Video to FIlm

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tony Clark on November 21, 2008 at 10:30am

I think I'd have to go with the RED cameras, even more so once the newest models are available for purchase in early 2009. These cameras can save their video with minimal compression and maximum resolution, easily recording 4K video in the field. They also have the capacity to do slo-mo (and time lapse, but who can't do that?) And the number one reason they are best at the "film look" is that they use lenses that film cameras use.

I think a awfully lot of the "film look" directly relates to the lens differences between films & videos. There is little else different in the production chain. Assuming you use film to film, then you've got a wider latitude in exposure, which excellent lighting can pretty much eliminate. But modern post and now much of the distribution is done in digital formats, so the only differences can lie in the acquisition of material. And that is the place where film recording & film itself differ greatly from video recording. The prime lenses used in film frequently have a greater f-stop range which provides control over the depth of field in individual shots. By using film (or even still camera) lenses, the RED cameras have eliminated a major obstacle in obtaining the "film look."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Lamb on November 21, 2008 at 11:11am

Tony Clark said:

I think I'd have to go with the RED cameras, even more so once the newest models are available for purchase in early 2009. These cameras can save their video with minimal compression and maximum resolution, easily recording 4K video in the field. They also have the capacity to do slo-mo (and time lapse, but who can't do that?) And the number one reason they are best at the "film look" is that they use lenses that film cameras use.

I think a awfully lot of the "film look" directly relates to the lens differences between films & videos. There is little else different in the production chain. Assuming you use film to film, then you've got a wider latitude in exposure, which excellent lighting can pretty much eliminate. But modern post and now much of the distribution is done in digital formats, so the only differences can lie in the acquisition of material. And that is the place where film recording & film itself differ greatly from video recording. The prime lenses used in film frequently have a greater f-stop range which provides control over the depth of field in individual shots. By using film (or even still camera) lenses, the RED cameras have eliminated a major obstacle in obtaining the "film look."

The Red Camera seems to be a popular choice. I remember the buzz about it when it first came on the scene. I know it is my long term goal for acquisition.

Control of depth of field is definitely one thing that sets professional cameras apart from the rest. Interlacing is also the big hurdle when people talk about getting the film look. For a while I was removing the interlacing and that gave the footage a film look, but not that deep celluloid feel I think everyone wants. My XL2 does a really good job and I don't even have to de-interlace the footage. I just love the color depth and it also has the ability to use many different lenses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NehemiYah Yisrael on November 22, 2008 at 12:08am

How much does the Red cost?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Lamb on November 22, 2008 at 10:17am

NehemiYah Yisrael said:

How much does the Red cost?

The body alone comes in around $17,000 I think. I was messing around on the site and with all the accessories got it up to around $60K

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NehemiYah Yisrael on November 24, 2008 at 2:15pm

OK. I didn't see your answer here and posted that question again somewhere else. Thanks for the info.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Lamb on November 24, 2008 at 2:56pm

NehemiYah Yisrael said:

OK. I didn't see your answer here and posted that question again somewhere else. Thanks for the info.

No problem, go to the site, you can see a list of all the parts and how much each one costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R. Bruce Perry on November 24, 2008 at 5:51pm

Tony Clark said:

I think I'd have to go with the RED cameras, even more so once the newest models are available for purchase in early 2009. These cameras can save their video with minimal compression and maximum resolution, easily recording 4K video in the field. They also have the capacity to do slo-mo (and time lapse, but who can't do that?) And the number one reason they are best at the "film look" is that they use lenses that film cameras use.
I think a awfully lot of the "film look" directly relates to the lens differences between films & videos. There is little else different in the production chain. Assuming you use film to film, then you've got a wider latitude in exposure, which excellent lighting can pretty much eliminate. But modern post and now much of the distribution is done in digital formats, so the only differences can lie in the acquisition of material. And that is the place where film recording & film itself differ greatly from video recording. The prime lenses used in film frequently have a greater f-stop range which provides control over the depth of field in individual shots. By using film (or even still camera) lenses, the RED cameras have eliminated a major obstacle in obtaining the "film look."

I'd agree with these comments except that it lacks comments on actual film stock. 35mm film and higher, in my view, continues to be far superior to anything video due to the nature of film itself. The Red camera does an excellent job of getting within the ballpark. So do others such as the Cinealta and Thompson Viper. But film is film and video is video. Chemical vs. electronic interpretation of light. Silver Halide beats pixels hands down.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Lamb on November 24, 2008 at 7:27pm

R. Bruce Perry said:

Tony Clark said:

I think I'd have to go with the RED cameras, even more so once the newest models are available for purchase in early 2009. These cameras can save their video with minimal compression and maximum resolution, easily recording 4K video in the field. They also have the capacity to do slo-mo (and time lapse, but who can't do that?) And the number one reason they are best at the "film look" is that they use lenses that film cameras use.
I think a awfully lot of the "film look" directly relates to the lens differences between films & videos. There is little else different in the production chain. Assuming you use film to film, then you've got a wider latitude in exposure, which excellent lighting can pretty much eliminate. But modern post and now much of the distribution is done in digital formats, so the only differences can lie in the acquisition of material. And that is the place where film recording & film itself differ greatly from video recording. The prime lenses used in film frequently have a greater f-stop range which provides control over the depth of field in individual shots. By using film (or even still camera) lenses, the RED cameras have eliminated a major obstacle in obtaining the "film look."

I'd agree with these comments except that it lacks comments on actual film stock. 35mm film and higher, in my view, continues to be far superior to anything video due to the nature of film itself. The Red camera does an excellent job of getting within the ballpark. So do others such as the Cinealta and Thompson Viper. But film is film and video is video. Chemical vs. electronic interpretation of light. Silver Halide beats pixels hands down.

I think we would all agree, but that's the goal for video. Spending thousands of dollars on film processing is just not cost effective. Although, I did have a student that is now going to Savannah College of Art and Design studying film. He got a wake-up call the first time he worked with film. He was so used to being able to grab a Mini DV tape and a camera and shoot whatever, film made it serious for him. The stuff isn't cheap, he had to start thinking about shots and organizing his production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pierre Samuel Rioux on May 5, 2009 at 10:45pm

Hi Gordon

Look what they used to do the last film CRANK
http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/features/index.cfm?article...

and try to go to watch the film in theater, you will find out some artifact.

Pierre Sam

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Thomas Campisi on August 30, 2009 at 5:59pm

What I'm reading is the same over and over again...bla bla bla....There is no such thing...video will never have that film look. I don't care if you own the Red, the Blue or the Green...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by grinner on September 7, 2009 at 5:19pm

lol
Tell that to Lucas.
It's my belief that those who say it cannot be done should bring those of us doing it a juice box.

Michael Thomas Campisi said:

What I'm reading is the same over and over again...bla bla bla....There is no such thing...video will never have that film look. I don't care if you own the Red, the Blue or the Green...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Slava Kouznetsov on December 18, 2009 at 2:56pm

I don't want to argue with you. Read this first.
Please follow this link: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/12/12/the-tale-of-lucasfilm-skywalker...

Michael Thomas Campisi said:

What I'm reading is the same over and over again...bla bla bla....There is no such thing...video will never have that film look. I don't care if you own the Red, the Blue or the Green...

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page