras go it has specs and optical capabilities that put it way out the front of that pack.
However, as a (very small time) producer, every time I see film up on a chain, I feel myself beginning to smile. It is a magic format and even though RED ticks almost all the boxes it’s doesn’t command that magic… yet. If money is no object, film still wins.
In a world like tv where money is ALWAYS on object, RED opens up a toolbox previously unimaginable at that price point.
24 John Alan Simon // Apr 13, 2010 at 4:34 pm
If you talk to David Fincher and his line producer partner, they will tell you that they saved at least a million dollars shooting Zodiac digital – and more than that on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Did anyone think Benjamin Button looked worse than most movies shot on film ? Case closed for me in terms of film vs. digital. The hot new digital camera will always be expensive to rent – as the Red still is now. You can rent the Viper for practically nothing. The Camera House supplied Fincher with his Vipers and are great people to work with. It’s a great low light camera – compared to the Red, at least what I’ve seen. Much richer color palette, too. This is one way to make low $$ go far and get quality images. But the most important thing is to get a dp who really knows digital – Film is much more forgiving than digital.
25 Freya // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:17 am
I’m absolutely gobsmacked to hear you say that as I thought Benjamin Button looked APPALLING!!! Shockingly bad. Regardless of what it was shot on. I found it really distracted me from the film immensely and it was honestly the first time that the cinematography really distracted me from what could have otherwise been a good film. I seem to remember there being another issue with the film too, I think maybe the acting somewhere in it but I don’t remember. It really shocked me because I really loved the ideas and premise in the film etc. Seemed like it would have been a great script but ended up just really, really badly executed or something. I felt it was a real car crash of a film. Made me feel very bad for everyone involved. How could it have gone sooooo wrong!
26 Freya // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:40 am
From a producers viewpoint, I would personally be inclined to shoot digital if I did not have the money for film or it would give me massive and very significant savings to do so. The first things people are going to want to see are the script and to know who is in the film. People are a lot less interested in what it looks like and John Alan Simon for example didn’t even seem to notice that Benjamin button looked awful!
John also makes another really great point however, which is that it shouldn’t be a choice of film or red. There are other digital options that might be far more appropriate. I have heard very good things about the viper as John suggests for example. You really need to look at the post workflow and what is easiest there as you really don’t want to save money and then end up spending it all on post or being in a post nightmare, so I think you have to look at different digital post workflows and see what works best for you and your project. This is likely to be heavily dictated by which digital camera is used, so check it out.
There are much cheaper options than red too, so that could help a lot if you are budget constrained.
OTOH, if you don’t have any name talent involved and can scrape together enough to shoot on film, then that might be something to think about as shooting on film is one of the easiest ways to inject a bit of magic into your movie! It depends on your situation.
and of course if you can shoot on film then shoot on film unless you have needs that are specifically suited to digital.
27 John Alan Simon // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Freya thinks Benjamin Button looked awful – and maybe it did in the particular theatre where he saw it – but his fellow cinematographers chose to nominate Claudio Miranda for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography for Benjamin Button. Everyone’s movie should look so bad to get an Oscar nomination. I saw Benjamin Button at Paramount’s main theatre with a state of the art digital projection system and it looked stunning from the viewpoint of richness of the visual image. Unlike Freya, I would only shoot on film today if the movie had special needs for a look that I couldn’t match in digital. The smart thing to do is run camera tests – Which is what I plan to do for a film noir period movie that I want to make next. The new Red Epic camera has an astonishing low light image quality. I don’t know what “magic” shooting on film gives you any more. Personally I’d rather have an extra day or two or more of shooting for the cost savings – or more money for music or the myriad of places where a low budget film often need more support.
