I recently completed my first Red feature, and people have been asking me a lot about how the camera was to work with. Specifically, what people really want to know is "Is it better than film?" Well, the short answer to that is no, but of course choosing a format to shoot a film in is rarely as simple as a one word answer. The fact is that I will probably never shoot a low-budget movie on film again. The Red is the first viable digital option for low-budget filmmaking that I would describe as "good enough."

I have shot two low-budget features on Super 16 and could not have been more pleased with the results. Both the working experience and the final look of the films completely justified the added expense of shooting on film. However, it was not easy to do. In both cases, shooting on film meant that significant compromises had to be made elsewhere in the budget. I was lucky to be working with directors who cared enough about the look of the film to help me fight to be able to do it.

On the other hand, I have also shot features on more traditional style HD cameras like the Sony F900. While the choice of HD was an easier fit for the budget, in the end, I just didn't feel that the loss of overall production value was worth it. Both the working experience and the final product ended up suffering to save a few dollars, and the savings in the end weren't really even that significant.

The Red is the first camera that changes the whole cost/benefit equation for me. Comparing the Red to 35mm, 35mm is still the clear winner, however it is also well beyond the budgetary reach of most low-budget films anyway. A direct comparison to Super 16 is more difficult. Yes, film still has much more dynamic range, and is thus both easier and faster to light well. A well designed Super 16 camera is smaller, lighter, and much more ergonomically correct than the clunky Red. However the Red has its own advantages as well including 35mm depth of field, and probably more resolution than Super 16. Some projects would probably end up looking better on Super 16, some on the Red. However for a sub-million dollar film, I just don't think it makes sense anymore to make significant sacrifices to shoot on film. That money could be better spent elsewhere to improve the overall production value of the project. Money spent on cast, locations, crew, and equipment would all have the potential to increase the production value more than the extra cost of film, processing, and transfer. If it's shot well, the images from the Red can easily be good enough that a side-by-side comparison with a frame of film under a microscope is just not necessary.

So, is Red "better than film?" No. But the only people who watch the film that are going to be poring over every little detail to look for potential technical flaws to criticize are other filmmakers. The audience as a whole will sense if a film looks amateurish, but if it's shot well with the Red (and that's a big if), I don't think the layperson will notice any difference.