RED frame grabs...

[Deanan DaSilva]

I'm sure if you were to add a bit of grain, they would certainly have the "feel" of film as everything else seems to be there.

 

A filmout and a print is a reasonable way to compare how the final output will look in todays

theaters. Having seen filmouts from the Origin (and other digcin cameras), I would agree with your statement.

 

 

Deanan

[Jim Jannard]

Our footage is not film. It was never intended to be exactly like film. We certainly are NOT trying to emulate grain. What we are doing is to try to capture a digital image that doesn't look like traditional video. The goal was to make an image that has great color, ultra high resolution (not necessarily sharpness) and a rich "feel"... much like film has. I think we are well on our way. Those who want to shoot film (and develop, process and telecine) certainly have many options to do that. We want to provide an alternative that feels right, and is viod of the unnecessary costs associated with film. Pretty simple.

 

Jim

[Jukka Korhonen]

@Jim:

 

I've followed RED's developement for a long time now, and finally seeing the picture quality makes me want to scream for MORE. Absolutely stunning tonality.

 

I shot a music video a year back in HD and I tried to get to that level of color clarity, dynamics and -smoothness- that's in RED's picture. Not a chance - the image was already a garbled mess when it came out from the tape (HDV). Right now I'm seriously considering to invest on RED ...

 

What's the status on the RED video codec? Is it going to be proprietary technology or is there a chance it might go open source?

 

- J

 

PS. HUGE thumbs up for your work on RED! Too few people these days are willing to push the limits of technology and force it to evolution.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

What is confusing me is when you say "I am rolling over here from laughing so hard."

 

Well, I was laughing hard because that statement was classic Richard and we needed that kind of bold truthfulness here. I think everyone has kind of thought what you said but didnt want to actually post it. I hope that clarifies what I mean.

[Patrizio De Sica]

and we needed that kind of bold truthfulness here. I think everyone has kind of thought what you said but didnt want to actually post it.

 

 

What kind of bold truthfulness? Yours? Are you really speaking seriously when you're saying that everyone is thinking the same? I don't think so... Following these threads, I'd say there is before Red and after Red. You are losing fanboys. :P

[Tim Terner]

Well, I was laughing hard because that statement was classic Richard and we needed that kind of bold truthfulness here. I think everyone has kind of thought what you said but didnt want to actually post it. I hope that clarifies what I mean.

 

You've an arrogant opinion of yourself if you think everyone is thinking the same way as you

[Matthew W. Phillips]

You've an arrogant opinion of yourself if you think everyone is thinking the same way as you

 

Tim, am not arrogant at all. Just know that there are some people who arent fooled so easy is all. Some of use know the difference between video and film. No matter how slick the video is, it is still video. Thats not bad for most but Richard is right that is doesnt look like what we typically associate with movies. At least not the way things are now. Maybe in the future, people will lose the intrinsic ability to discern with everything being mixed together. But for now, the RED does not look like what is typically attributed to movies.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Matthew W. Phillips

[Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi]

You people must be very skillfull.

 

There´s only a 2K and now 4K jpeg image on the site and you´re able to say that it looks like video ( or film ).

 

To me they don´t look like video, the images are totally fantastic, now let´s wait for moving images and then make judgements on them.

 

I´m wondering if opinions like Richard´s or Mr. Phillips will ever force Kodak or Fuji to produce even higher-resolution ( lower-grain ) film-stocks and techniques that reduce scratches and generation of dust caused by friction during film-transport in the camera.

 

I know the beauty of grained-black-and-white or colour photos, but in general, that´s something I´d rather get rid off during capture.

 

Priyesh

Edited September 24, 2006 by Priyesh Puthan Valiyandi

[Patrizio De Sica]

Just know that there are some people who arent fooled so easy is all. Some of use know the difference between video and film. No matter how slick the video is, it is still video. Thats not bad for most but Richard is right that is doesnt look like what we typically associate with movies. At least not the way things are now. Maybe in the future, people will lose the intrinsic ability to discern with everything being mixed together. But for now, the RED does not look like what is typically attributed to movies.

 

Well, it seems to me that you carry on the same wave...

 

What's your planet? What's this that is "typically attributed to movies" that you can't find in the Red grabs? You are speaking as you have the exclusivity of that "your bold truthfulness" that you think you have.

 

If it is your truth, keep it for yourself or post it if you wish. But don't speak as you know what is "typically attributed to movies" and we don't. Or Red doesn't. Or as Red could be what you see. You don't see what we can see. Definitely, it's your problem not ours, nor a "bold truthfulness". Just in your book. Pick up and take it. :angry:

 

:)

Edited September 24, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Wow, one would think that by your unwavering loyalty to RED, a camera that hasnt even been released yet, that you are on Jims payroll. Seriously though, I think that what has bothered me more than anything about this RED business is just the amount of arrogance put forth by the RED organization. The bloody camera hasnt even hit market yet and people have film declared dead and even have Panavision going out of business and DALSA cameras sinking and all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. You men sure do get excited at some women lighting cigars and blowing bubbles.