28 Alex // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Interesting that this thread keeps coming back. A friend just bought a Viper (they’ve reached EOL and can be had relatively cheap), and an AC I know has a Red with a set of Red Primes. He just sent it out for the Mysterion upgrade. We haven’t compared the Red/Mysterion yet, but the Viper was just brought over to the home office. Original Reds, to put it bluntly, are way out of their league vs. film – even the AC I mentioned who owns one doesn’t care for it. The Viper is a beautiful looking camera. We captured dual link in filmstream mode straight to my home edit suite. It was a worst case scenario – no lights, etc. It was nice and smooth and after some grading looked quite nice. Comparing it to Super 35mm, however, there’s no contest. We also put up some varicam, E3, phantom and even (as a gag) Zi-6 footage. The Viper looked the best, but nothing was touching the film. Not even close. If you folks are interested, I could lift some stills and put them up – although they’re not shooting the same stuff, and are under completely different conditions, the differences are pretty substantial. Alas, I don’t have any Red footage handy, but I think enough folks have seen it to know what it looks like.
That said – the value of lensing really needs to be taken into account – as has been brought up before…
29 Freya // Jul 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Hiya John! I was aware of the academy award and I really can’t understand it. You are the first person I have come across to express that they thought the film looked great. No idea if it is a contentious issue or not but it obviously is for me!
If I come across many more people who feel that it looks great, then that will be interesting and might make me review various aspects of my own outlook on cinematography further. It’s really facinating to be at such a polar extreme on such an issue!
I saw the film on DVD BTW and I wonder if that could be a part of the issue? Perhaps it is a movie that looks great on the big screen but not so much on the smaller one?
As for having an extra day of shooting etc, then I totally agree. It’s definitely not worth compromising the movie to shoot on film.
30 Freya // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Alex, would love to see some stills but would also like to know more about the cheap “end of line” vipers!? Do you have a lead on where these can be aquired and for how much? It’s great times for digital filmmaking at the moment as Red prices are also in the process of slumping dramatically too! Fantastic for those working to lower budgets I think!
31 Alex // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I’ll post a couple of stills when I get a chance. These “cheap” Vipers still aren’t cheap – tens of thousands; with no glass. The one my friend bought needed an internal connector repaired (he’s a video engineer by trade, so not really an issue for him). Still more than a Red. Just look around on Ebay – the one I’m talking about came from New Zealand.
32 Alex // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Here’s a link to some bitmaps of stills from different cameras:
http://www.copleymovie.com/Magic/Frames.zip
Here’s the key:
CopleyFrame1 = Super 35mm, Zeiss Superspeed primes, Vision 2 500T Stock
CopleyFrame2 = Super 35mm, Zeiss Superspeed primes, Vision 2 500T Stock
EX3Frame1 = Stock Sony EX3 everything; natural light
EX3Frame2 = Stock Sony EX3; natural light
MD1 = Varicam. 720p. Heavily cleaned up in after effects
Saladworks1 = Super 35mm, Cooke Primes, Vision 3 500T Stock
ViperFrame1 = Filmstream 4:4:4 capture, HD Studio Zoom, Natural light – tungsten overhead, fluorescent from camera right.
The “Copley” stills are sort of a worst-case scenario for Super 35 – older lenses, low light (the entire film was lit with 4 1k fresnels and practicals), shot entirely on short ends, a less experienced colorist (read: cheaper) and we were writing the code to convert DPX files to uncompressed 10 bit 4:4:4 quicktimes. The movie was really a test of the new workflow (which is now not really new). I think you can still get the movie from Netflix or download it in HD (720p) from the cheesy splash page on the site (the site itself is pretty nifty, though) for $2 – http://www.copleymovie.com. The entire movie really had a crew of 4 people, plus myself and was shot and completed for under $100k. And no, sadly, we haven’t made our money back.
The EX3 frames were just wanking around with an EX3 that a friend brought over to play with. Meet Lucy, my cat.
The Varicam frame was from a short film shot around 2004. Let’s just say it was quite the learning curve, and the codec sucks.
“Saladworks” is a sort of best case scenario for Super 35mm. Really nice primes, good gaffer, good colorist, and a budget that was almost three times that for “Copley” – for a :30 commercial.
Viper – again, just wanking around in the home office with this thing. A worst-case scenario for this camera (though the astute viewers will figure out that “Copley” was shot in my house).
