What is the advantage of using a Red One camera over a 35mm? Approx. how much would it cost to transfer a 90 minute film from a Red One to 35mm film?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Red One vs. 35mm
- Thread starter wparrish24
- Start date
Bottom line, MUCH cheaper. It will look almost as good, as close as anything digital is going to look. No processing, no film stock, no work prints, no telecine.
Costs. You alleviate the costs of film, processing, telecine, color timing, and everything involved in shooting on film versus digital.
The cost of getting RED footage back to 35mm film is approx $500 per minute so 90x500=$45,000.00 (approx).
Given the current box office needs for film prints, why spend the money on a film print before you have to? In most cases, a distributor would eat those costs of the film print transfer anyways IF they are going to release the film theatrically.
What if you wnated to enter the film into a film festival? Would'nt you have to pay for the transfer?
The single film festival left on the planet that accepts 35mm film prints ONLY is Berlin and even then, the have made exceptions for HD screenings on a few occasions.
No, you will NOT need a 35mm film print for film festivals. Sundance, Toronto, South by Southwest, and Cannes all accept and screen digital HD masters.
Regular Red One, advantage is price.
Red One MX, advantage in low light and price.
35mm can be very expensive. Advantage of film: beautiful highlight roll offs, overexpusure in highs is natural. Better color.
Red One MX, advantage in low light and price.
35mm can be very expensive. Advantage of film: beautiful highlight roll offs, overexpusure in highs is natural. Better color.
He'd have to be. Do suites even still exist to chop up a work print with razor blades and tape?
I'm sure they're long gone.The options are far better than that, but yes some of those still exist, not many, but a few.
Most people have the 35mm film transferred to video with EDGECODE numbers, do the edit non linear in the computer, then spit out an EDL (edit decision list), then send that to the negative cutters, who sometimes use automated machines to handle the film and the cutting via the edgecode frame numbers from the EDL.
In a similar fashion, they do everything the same as above, except instead of negative cutting, they scan only the frames from your EDL to 2k or 4k uncompressed files for color correction, called DI (Digital Intermediate).
For standard transitions like cross dissolve, etc, they send those shots out to an optical house and they use an optical printer where they will comp those two images together.
For digital effects, they scan the negative for the shots that need FX done, usually at 2K or 4K, then once they have the FX added to the shots, they use a laser to burn the new images back out to film negative.
Wow.
Do they score the movie at the same time?
How do they know the timing wont change if they do that?
Also, how do they make copies of it for the sound guys to work on at the same time?
This older technology is fascinating to me - I'm surprised they made any movies at all back then. It's like life without cell-phones and i-Pods, unfathomable.
Do they score the movie at the same time?
How do they know the timing wont change if they do that?
Also, how do they make copies of it for the sound guys to work on at the same time?
This older technology is fascinating to me - I'm surprised they made any movies at all back then. It's like life without cell-phones and i-Pods, unfathomable.
Oh god yeah. We think editing is a trip to hell now. I've heard old vets almost start shaking and crying at the thought of pre "digital non-linear editing" days. It's another MAJOR reason too many films are edited like an ipod commercial made by a guy who forgot his Ritalin. Because they CAN be. When every edit involved hacking up a work print with a razor and keeping track of 8,987,785,345 strips of film. People tended to let shots run on a little longer.