Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: RED CAMERAS "as good as film?"

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » RED CAMERAS "as good as film?" (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: RED CAMERAS "as good as film?"

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-14-2008 03:01 PM

quote: Mark Ogden
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.

This is from Adobe's page on Premiere Pro CS4:

quote: Adobe Systems
Adobe and RED Digital Cinema Camera Company are collaborating to bring a truly native, color-rich, 4K tapeless workflow to desktop tools, enabling filmmakers to harness the full potential of high-resolution raw digital cinematography. The first step of this long-term collaboration is the importer beta plug-in that brings native support for RED R3D files to Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS4, After Effects® CS4 Professional, and Encore® CS4, allowing 4K resolution native R3D files to be dropped straight onto the timeline without transcoding or rewrapping.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 11-14-2008 08:56 PM

quote: Randy Stankey
The truth is that video is video and film is film

The TRUTH is that red is neither video nor film, its data off a cmos sensor uses the exact same lenses and identical imaging size of super 35mm film.
It has more of a relationship with the technology of digital still cameras than any television production equipment of the past.

quote: Jon P. Inghram
And 25 fps off a CCD that big?

Its a CMOS

quote: Mark Ogden
Linhof 617 panoramic camera.

I have a beautiful photograph taken with this camera (film) given to me as a wedding gift, the qualiy is draw droppingly good. I have seen enlargements made up to 10' x 30' at an exibition here in Sydney.

quote: John Koutsoumis
I thought it was shot using Arriflex digital cameras that only do HD...

I might have misunderstood the cinematographer I was asking who has tested several D cameras. We were discussing red and I simply asked if there was a good example in release. I have found out since that the Australian part of the shoot was with arri D20. I would guess that the rest would have been shot with it as well but dont know for sure. The arri D21 now features a 3k sensor and will except 35mm film anamorphic lenses.

Aatons new Penelope 35mm camera is interesting as it will be able to shoot 2 perf or 3 perf 35mm, In the near future it will have a Digital Magazine option so that you can shoot film or digital with the same body.
aaton

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-14-2008 09:53 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
The TRUTH is that red is neither video nor film

The truth is that if it is an electronic moving image, it is video. Film is chemical. Red is video.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 11-14-2008 10:21 PM

I was under the impression that the red camera did not output an electronic image, only data, that was to be processed by a computer into the final image at a later date. This is unlike video cameras (or should I say previous generations of video cameras [Smile]

)that are processing and outputing a finished standardised product.

Personally If I was to shoot a low budget motion picture at the moment I would use super 16mm, Its light weight and can use a small crew, a decent budget I would shoot 2 or 3 perf 35mm. I am not sure what my answer would be next year as this technology is simply getting better.

With the output of most finished hollywood product being on 35mm film from digital post production, doesn't that technically make all the films are now video no matter what?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-14-2008 10:28 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I was under the impression that the red camera did not output an electronic image, only data, that was to be processed by a computer into the final image at a later date.

Kind of like every MiniDV camcorder! Only the MiniDV camcorders happen to have onboard A/D converters so you can see the video and hook it up directly to the TV.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 11-14-2008 11:50 PM

Are you comparing red raw with mini dv? [Confused]

If it was similar I am sure there would not be the huge post production sting that red seems to have at the moment.
I really don't care if its called video or digital, to many it seems different enough to be noted as such.
After listening to some seminars about working with it in post, I would have to say it seems a far more complicated path than traditional tape based formats including HDCAM SR beta etc (at this stage).
The Red does have issues but they seem to be moving forward and working through them. The results on screen after a chemical process seem very film like to me. Having shot motion picture film, worked on 35mm productions, I am surprised how close or similar the results are now getting.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-14-2008 11:54 PM

Compression format is irrelevant in the discussion of Red being video or not. It's not video only if you define video as being an accepted standard like PAL or NTSC.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-15-2008 12:02 AM

Geez. Only film is film. "Digital" is still electronic. And any electronic imagery is still video. It isn't film.

And the CMOS versus CCD thing, well that a whole other complicated debate.

The thing going on with Red as well as what's happening lately with D-SLR still cameras shows a long term path of convergence where we may see large, very high pixel count sensors performing double duty on capturing still images and video.

I have no desire to buy a Red camera body. But Canon's new version of the EOS 5D is very intriguing in that it shoots 21.1 megapixel still images and records true 1080p video in MPEG-4 AVC format (not to mention ISO sensitivity up to 25,600 ISO). I had considered the eventual purchase of a "full frame sensor" body like the EOS 5D when I bought my first pair of Canon L-series lenses. Still, I may not buy the EOS 5D Mark II, but it looks like a definite sign of what is to come in future D-SLR technology.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.