I realize these aren’t apples to apples comparisons, but they should give you some real-world examples of what these images look like. I noticed looking at the stills in Windows photo viewer makes them look really bad for some reason – photoshop is better if you’ve got it. When Nate brings the Red w/Mysterion by, we’ll do a side by side with the Viper. My money’s on the Viper. But I could be wrong…
33 Freya // Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52 am
Wow the viper footage does look suprisingly good! I have to say for me personally, it looks better than much Red footage I have seen so my bet would also be on the viper too!
Having said that better can to some extent be subjective and I like the fact that different cameras have different looks.
As an aside I understand that Benjamin button was shot on the viper!
34 Jas // Sep 27, 2010 at 4:43 am
Film is dead?????
Excuse me? Did I hear that right?
First off the only 4 films that I can really think of in the last 10 years that made it to the bigscreen and had a great payoff where Michael Mann’s Collateral, Miami Vice and David Fincher’s Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
All four of these films had multi-million dollar budgets and were shot, not filmed, with a $300,000 digital camera called The Viper.
High Tech gear all being used by veteren professionals who have the resumes to back it up.
Hear me again: $300,000 dollar Viper not your $5,000 Cannon!!!
That is high end digital storytelling and it cost just as much as film not to mention that all four films were blown up to fit 35mm prints for theatrical release.
With Digital you have multiple issues. First off, the latitude of the image is nothing compare to film, so I hope that you have a kickass Director of Photography who knows how to light and has all the proper lighting, otherwise your blacks will end up crushed and your whites will come out overexposed.
Secondly, Digital requires a good deal of memory space to hold all of the information from your shoot, whereas the film negative is the information. So I hope you have the funding for RAM drives and Hard-drives and whatnot.
I mentioned all four of those movies because I just happened to see all of them in the theaters overs the years and the very second the image was on the screen I knew that it was not film! It did look good and was perfectly fine as a medium for narrative storytelling but like I said earlier, “multimillion dollar budgets and veteren professionals”
Digital has it’s place in the entertainment industry: reality television, live sports, documentaries but as far as beauty goes it doesn’t compete with film. If the difference was so uncanny how come everyone who some reasoning always spot it.
I laugh at the notion that some filmschool kids with there $5,ooo Cannon 7d’s think that they have the film industry plucked better than Hollywood. If digital looked good enough that it could even be compared to film than Hollywood would have switched over many years ago.
35 Arun Surapaneni- DOP // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:21 am
HI, I am Dop from India, after test shooting about 2000 feet ,and 300 feet of Di to print projected in big screen I am convinced to shoot on Digital with RED ONE (4K) camera. I chosen the Carl zeiss lens and color corrected in base light system. AS I am not shooting Lawrence of Africa or Arabia I am happy with the final out put which suits for my Family Drama Script.( EYES WIDE SHUT)
36 Nilly // Nov 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
It is mind blowing to me that this massive debate over digital vs. Film continually uses the red as it’s poster child! If the comparisons were being made against the Sony f35 which in my opinion is the most advanced digital out there…..then we’d have a forum. The red does not hold a Prayr to the f35 or even the viper for that matter so why does everyone keep talking about it as if it is the cutting edge of digital. I do agree that it is very hard to match the mystique of film in digital….but certainly if any cam can do it….it is the f 35
37 Sulinder // Nov 24, 2010 at 6:53 am
Hi i’m Sulinder, I have been a Cinematographer for over 13 years now.Look, in my point of view.You should definitely shoot on film,i’m not saying you have to shoot on film.So now let me tell you about the positives and negatives of shooting film & RED (Digital).
Film : Positives
1. It’s cheaper than the RED Camera, that just depends where you’re renting or buying you’re film camera of course.Find sites that have reasonable discounts.
2. Film has a better exposure latitude than any digital HD CAM in the world of course.
3. Film has beautiful color accuracy
4. Film has a pleasing image, it doesn’t have that video-ish look if you know what I mean.
5. Color Grading is easier with film, if you decide to color grade with digital HD, your results are going to be more darker.
6. Right now currently 70mm Imax film has the best quality than digital.
Negatives of shooting on film:
1. Film Processing is time consuming, and also a money taker.
2. For the best results in film quality, it must be scanned at a very high resolution which is also as I said before, time consuming and a money taker!!!.
