RED production schedule

[Max Jacoby]

I think that deep focus will become a hot topic later this year.

I have a feeling that many people will be looking at 'Citizen Kane' for inspiration ;)

[Carl Brighton]

Hi Ralph,

 

I just read my post again, and I realized that "who the hell are you" sounded unfriendly. I only meant it in the context of the question, so please don't be offended.

 

 

It's rather like when one is moved to ask in exasperation: "What (or how many) cinema-release films were shot on HD?!"; some videophile will always assume you're asking this because you actually don't know, and proceeed to dutifully rattle of the pathetically small number of films that the general public will have actually seen (or even heard of), and then rattle off a longer list they almost certainly will not have heard of, much less seen, and nor will most of the industry people who post here. :P

 

Pointing out ones lack of in-depth knowledge of the vast and fascinating field of waste-of-celluloid no-budget/no-profit Indy productions is then considered an adequate response to difficult but entirely legtimate technical questions.

[David Mullen ASC]

Later they switched to the HDW-F900 which seems to be better, possibly because it uses less detail correction or maybe just does a better job of it.

 

You can turn Detail off in most professional cameras. In standard def video, it would result in a rather soft image, but it is done regularly when shooting on the F900 since 1080P doesn't need much edge enhancement. I alternate between either turning it off or using it at a -60 setting (-99 is nearly off, the lowest setting.)

 

There is also a somewhat natural edginess that simply results from the imager being a fixed grid pattern of sensor sites rather than the random pattern of grain. But film too has its own photochemical version of edge enhancement to improve sharpness, sort of a drop-shadow effect around grains (acutance). This partly accounts for the difference in perceived sharpness between Kodak, Fuji, and the former Agfa color negative stocks.

[Hal Smith]

At the "Post Production World" workshops at the NAB Convention this year there's a session titled "Exploring Field Production with Red Digital Cinema" scheduled for the afternoon on April 14th.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Make no mistake about it--S35-sized image-area follow-focus with large apertures is gonna be a bitch.

Why are you guys still harping on the focus issue? I already said this will be a challenge. Who ever said it wasn't?

[Ralph Oshiro]

Okay, Ralph. Just admit that you work for Red. Yours is not a casual defense of the project. You have avoided answering that question several times. So many NAD's tells me that you are involved in the marketing of this rig, which would explain your bias.

That's a good one, Ken!

 

I have asked you, three times, what your connection to Red is, and you have conveniently avoided answering me on every occasion.

Don't remember you asking, but I may have thought it was a rhetorical question. Yes, I admit, I have a huge connection with RED. I'm a customer.

 

 

 

First question: Who the hell are you that we should accept your word for anything?

I haven't asked anything of any of you guys, other than to stop the incessant name-calling, and to stop the insulting, condescending remarks. I only stated how RED's progress had convinced ME.

 

 

I just read my post again, and I realized that "who the hell are you" sounded unfriendly. I only meant it in the context of the question, so please don't be offended.

No problem, Ken.

[Ken Cangi]

Okay, Ralph. Just admit that you work for Red. Yours is not a casual defense of the project. You have avoided answering that question several times. So many NAD's tells me that you are involved in the marketing of this rig, which would explain your bias.

That's a good one, Ken!

I'd love to claim comic intent, but it was a type-o. I wrote the post in the wee hours of the morning after having been up all night.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Carl Brighton]

Well Jannard and Co seem to be brimming over with excitement. The say they have two operating cameras named "Boris and Natasha" and all will be revealed on Mon 12 March. 2 down, 1,498 to go!

 

 

 

"Frankie" will be on display at NAB, who/whatever that is.

 

So the question remains, who are "Moose and Squirrel" :D

Edited March 11, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[Nick Bennett]

Anyone who thinks that they don't need a focus-puller when shooting with 35mm depth of field has no idea what they are talking about. Period.

 

 

Are you saying this is always the case for all productions because I know many operators that can pull focus on 35mm when shooting sport for example, at long focal lengths.

 

The film Goal was being shot at the world cup final last year on 35mm and I know that a few of the operators were focusing.

 

Just because you don't do it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Nick Bennett

[David Mullen ASC]

There are always exceptions to the rule.

 

Of course you could leave focusing in 35mm to the operator -- if you don't mind focus problems...