[Stephen Williams]

and techniques that reduce scratches

 

Hi,

 

Techniques have existed for more than 50 years!

 

Clean the gate, camera and magazine. Carry out a scratch test, if all is well shoot!

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Wow, one would think that by your unwavering loyalty to RED, a camera that hasnt even been released yet, that you are on Jims payroll.

In a indirect way, many of reds reservation holders are. Example: My company will add 1 or 2 cameras for digital cinematography in 2007 to the existing gear. 200.000$ minimum allocated. Arri, Dalsa and Panavision (by design) won´t let me buy their 35mm sensor flagships. So i basicly have had the choice between Sony 750/900/950 and SI. Phantastic cameras, good enough for blockbustin superproductions. But: Getiing 120/60p, 2k/4k, a nice disk or uncompressed, 10/12bit, lin/log, 35mm sensor, _compatible with ARRI PL_ and cutting cost per camera by 75% is close to payroll.

 

Seriously though, I think that what has bothered me more than anything about this RED business is just the amount of arrogance put forth by the RED organization.

I have to disagree strongly. In 17 years in the industry, i never have seen a company with such an open customer communication culture as red. Also, even the owner is taking his time, to answer many of the nay-sayers here.

 

The bloody camera hasnt even hit market yet and people have film declared dead and even have Panavision going out of business and DALSA cameras sinking and all sorts of ridiculous scenarios.

1) If RED 1 comes to the market in 2007, iw will certainly alter many segments of the market, from low-budget over ENG to superproduction. 120P anyone? 4K pan&scan anyone?

2) Panavision isn´t going anywhere soon. 21 fullfeatures shot on "video" on the Genesis, (Superman, Apocalypto, Flyboys etc) they have a system for the future, even if its not as completly their technology as reds.

 

You men sure do get excited at some women lighting cigars and blowing bubbles.

yes indeed, but in the case of the red cameras images im rather "excited" by the quality of the images, instead of the content. Same applies to the female workforce over here btw.

 

Btw, The undertone of hostility which some members of this board direct at the red team is nothing new for me. I remember elder audioengineers when DAW were introduced and multi-track-tape (analogue) became obsolete, when discreet logic software was munching in the so far unchallenged league of black-box compositing... progress always has had people embracing and detesting it.

 

p.s. they posted 4k images today

[Stephen Williams]

p.s. they posted 4k images today

 

 

Hi Jan,

 

Just looked at the 4K and it looks very good on the girl's face.

 

Can somebody more technical explain what it is I am seeing in the black areas of the picture? I did not see this so obviousely from the 2k's yesterday. FOR CLARIFICATION JIM I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Red sensor, just curious.

 

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Hi Jan,

 

Just looked at the 4K and it looks very good on the girl's face.

 

Can somebody more technical explain what it is I am seeing in the black areas of the picture? I did not see this so obviousely from the 2k's yesterday. FOR CLARIFICATION JIM I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Red sensor, just curious.

Stephen

 

Hello Stephen,

 

even if i am not in the red team, some basic things i can explain.

 

1st) no dead-pixel compensation. if an element in the sensor isn´t working (i was surprised there are so few of them in a prototype), it will generate wrong sensor data. in a marketreadycamera (sony cinelata as example) the defective pixels are marked and replaced by the interpolated values of their neighbours. that would be the small blue pixels here and there, visible in the midleft area of the image.

 

2nd) 8bit lin instead of 10/12bit colordepth. this forces a conversion, adding rounding errors and removing 2² factors of colorresolution. this makes the noise more contrasty and more visible by this.

 

3hrd) jpeg quantisation - this generates blocky artefacts which are visible at higher zoom depth (in post, not in the optics) and is adding noise. the codec red is using is wavelet based and therefor quite more free of such artefacts. important to remember. the 5.5 MB downscale for the web should be rather ~32 MByte.

 

4hrd) sensor isnt characterized yet - so there is no digital logic compensating for anything, no noise reduction etc. this is finetuning and any cameramanufacturer can bring in a individual note here.

 

However, i have put the image in our D.I. here and already now its big fun to use. I saw the image running, additionally less compressed on 4k projection. simply gorgeous.

[Guest]

Our footage is not film. It was never intended to be exactly like film. We certainly are NOT trying to emulate grain. What we are doing is to try to capture a digital image that doesn't look like traditional video. The goal was to make an image that has great color, ultra high resolution (not necessarily sharpness) and a rich "feel"... much like film has. I think we are well on our way. Those who want to shoot film (and develop, process and telecine) certainly have many options to do that. We want to provide an alternative that feels right, and is viod of the unnecessary costs associated with film. Pretty simple.