3. Film can be very expensive !!!
Positives of shooting on digital
1. It’s simple, quick and easy.
2. No processing is involved, just load the footage into the computer straight out of the camera.
3. The resolution is clean and sharp, but it doesn’t have the best quality when compared to 70mm Imax film.Right now Digital is a work in progress, but you can’t deny, digital cameras are getting better year by year.
4. Many Digital Cinema Cameras nowadays provide Dynamic Range which is almost close to film.
Negatives of shooting on digital
1. Even the best Colorist in the world can’t make digital HD look like 100% film.
2. Color Grading with digital is hard, you certainly have to be familiar when you enhance digital images into a masterpiece.
3. Digital has got a limited exposure latitude.
4. For a film production, if you’re deciding to shoot on RED, it would take tons of cables to power up the camera.
So in comparison definitely a couple strengths and weaknesses, between the debate over Digital vs Film.
38 Sulinder // Nov 25, 2010 at 7:33 am
Film is dead? Please, you need to research some information when you criticise about film.
1. First off the maximum exposure latitude for film is 20 stops.
2. Nothing looks or beats film
3. Film is the best industry standard medium we know today.
4. It finds details in the shadows and highlights.
5. It renders Skin tones & color superbly.
6. 70mm Imax film has an equivalent resolution of 10k.
Good luck finding a digital camera that can provide all that. !!!!!
39 Mike Redding // Dec 22, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I have shot film and video for 30+ years. Video looks great in a small screen, the typical 40+ inch monitor/TV. Projection is a different matter. I have seen my video projects look great all through editing and then when sitting in front of a 35 foot screen, want to crawl out of the theater. After editing and seeing a film original projected, I saw more than I had seen in the eyepiece or in editing, there is so much more information there. Plus it lasts forever. Film is easy to convert to other formats. Ever see 720p/24 converted to 1080p/24? Not Good. How about 1080P/24 to 1080P/25 and a film out?
If you want a Kiosk vending machine release go with video, it’s suited for that. If you want Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind or Raiders, shoot film. A good director should have a scene in 3 takes. A director should shoot the dirty and the close in 3 or less; and not belabor the actors with the whole scene. Then film makes sense even more as it requires the director to shoot economically, to not waste money. You will get better performances from talent since you can’t beat them down with a machine approach to delivery. I’m anticipating more improvements to the Alexia and RED MX but this still camera stuff and HD from 1/3 inch chips is for direct to DVD only. Shoot something, find a digital theater, there not that many despite what you read, and project it. If it’s good enough, factor in the price to go to a film out, which most theaters require, and see if the numbers and loss of quality make sense. If a DVD is the goal, don’t worry about it.
From Wikipedia:
On the downside, the initial costs for converting theaters to digital are high: up to $150,000 per screen or more. Theaters have been reluctant to switch without a cost-sharing arrangement with film distributors. Recent negotiations have involved the development of a Virtual Print License fee[citation needed] which the studios will pay for their products which allows financiers and system developers to pay for deployment of digital systems to the theaters, thus providing investors a certain payback.
While a theater can purchase a film projector for US$50,000 and expect an average life of 30–40 years, a digital cinema playback system including server/media block/and projector can cost 3–4 times as much, and is at higher risk for component failures and technological obsolescence. Experience with computer-based media systems show that average economic lifetimes are only on the order of 5 years with some units lasting until about 10 years before they are replaced.
Archiving digital material is also turning out to be both tricky and costly. In a 2007 study, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found the cost of storing 4K digital masters to be “enormously higher – 1100% higher – than the cost of storing film masters.” Furthermore, digital archiving faces challenges due to the insufficient temporal qualities of today’s digital storage: no current media, be it optical discs, magnetic hard drives or digital tape, can reliably store a film for a hundred years, something that properly stored and handled film can do. (Wiki end)
So, video will kill film not because it’s cheaper, but more expensive. A 8 plex theater with 8 projectors at 150K @ every 4-5 years requires increased ticket prices so people will stay home watch your $40K digital movie on the 50inch LED screen and the theater experience and film will go away.
