my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » RED CAMERAS "as good as film?" (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: RED CAMERAS "as good as film?" Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-29-2008 03:50 PM                        Still photography and cinemtography use different types of lenses, so I'm not sure how much they could possibly be interchanged. For example, no one really cares about "breathing" with a still camera lens, but it would ruin a rack-focus shot in a motion picture. Motion-picture camera lenses also have gearing for follow-focus units and other features that are not useful or desirable for still photography. Still camera lenses generally have a mechanism to close down the iris when the photograph is snapped and remain wide open at all other times for focusing and composition; this is not the case with motion-picture lenses. Even the video camera world has different types of lenses for different applications--"cine" lenses have a longer focus "throw" (distance the lens barrel must rotate from the closest setting to infinity) and are designed to be able to be focused precisely, while "ENG" lenses have a shorter focus throw and are designed to be easier and faster to focus, but are less precise. In any case, there have been methods for fitting Nikon (most commonly) 35mm still camera lenses onto 35mm and 16mm motion-picture cameras for years. There are uses for this, but the concept is not popular for everyday filming. Even if the RED camera is just as good as 35mm film (which I doubt), I still fail to see the point, except perhaps for films which make extensive use of digital effects. A film transfer is necessary for archiving and distribution, which will eat up a good chunk of any savings from not having to purchase and process film at the production stage. In any case, film isn't what makes movies expensive; a "low budget" feature might cost $5 million and have a film budget of maybe $100k.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-30-2008 01:20 PM                     Actually Scott, The original VistaVision cameras starting with the studio built "Lazy 8" and all the VV Mitchell's used Leica camera lenses of the era. Today many Nikor lenses are in use on all 35mm formats including VistaVision. Imax uses many adapted Pentax 6X7 lenses and Some Mamiya 6X7 lenses on it's cameras. They generally but not always have custom made barrels and focus heliciods to take the abuse of daily production rigors. Mark  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-30-2008 06:39 PM                        I did not mean to suggest that still-camera lenses are never used for motion-picture work...just that their use is uncommon. For a typical narrative feature, most DPs would go with Zeiss or Cooke primes or zooms rather than using a Nikon-mount adapter. I've never seen still camera lenses on a rental price sheet; they would be there if a demand existed.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-30-2008 07:22 PM                     Scott, Many rental houses that rent 2nd unit/high speed/timelapse packages have them although they are more than likely not marketed as "Still Camera Lenses". You might be shocked to discover just how many Nikors are in use... Mark  |  IP: Logged Charles Greenlee Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 801 From: Savannah, Ga, U.S. Registered: Jun 2006 posted 10-02-2008 06:11 PM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen there was no "Kodak Blue" in the dark areas at all. Um, enlighten me. Please define "Kodak Blue"?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-05-2008 11:25 AM                     Kodak film products, particuluarly Ektachrome and Eastman Color have been long known for the "Blue" tinge to not only the overall image on occasion but especially in darker areas of images... but not necessarily the deep black areas... It's always been frustrating to me and thousands of other photographers/cinematographers who use their products. They did make one Ektachrome product in 120 size and up that was not as bad at this... call it a warmer image... but they have never managed to equal the results that Fuji has done with their color reversal "Velvia" ASA 50 product. Kodak always had superior grain structure although Velvia sure gives even ASA 25 Kodachrome a run for it's money. Ironically Kodak is marketing a line of CCD sensors called Blue Plus! As well as a line of digital cameras called Blue. Go figure... Kodachrome never suffered from the "Kodak Blues" issue. It was always very neutral capable. Mark  |  IP: Logged Louis Belloisy Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: morris, ct usa Registered: Jun 2006 posted 10-06-2008 06:58 PM                        Rumor has it that kodak will stop production of Kodachrome 25 louis  |  IP: Logged John Koutsoumis Master Film Handler Posts: 261 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Aug 2003 posted 10-15-2008 11:15 PM                     quote: Cameron Glendinning I even went and watched some of the "Bank Job" which is a feature film shot with this new 4k digital technology Can someone clarify? I thought it was shot using Arriflex digital cameras that only do HD... It looks great but if that's 4K then I am a little dissapointed. Also very flat looking too. No depth.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-19-2008 11:32 AM                     It really bugs me when people say some kind of video is "as good as" some kind of film. The truth is that video is video and film is film. There will be a significant bit of overlap between the two but never will one be "as good as" the other. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It's the same as asking, "Are diesel locomotives 'as good as' steam powered locomotives?" When you get down to it, diesels are more convenient, are easier to maintain and repair and are often more fuel efficient than steamers but, for sheer power, you can't beat steam. I was at the county fair, a while back, when they had a steam engine show and a tractor pull on the same day. Somebody got the bright idea to hook one of the steam tractors up to the pulling sled as if it was some kind of joke. They had dozens of souped-up, turbocharged "monster" tractors which often had a hard time making the "full pull" distance of 150 feet. When they hooked the steam tractor up, the announcer started cracking jokes like "Let's see what this OLD tractor can do!" Everybody was smiling and laughing the whole time... Right up to the time when they realized that the steam tractor had covered the 150 feet and was still going! By the time the referee ran out and stopped him, the guy had pulled that sled half way around the quarter mile track! The crowd was going nuts! The driver waved to the crowd as he unhitched the sled and "chugged" his tractor off the track. He left it there for the other tractors to pull back to the starting line. So, just as I compare diesels to steam engines, in the long run, video will end up being easier, faster and cheaper to produce but I don't think it will ever be "as good as film." Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It will be up to the user to decide what he wants to accomplish and choose the right equipment to do the job as he requires. Thus, I think it is a fallacy to say, "Video is as good as film."  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-13-2008 06:27 PM                     Here is the new Red line-up, but be sure to read the fine print. Since they are clearly making a play for still shooters here I wonder when, if ever, we will see Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture support RedCode.  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 11-14-2008 01:48 AM                        I got chills from looking at those.... so beautiful...  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-14-2008 02:11 AM                        So the mount... just a couple of steel bars and some plastic... is $55,000?????? But the working component is under $3K?  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 11-14-2008 08:28 AM                        Red 617 mount includes the Epic 617... which is a working component(Brain), that looks like the body of a DSLR camera in regular view. 28,000x9334 pixels compared to Scarlet at 3072x1620 pixels.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-14-2008 09:42 AM                     The Red 617 is actually a 261 mega-pixel digital back for the Linhof 617 panoramic camera.  |  IP: Logged Jon P. Inghram Expert Film Handler Posts: 124 From: Wichita, KS USA Registered: Jan 2007 posted 11-14-2008 12:30 PM                     That "Epic 617" is also pure BS as NOBODY makes sensors that size. And 25 fps off a CCD that big? I hope it's just a strange joke. Also, I'm not sure if I'm reading that right or not, but are they really implying a 28000x9334 sensor that's 7.3 inches long will only cost $55,000? [ 11-14-2008, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Jon P. Inghram ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.