 

Jim

 

Ok well at least we know they won't be singing "Video Killed The Film Star" any time soon.

 

As for "rich feel much like film has," this is where you are the farthest away, this is the quality your stills LACK the most. If you had told me those stills came from a Canon GL1 1 I would have believed you.

 

You should take a look Roman Polanskis new Oliver Twist, now that's the ultimate in "rich" feel of film.

 

Have a look at this frame from the movie, that is the awesome power of 35mm film! Electronic acquisition will never match it.

 

Have a look also at the spider I shot in my backyard using my cheapo Canon GL1, I dare say that little camera can hold its own against Red :D

 

R,

[Jim Jannard]

Richard... no problem. Shoot film. BTW, why do you own a GL1 instead of a pocket film camera?

 

Jim

[Guest]

What do you mean by pocket film camera? You mean a stills camera that shoots film, a SLR camera? {There isn't really any such thing as a pocket film camera for cinema use.}

 

I do have one of course a Canon AE1.

 

Now you understand that a pocket film camera for stills and a Canon GL1 are two different beasts? I think you're thinking that a Canon GL1 is a digital stills camera, it is not, it's a video camera.

 

That's ok, I guess Canon GL1, does sound like some thing from their stills line. You don't have a production background so you can be forgiven for such a minor error.

 

I use the Canon GL1 video camera for video assist work and taking "home movies" of my two boys.

 

I posted the frame grab from my GL1 SD 720X480 DV video camera to show that it's not far off from the stills I see from your HD system.

 

When you talk in your posts about continuing to pay for processing, film stock, transfers, etc, since you're a billionaire I know you know the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for."

 

When people buy Red they will get a $17,500.00 image.

 

When people shoot film, they can spend a little bit of money, and get a multi million dollar image. One can use some 35mm short ends in a Konvas 1M {costs under $1000.00}, and transfer it in a suite that costs well over a million dollars for a couple of hundred dollars. The resulting image will be far superior to what the person actually paid, filmmakers don't have to shoulder the costs of buying the transfer suite.

 

The value for your money with film is astounding! Then your project has a much higher perceived value because you can say, "I shot this on 35."

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think Richard will ever be convinced, so I'm not sure why Jim would even care. I mean, you can't really take a frame from a multi-million dollar 35mm feature production shot by a top DP and compare them to some test frames. The only fair comparison is side-by-side shooting the same subject and viewed in the same conditions. And even then, I would naturally expect differences in look, just as I would if you compared a shot made on Kodak 100T versus Fuji 400T, just more so being digital vs. film origination.

 

We've already had major films shot in 1080P HD, and now 2K and soon 4K digital cameras, so it's something that people like Richard are going to have to learn to accept as a legitimate way of making movies. Many of the reviews of "Superman Returns" praised Tom Sigel's cinematography, and that was only 1080P origination. It isn't a black and white issue any more, although I will concede that there is nothing "wrong" with 35mm, quality-wise (just cost-wise) so if one can afford to shoot 35mm, then probably one should for the best image quality (short of 65mm...) But assuming the bugs are worked out on these 4K camera systems, I fully expect them to be competitive with 35mm origination for the big screen, even if the look is not exactly the same as film, just as high-end DSLR photography is becoming more common in professional stills work (for example, almost all on-set still photography has become digital these days, at the insistence of the major studios -- and most of that is used for promotional work so can't look bad.)

[Stuart Brereton]

Can somebody more technical explain what it is I am seeing in the black areas of the picture? I did not see this so obviousely from the 2k's yesterday. FOR CLARIFICATION JIM I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Red sensor, just curious.

Stephen

 

Jason Rodriguez over on CML posted about seeing column to column variations in the Blacks. Which, he says, are a artifact sometimes produced by CMOS sensors.

 

That's all a little too technical for me, but perhaps someone here can elaborate?

[Stephen Williams]

Jason Rodriguez over on CML posted about seeing column to column variations in the Blacks. Which, he says, are a artifact sometimes produced by CMOS sensors.

 

That's all a little too technical for me, but perhaps someone here can elaborate?

 

Stuart,

 

Yes that is what I was talking about.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

We've already had major films shot in 1080P HD, and now 2K and soon 4K digital cameras, so it's something that people like Richard are going to have to learn to accept as a legitimate way of making movies. Many of the reviews of "Superman Returns" praised Tom Sigel's cinematography, and that was only 1080P origination.

 

Well actually David you raise a good point, the ability to shoot on various HD formats is already here and many say it looks good. And yet the vast majority of Hollywood features are still shot on 35mm, why is that?