40 JH // Jan 29, 2011 at 8:58 am
Comparing RED vs Film is all very well, but when your average release print today is coming from a digital internegative created at 2k at the lowest possible cost you are better off arguing over angles/script/location as capturing on 35mm or RED @4k are both fine!
Also for the film vs digital projector argument at cinemas, lots of places that I know have converted are now leasing the digital projectors and servicing is included where as they used to buy film projectors outright. When chains are entering into agreements with Sony to convert all their theatres they are being offered very competitive prices, certainly some of the costs I have seen are pretty good when you consider all of the associated costs.
There is lots of quoting from Wikipedia above, but ultimately it makes sense to go digital, and if you don’t believe it, go and work in a cinema or distributor, that is why lots started before 3D became popular again! Once you get over about 80 features you are saving money compared to film projection and that is taking into account all costs of digital vs film projection.
41 Alex // Feb 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Wow – I’m surprised that this keeps coming back from the dead.
JH – If what you say is true, then why do my high-end clients; and most high-end commercials for that matter, still shoot film? The answer – because even going through the nasty video compression broadcast chain, film still looks noticeably better – even on a TV screen. It holds up. The same holds true (perhaps more so) for digital distribution in theaters.
Someone else mentioned the F35 – which is a “latest generation” variant of video. Yes, it does slam the Red & it’s a very good camera – if the concept fits that particular medium, it’d be at the top of my list; but it’s still not in the same league as film. Eventually, perhaps, video will surpass film. But not for a long time yet. My $.02.
42 Mayra // Mar 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I believe it depends on the type of image you are going for. If your desire is a real high definition sharp picture, you should go with the Red, if you are concerned with your actors looking beautiful go with film. With Red you will get a Real looking feature (Why it worked so good for Che’) With Film you will get a beautiful feature (Benjamin Button)
my .02 cents
43 Lazarus // Jun 1, 2011 at 12:44 am
I got to say this 35mm vs Red debate is now pointless. The digital technology has improved so much that with proper post and lighting, Red looks just as good as film. Or, more specifically, digital looks just as good as film.
Who cares about the “it’s like a vinyl record” deal? That’s like the whole analogue audio vs digital audio. I don’t want to screw around with film when I could just shoot digitally and have the same picture quality (though I admit this didn’t use to be the case back in 2009/2010).
Film is not dead. Digital is very much alive and only improving.
44 Milan Patel // Oct 1, 2011 at 1:21 am
i am from Bharat (india)
“Red Epic” Camera (model after Red One) Brains record a data rate of 225 MB/s. The sensor sizes will be Super 35, 135 film, 645 (medium format), and 617, equivalent to the Linhof Technorama camera (the 617 will record a data-rate of 500 MB/s). Horizontal resolutions will range from 5K to 28K (the latter is the equivalent of 261 megapixels) and could be printed onto 70 mm IMAX 15/70 without the need for the IMAX Digital Media Remastering (DMR). On April 15, 2010, a Red Epic camera was demonstrated at an off-site meeting during the 2010 NAB show exhibition (Red did not have an official booth at NAB) Peter Jackson is shooting his version of The Hobbit using 30 Epic cameras in a 3D configuration at 48fps
The Red Epic is announced to come in the following variants:
Name Physical Size Resolution (in pixels) Estimated Price
Epic-X S35 30 × 15 mm (1.2 × 0.59 in) 5,120 × 2,700 (5K) >$10,500 RED1 body
Epic-S S35 30 × 15 mm (1.2 × 0.59 in) 5,120 × 2,700 (5K) $12,000
Epic S35 30 × 15 mm (1.2 × 0.59 in) 5,120 × 2,700 (5K) $28,000
Epic-M S35 30 × 15 mm (1.2 × 0.59 in) 5,120 × 2,700 (5K) $58,000 (Package)
Epic FF35 36 × 24 mm (1.4 × 0.94 in) 6,000 × 4,000 (6K) $33,000
Epic 645 56 × 42 mm (2.2 × 1.7 in) 9,334 × 7,000 (9K) $43,000
Epic 617 168 × 56 mm (6.6 × 2.2 in) 28,000 × 9,334 (28K) $53,000
NOW ANY ONE HAVE ANY QUESTION THAT DIGITAL CINEMA IS NOT BETTER THAN FILM? film can record up to 10k maximum for 70 MM. but Red Epic can Up to 28 K !