 

TV sitcoms shot on pedestal systems often have the operator controlling zoom and focus, but they have some time to zoom in and grab a focus before they cut to that camera, plus there is some leeway for missed focus if you are only going to air in standard definition.

 

We're talking about the typical narrative feature situation with actors moving through spaces, shot in different sizes. For one thing, it can be very hard to operate in many of these situations if one also had to deal with turning the focus knob, let alone focusing being a very different thing to concentrate on compared to operating. Plus if there is any chance of a cinema release, minor focusing mistakes look painfully obvious on the big screen.

 

I did a feature in HD once with a director who wanted to operate the camera himself, handheld-style, because that's how he shot his documentaries in Digital Betacam and thought he could just shoot a feature that way. So I sat at the HD monitor while he operated, but half the stuff had focus problems (some shots he wanted to pull focus himself while running around). At some point he said "I don't understand why focus is so much harder in HD compared to Digital Betacam if they both have 2/3" sensors!" The difference really is just that he had the same number of focus mistakes before -- it's just that he never saw them in standard def viewing and presentation. The standards for focus have to be higher when the presentation medium is higher in resolution and viewing size, that's all.

 

Even in the rare situation of shooting sports on a 1000mm lens and having the operator pull his own focus, that only works half the time -- it's easy to fall out of sync with the moving object. Plus generally any sort of "C" camera angle of that action on such a long lens will probably only be used for snippets, so visible eye-focusing & corrections while the camera is rolling could be edited out, unlike a continuous scene with actors acting.

[Ralph Oshiro]

TV sitcoms shot on pedestal systems often have the operator controlling zoom and focus, but they have some time to zoom in and grab a focus before they cut to that camera, plus there is some leeway for missed focus if you are only going to air in standard definition.

I've seen those operators on sitcoms with their unassisted, pedastal-operated Panaflexes--those guys have their hands full! For those of us planning on using primes on our RED bodies, we won't have the luxury of pushing in to grab a focus--another challenge! I know no one really uses that Panatape thingy, but I always wondered why someone couldn't develop some kind of optical spotting scope kinda thing, with a crosshair reticle, that had some kind of accurate-enough distance sensor (IR, etc.), that the AC could keep pointed at a particular point in space (e.g., an actor's eyeball). It could also have some kind of trigger to hold focus points and whatnot, for when something moved, but you still wanted to hold that mark. I realize that focus-pulling is also an art, and that rack-focus pulls should definitely be human-pulled to attain the right aesthetic timing, but for tricky stuff, this sort of thing sure would be handy.

[Brian Drysdale]

Not having used those studio cameras for a long time, I was rather surprised at the amount of "lag" there was on the focus controls - this was shooting the long lens shots on an indoors football match a year ago. It's something that I never noticed on the older cameras with (I assume) analogue servo controls

 

I've noticed that you really do need to be a lot more precise focusing on the 2/3 CCD HD cameras compared to the SD cameras. The viewfinders aren't really good enough either for HD eye focusing on the fly.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I got a 9:00AM call and I can't sleep . . . AGAIN. My friend has both an F900/3 and a brand new F900/R, but he popped for the $10,000 Sony color HD EVF for each. Man, those things are NICE! I wouldn't say focusing an F900 is any harder than with say, a BVW600, just more noticable if you're off, as David mentioned. Just crank the EVF peaking to max, and it's pretty apparent when you're "in."

[Jay Kelley]

It was very sad to see a man like Jim Jannard become so put off that he felt the need to leave this forum. No matter what the delivery method, common decency toward one another should always be a goal in this life.

 

We use our opinions and beliefs to justify cruel, or less than civil behavior. Some use being "right" to justfiy their lack of interest in one another's feelings.

 

My dissappointment lies in the moderators of this board, who feel that it's ok to have such talk, to be rude. Every point made in every post can be made in such a way as to make the target of the post feel good about themselves rather than hurt and angry. Good moderators can hold it's posters to a higher standard. I am sad to see they don't

 

We all live and die in this life, once we have died only the memories of others give us life beyond on this planet. No one remembers you by saying "he was right almost all the time", rather you are remembered by "I'm gonna miss him, he was a nice guy".

 

Many of you have forgotten what film/video/visual art is. It's people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the talent, passion, and love of people who have a story to tell. It's not about equipment, it never was and never will be. You can use RED or paint on cave walls... Just do it well, respect and love your peers AND their beliefs, and you will be remembered for all time.