 

My friends at ILM tell me that 80-90% of the projects they get in there are film originated. Why would Gore Verbinski choose 35mm for Pirates of the Caribbean vs the system used for Superman?

 

You say:

 

"so if one can afford to shoot 35mm, then probably one should for the best image quality"

 

Didn't the producers of Superman have budget for 35mm?

 

R,

[jan von krogh]

Didn't the producers of Superman have budget for 35mm?

 

R,

 

lets add robert rodriguez/quentin tarantino (sin city), robert altman (the company), david fincher (zodiac), james cameron (aliens of the deep), michael mann (miami vice), jean-jaques annaud (two brothers), george lucas (what did he shoot again? star trek?), mel gibson (apocalypto)... just to name a few to the list. they all done their recent releases fully or mainly digital. and there are so many other whose names i don´t remember right now, sky captain, flyboys etc.

 

it is no longer a question of budget. and the audience doen´t care, as we clearly see with dozens of digitally shot blockbusters in the cinemas.

 

finally we shouldn´t forget michael moore and lars von trier, these two certainly used cinealta in the intention to bring hollywood babylon to its knees :)

 

i don´t understand the negative bias many on this board have. it remebers me quite a bit of the discussion i saw in the late 90s early 00s when digital stomped still photography.

[Jay A. Kelley]

This is my first time on this board. I have read 50 or so posts on the RED camera. In doing so I have read a lot of debate stirred up about RED'S ability to look like 35mm film or lack thereof. Many have stated RED'S inability to look like 35mm is a sign that the camera is less than others.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to think so many of the great minds involved in this debate would have better things to do. RED is not a replacement, RED is not a miracle, RED is not the "end of film", and to my knowlege no one on the RED team has stated as such.

 

I also find it humorous and of good character that one of RED'S defenders is from Dalsa. I enjoy seeing acts of character from different companies in similar fields.

 

RED'S Comparisons to 35mm are simply done to provide a benchmark we are all familiar with. I think I am safe in saying that 35mm is beautiful. It think it smart to use the best as a benchmark don't you.. I'd hate to see Mr. Jannard say "RED is able to match the best footage from a 3/4" Sony Umatic, or even SUPER 8mm".

 

I will tell you what RED is, RED is a choice. RED is yet another tool in the box for us to use when deciding how to build the next project on our plates. RED will be different than everything out there because everything out there is unique in its own way. It will have strenghts and weaknesses because everything does. We will simply have to decide if RED's strenghts meet our needs, one project at a time.

 

Jim Jannard is fighting a very difficult and very personal battle. Jim fights his own expectations of what the camera should be vs. the camera today's technology will allow him to create. Jim LOVES cameras. All types, all formats. I think I am safe in saying that one of Jim's main motivations for making the camera is that he quite simply WANTS ONE.. He is of the belief that if he makes it well, others will want one as well.

 

I would suggest time would be better spent accepting RED for what it is, and being happy that someone has take the time and money nessesary (A lot of it mind you) to give us all what we need most in our business, another choice. Better in some areas, not so much in others, but a choice nonetheless.

 

Jay A. Kelley

www.dreamwelder.com

 

In the interest of disclousure, I am excited about the potential of RED and currently hold reservation #327.

[Guest]

lets add robert rodriguez/quentin tarantino (sin city), robert altman (the company), david fincher (zodiac), james cameron (aliens of the deep), michael mann (miami vice), jean-jaques annaud (two brothers), george lucas (what did he shoot again? star trek?), mel gibson (apocalypto)... just to name a few to the list. they all done their recent releases fully or mainly digital. and there are so many other whose names i don´t remember right now, sky captain, flyboys etc.

 

it is no longer a question of budget. and the audience doen´t care, as we clearly see with dozens of digitally shot blockbusters in the cinemas.

 

finally we shouldn´t forget michael moore and lars von trier, these two certainly used cinealta in the intention to bring hollywood babylon to its knees :)

 

i don´t understand the negative bias many on this board have. it remebers me quite a bit of the discussion i saw in the late 90s early 00s when digital stomped still photography.

 

And if I produce a list that is numerically superior of guys that use 35mm for features, what does that prove to you?

 

R,

[Michael Maier]

Question: on the Red home page there appears to be smoke coming out of the Red camera. Is this what one can expect when they start using it, spontaneous camera combustion?

R,

 

What kind of moronic question is that?

 

 

Images look fantastic by the way!

 

 

 

Good grief Richard, I am rolling over here from laughing so hard. I was wondering when my film mate would pay a visit here and make a comment. We may not agree on Steve Irwin but with this, i have your back entirely. The images look great, but nothing like 35mm.

 

Maybe because it is NOT 35mm? Would that explain why the images don't look like 35mm? I guess that's a quite reasonable explanation actually. What do you think?