I SHUT EVERY PERSONS MOUTH WHO WERE SHOUTING & TELLING NEGATIVE WORDS TO DIGITAL CINEMA. DUDE, DIGITAL CINEMA IS GET MORE IMPROVE , SAVING MONEY & TIME. . NOW IS 2011 & IF NOW DIGITAL IS SO ADVANCED THEN HOW IT WILL BE AFTER? AFTER 5 YEARS I DON’T THINK THAT ANY FILMMAKER WOULD LIKE TO USE FILM CAMERAS.
i have Latest Red One ( with latest MYSTERIUM-X 14 MP Sensor) i am happy by its result & i have order Red Epic now.
45 Milan Patel // Oct 1, 2011 at 1:32 am
The first major theatrical releases to be shot on the Epic will be the upcoming The Amazing Spider-Man, Bryan Singer’s -Jack the Giant Killer, Ridley Scott’s -Prometheus, Peter Jackson’s -The Hobbit (500million $) , James Cameron’s -Avatar 2, David Fincher’s -The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Måns Mårlind’s -Underworld: Awakening, Michael J. Bassett’s -Silent Hill: Revelation 3D, and Ajith Kumar’s -Billa 2.
46 Michael Sliter // Oct 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I thought I would add some input here to people who seem to support Film vs HD.. I’ve seen the look on both from start to finish on certain projects.
Digital should stick to the highest standard available for the budget. I’m sure there may be better standards out there, but I’m a firm believer in Red One 4K for the pricing or above; I’ve seen it work out. While film is THE BEST no doubt when capturing and for storage / finer grain, you have to remember where the film will end up in the end. Most theatres will show a blurry picture anyway which defeats the purpose of all that quality (you can talk 8K and higher, but it won’t make a difference if it’s blurred by the projector in the final distribution cut). If you want something to last ages, film on film. However, for any professional budget filmmaker, I will mostly recommend digital (Red One or higher will do absolutely fine for HDTV shows or Projector Disribution later on).
The problem is that all of you were talking about higher quality on a studio floor than what most will even get to see in theatre reels if it is ever distributed, which often due to crappy theatre projectors all around. All hollywood movies turn out like 4K or 2K in the end for theatres. It’s the system of distribution which will matter in the end.. If you plan to have your film shown in theatres, it will be much less quality than what some film buffs are expecting it to be, unless it’s IMAX or something. So whether it is 8K or 4K, I’ve seen 4K work magic and will try to not go any lower than that for post production reasons. By the time it reaches the theatre it will have the same cut as a Hollywood film, it’s virtually indistinguishable to me around here.
47 Michael Sliter // Oct 9, 2011 at 4:32 pm
When your a filmmaker, I can understand that picture quality is #1 (it is in my book otherwise the entire thing is useless, even for simple filming and not an epic; but I’m into making concept stories). Maybe all the projectors around here suck, idk. Just talking from experience around in my area and with all the theatres I’ve been to, including the film festival here.. Thing is, it all depends on your NEED (which is mostly budget).
Also, with additional HD equipment with your camera; I ENTIRELY recommend capturing RAW uncompressed footage, it’s only 100% worth it if you do it that way.
48 Sony f65 fan // Oct 15, 2011 at 1:48 pm
The new Sony f65 will be as good if mot better than film and so much easier to work with. If people can’t see that direction by watching the incredible look in a movie like Tron (created exclusively on Sony f35) then they are just not with the program. Why does everyone keep discussing the Red as if it’s the standard of comparison in the digital realm. Frankly, the red sucks in my opinion in many ways, but Sonys high end cams kick major ass and will continue to take the movie industry by storm.
49 Adam - popcorn eater // Nov 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I haven’t been to the cinema in over a year. I can watch HD video at home. I used to go to the cinema and see the black curtains separate to touch the walls revealing a beautiful 1:2.35, organic, film generated image which ‘breathed’, and was often shot in anamorphic. Sadly, no more. I know I’m an old fuddy duddy!
Leave a Comment