 

Jay

[Justin Hayward]

It was very sad to see a man like Jim Jannard become so put off that he felt the need to leave this forum. No matter what the delivery method, common decency toward one another should always be a goal in this life.

 

We use our opinions and beliefs to justify cruel, or less than civil behavior. Some use being "right" to justfiy their lack of interest in one another's feelings.

 

My dissappointment lies in the moderators of this board, who feel that it's ok to have such talk, to be rude. Every point made in every post can be made in such a way as to make the target of the post feel good about themselves rather than hurt and angry. Good moderators can hold it's posters to a higher standard. I am sad to see they don't

 

We all live and die in this life, once we have died only the memories of others give us life beyond on this planet. No one remembers you by saying "he was right almost all the time", rather you are remembered by "I'm gonna miss him, he was a nice guy".

 

Many of you have forgotten what film/video/visual art is. It's people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the talent, passion, and love of people who have a story to tell. It's not about equipment, it never was and never will be. You can use RED or paint on cave walls... Just do it well, respect and love your peers AND their beliefs, and you will be remembered for all time.

 

Jay

 

 

Oh come on Jay!

 

I'm buddies with Ben and I've seen some of you're shorts. This post is almost as melodramatic as your movies.

 

You?re a nice fellow, but the truth is, you?re a video groupie. The first movie I saw of yours was something shot on hi 8 or some early video. It was about the robber who robbed the doctor that was responsible for killing the robber?s daughter? That movie looked terrible. You shot on video and tried to make it look like film (rented a 12k for sun shots outdoors)? It looked like the worst video, video produces.

 

Don?t argue video. You compare it with the silly things you?ve done, not with real films. If you compare your stuff with real films, you?ll be a bit more in touch.

 

Jay, I like you. You?re funny to me as I know you from other things. Truth is, you could make something interesting, I think that if you put you?re mind to it, you could do something interesting. Just don?t try to knock anything talked about on this website. These guys (for the most part) know what they?re talking about. It makes you sound silly.

 

Justin

[Jay Kelley]

Oh come on Jay!

 

I'm buddies with Ben and I've seen some of you're shorts. This post is almost as melodramatic as your movies.

 

You?re a nice fellow, but the truth is, you?re a video groupie. The first movie I saw of yours was something shot on hi 8 or some early video. It was about the robber who robbed the doctor that was responsible for killing the robber?s daughter? That movie looked terrible. You shot on video and tried to make it look like film (rented a 12k for sun shots outdoors)? It looked like the worst video, video produces.

 

Don?t argue video. You compare it with the silly things you?ve done, not with real films. If you compare your stuff with real films, you?ll be a bit more in touch.

 

Jay, I like you. You?re funny to me as I know you from other things. Truth is, you could make something interesting, I think that if you put you?re mind to it, you could do something interesting. Just don?t try to knock anything talked about on this website. These guys (for the most part) know what they?re talking about. It makes you sound silly.

 

Justin

 

Well Justin,

 

That's a fine opinion and you're welcome to it. But let's break down your post a little bit since you've just done a WONDERFUL job of making my point:

 

"This post is almost as melodramatic as your movies."

Very nice thing to say to me. Make me feel like no matter what I do next, you're a guy I want to talk too.

 

"you?re a video groupie"

Another kind word.. You're on a roll...

 

"That movie looked terrible"

Nice... Well thought out, constructive, and most important, I'm sure you took into account my feelings when I wrote it.. Nothing better than trying to someone their work is "terrible" well done.

 

It looked like the worst video, video produces

The hits just keep on coming...

 

Don?t argue video. You compare it with the silly things you?ve done, not with real films

Wow..

 

Ok I think we'll stop here.. After all I am so funny to you, that you must be laughing your head off by now.

This post was hurtful Justin.. I care about my work and while I may not meet your standards, I take what I do seriously and I do my best with it. You dismiss me out of hand referring to work that is over 15 years old (you seem to ignore the feature film last year, that's strange, but that's your call).

 

I'm not going to go any further because I don't believe this post was written to me as much as it was meant to show off for your friends here. Nevertheless, I should thank you since you made the points from my post perfectly. You were cold, and said heartless things with no regard for how I may feel about them. It never crossed your mind.

 

For the record, NO ONE that I know likes being told on a public forum that there work is "terrible", they make the worst video that video produces, they are a video groupie, they are "silly" to you, etc, etc.

