Jump to content

Grabs from Peter Jackson Short


Ruairi Robinson

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hold up. I think the real victims in this conversation are schlock films. I like schlock! I don't want to hear any more putting down of the schlock!

 

:lol:

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure that some of my 'Citizen-Cane-calliber' productions will end up as bonafide schlock. Then I can send you a copy and have at least one fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this RED project along and want to add my impression on the screen grabs. Does anyone else think that the screen captures, perticularly the 2nd set look more like Maya or 3DS Max renders than film? I think someone brought up this point at reduser and wonder what luck they will have at getting a response there. I also wonder if this is the "default" look of the sensor or will it be able to capture a different aesthetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure that some of my 'Citizen-Cane-calliber' productions will end up as bonafide schlock. Then I can send you a copy and have at least one fan.

 

I hate transformers toys but I can't wait for Transformers the movie! Michael Bay (except for where he tried to create not-schlock) is brilliant! Can't we all agree The Rock was a fantastic film?

 

I had always felt in film school that they need a "Schlock Appreciation" class. It might help disrupt some of the film school incestuous thinking.

 

I am perfectly happy with the current output of Hollywood these days.

 

P.S. Hated Citizen Kane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that's a relief. I was beginning to wonder what JJ had been smoking, (and where I could get some) :D

 

Well I have to say those pictures look pretty impressive from here. Even with the resolution reduced for downloading, they hold up very well, particularly with the resolution up-rezzed again to 1920 x 1080 and displayed on a 50" LCD screen. In fact it was like looking at a movie screen. It would be great to show moving pictures at that resolution, but I don't have the technology to do that yet.

 

What is going on here? There seems to be a rather suspicious number of people who start out attacking RED liks a dog sick on rabies, and then suddenly they turn around and cancel their statements.

 

And then, when the obvious question starts to become "What did Jannard do to make you change your tune so quickly" in the later instances the people make a point of telling everybody that it was all their own idea, that Mr Jannard didn't tell them to say that and so on. Which might make one suspect that they might have been told to say that too :blink:

 

Although I will admit, the idea of giving the doubters a free camera to shut them up has certain appeal, but it wouldn't it rather annoy the RED-Heads if they found out! :D

 

red_blue.jpg

 

There... blue enough?

Fantastic! NOW it looks like video :P

Seriously, I can do the same thing with the "curves" function on Photoshop. Sadly, no matter what you do with that, video still looks like video, unless you make it look like underexposed film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did NOT build this camera to replace film (see my posts from 8 or 9 months ago). I love the look of film. We did this project to offer an alternative to film. One that looked "filmic". A digital camera with a full size 35mm sensor (with wonderful focus fall-off) and an image that did NOT look like over-sharpened HD. The idea was to put a camera in the hands of many that was a credible alternative to film and void of the costs and process of film. Not rocket science. Just another tool to be used in filmaking.

 

I guess the initial harsh reaction here caused me to get a bit defensive. Sorry about that. I knew we would get there and many believed we wouldn't. Given the history of "claims" by others, I get why the strong rejection. Hopefully, the footage our camera is making will open the door to a change in thinking. We need to earn respect, not demand it. I hope we are beginning to do that.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Jim,

 

It is amazing what you've achieved. I'd love to see the RED team develop a film camera >8)

 

Additionally, I noted from one of the various images of the camera floating around that you're using countersunk hex screws to tie the PL (or whatever) mount down to the spider. You'd do well to avoid them. They typically have a shallow recess for the driver and will strip easily. Lens mounts being something that comes on and off cameras a bit (especially cameras that accept different mounts) you will see these screws strip often. Your cameras will be in and out for service and people will probably attempt to mount thier own things to them... Drilling out a screw near a sensor is not fun... I should know >8)

 

I'd use slotted cheese-head screws and drill a recess into the mount. Not as pretty, but more serviceable. They won't strip in the head, but should someone use the wrong sides driver they will get scored up. If you're looking for pretty though, go with normal hexcap screws, just avoid the countersunk ones.

 

Good luck and congratulations.

 

- nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going on here? There seems to be a rather suspicious number of people who start out attacking RED liks a dog sick on rabies, and then suddenly they turn around and cancel their statements.