 

I work, I tell stories. Some people like them, some don't. My movies from 15 years ago (the only ones you seem to focus on here) were the result of the equipment and budget I had at that time. Like most people, that has changed for me as I have grown and learned. I am hired on a consistant basis and people continue to ask me back, apparently I am doing something right at this time.

 

GoodBye, like Jim, I think I prefer forums where people play a little nicer.

 

I wonder if I will be the only one on here that thinks your post was not a cool thing to write.

 

Jay

[Justin Hayward]

You're right. That was inappropriate.

 

Sorry Jay.

[Michael Peploe]

Jay I think it took a bit of guts to write what you did in the first post. Its easy for cynics to grab that post and run with it. I especialy liked this line:

 

Many of you have forgotten what film/video/visual art is. It's people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the talent, passion, and love of people who have a story to tell. It's not about equipment, it never was and never will be. You can use RED or paint on cave walls...

 

The internet makes it real easy to say things no one would say face to face. Your response was right on.

[Jay Kelley]

Jay I think it took a bit of guts to write what you did in the first post. Its easy for cynics to grab that post and run with it. I especialy liked this line:

The internet makes it real easy to say things no one would say face to face. Your response was right on.

 

Thanks Michael.. That gave me a smile when I needed one. Have a good day

 

Jay

[Guest]

"It was very sad to see a man like Jim Jannard become so put off that he felt the need to leave this forum."

 

He left, then he came back, and then left again. So he may be back.

 

R,

[John Holland]

He is still on this forum ,seen him logged on a lot , just doesnt post anything.

[Guest]

Yes of course John, he comes here to read all the nasty things you and Phil say about his camera:)

 

I think he should buy you both the way he bought Jared Land.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

I've never said anything nasty about his camera. My problem is with the way he's marketing it, or to be more precise, his pretence of surprise when people ask him to back up his claims.

 

Phil

[Jay Kelley]

I've never said anything nasty about his camera. My problem is with the way he's marketing it, or to be more precise, his pretence of surprise when people ask him to back up his claims.

 

Phil

 

Phil, will not the camera's very existence and performance either back up or dispel those claims anyway?

 

If I were given a choice I would prefer a working camera to inspect/use for myself rather than someone's word anyway. Either Jim is right or close to right in what he says and will have a profitable business, or he is wrong and the camera does NOT perform as expected, in which case things will work themselvs out in the other direction.

 

The risk is all his, and he has embraced it. He's making large claims, but they will not insure his future, only a successful, useful camera will do that. one thousand four hundred people will cover next to none of the R&D cost he has put into this.

 

Common sense tells me he is telling the truth, or at least he believes he is.. And he believes it so much that he's going to put the camera in the hands of everyone that can get to it at the RED booth in about 4 weeks. He will show the working camera and the entire post chain as well.

 

I cannot think of a better way to back up one's claims. The fact that he would not answer your questions when you asked them could be for many reasons. I won't speculate as to what those reasons may be since in the end, all that matters is the camera. 1K, 2K, 3K, 4K, MOREK.. Personally I just want a nice clean picture I can work with, will project well, and pull a good matte from. If he does these things, he will do well, very well.

 

Based on test footage, early screenings, and the upcoming NAB.. The smart money says he has pulled this off.

 

I would like to think the one thing we can all agree on, is that we REALLY WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT.. WE WANT HIM TO SUCCEED.. I mean , invention, creation, all these things are wonderful and I want them to be met with success. I would hope you would too, and I think telling Jim this every once in a while would really lift his spirits.. He's human like the rest of us and a pat on the back saying "You're doing fine, keep pushing and we'll see you at the finish" can go a long way with people..

 

I know for a fact some on here have said that.. They have my respect.

 

Jay

[David Mullen ASC]

While I find the aggressive RED marketing somewhat annoying, almost too full of machismo (maybe it's the cigars), ultimately I don't really care until the camera comes out and can be independently tested. Until then, nothing any of us says really matters.

 

As for patting a billionaire on the back to make him feel better, for some reason, I generally am not too worried about the emotional well-being of the richest people on the planet. Don't ask why, I'm just funny that way.

 

As for the camera itself, I'm really excited by its potential and want it to succeed so we can start to establish 4K as a standard for digital cine use, both in origination and also in post, projection, etc.