 

And then, when the obvious question starts to become "What did Jannard do to make you change your tune so quickly" in the later instances the people make a point of telling everybody that it was all their own idea, that Mr Jannard didn't tell them to say that and so on. Which might make one suspect that they might have been told to say that too :blink:

 

Although I will admit, the idea of giving the doubters a free camera to shut them up has certain appeal, but it wouldn't it rather annoy the RED-Heads if they found out! :D

Fantastic! NOW it looks like video :P

Seriously, I can do the same thing with the "curves" function on Photoshop. Sadly, no matter what you do with that, video still looks like video, unless you make it look like underexposed film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going on here? There seems to be a rather suspicious number of people who start out attacking RED liks a dog sick on rabies, and then suddenly they turn around and cancel their statements.

 

And then, when the obvious question starts to become "What did Jannard do to make you change your tune so quickly" in the later instances the people make a point of telling everybody that it was all their own idea, that Mr Jannard didn't tell them to say that and so on. Which might make one suspect that they might have been told to say that too :blink:

I can assure you Jannard hasn't done anything like that to me, although I know for a fact that he's harrassed others with veiled threats of legal action, and rumours of various other strategies that I won't go into here. Most of the Hollywood heavyweights (you know, those weirdos who make nine-digit blockbusters and never post on forums like this?) are well aware of his antics by now. How that will affect his chances of gaining any traction with them remains to be seen

 

I actually think he's done a pretty good job of producing the camera. (Well, the people he's hired to make the thing for him have at any rate). From what I've seen, it's better than anything else that's been produced, and if can make a reliable camera for that price, well more power to him.

 

But if he's looking for personal respect, forget it. I've actually met Bill Gates, and he's a pretty cool guy. Considering the amount of abuse (most of it unjustified) that gets hurled his way, I was amazed at how completely unaffected he is. I could never imagine him going after someone on an internet forum just because he felt "disrespected".

 

I guess the initial harsh reaction here caused me to get a bit defensive. Sorry about that. I knew we would get there and many believed we wouldn't. Given the history of "claims" by others, I get why the strong rejection. Hopefully, the footage our camera is making will open the door to a change in thinking. We need to earn respect, not demand it. I hope we are beginning to do that.

 

Jim

WTF? Werner is right!

What's going on here, has Jesus returned to Earth or something?

Or has somebody been leaving Jack Chick Comics in the NAB washrooms?

People are starting to be NICE! I can't stand it.

 

Aarrghhh! AARGHHHH!! I'm melting! I'm melting!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did NOT build this camera to replace film (see my posts from 8 or 9 months ago). I love the look of film. We did this project to offer an alternative to film. One that looked "filmic". A digital camera with a full size 35mm sensor (with wonderful focus fall-off) and an image that did NOT look like over-sharpened HD. The idea was to put a camera in the hands of many that was a credible alternative to film and void of the costs and process of film. Not rocket science. Just another tool to be used in filmaking.

 

I guess the initial harsh reaction here caused me to get a bit defensive. Sorry about that. I knew we would get there and many believed we wouldn't. Given the history of "claims" by others, I get why the strong rejection. Hopefully, the footage our camera is making will open the door to a change in thinking. We need to earn respect, not demand it. I hope we are beginning to do that.

 

Jim

Well David Mullen has said there is no noticeable difference between your camera and film.You may not have built a camera to replace film but thats what you have done! Its not an alternative to film its a progression the next step to film. Just like if I put the first colour TV in the showroom for half the price of a black and white one. Your camera is a history maker and world changer. Congratulations to you and all the team who developed this. For years camera manufacturers have held the market denying consumers access to broadcast or film cameras keeping the film industry safe and the consumer stupid. Making huge amounts by introducing small changes in format chips etc. The consumer never had a chance. As much as I didn't like the public being fleeced especially being one of them I also recognised the effects film has on civilisation our most important advances have come about because of futuristic ideas put across in the amazing wonderful magic that is hollywood. You only have to watch star trek to see the number of gadgets evolved from that show to todays world.

 

 

TV/film entertains but it also educates us and reinforces our values and morals. Today as our countries are becoming more fragmented and the ability for people to migrate enmasse means communities diversifying those communites will make their own films and strengthen their own cultures and in the end their own mini countries. The film industry used to unite the world and promote America it will now Promote and represent smaller and smaller cultures echoing their values. In the propaganda war between America and Russia America won. Helped in large part by Hollywood. The effect America and capitilism had on the world was helped greatly by the film industry. Film is an amazing communicator and effects people on a personal emotional level. Its power is underestimated. How much influence has Star wars had on many people for example?

 

My opinion now that film is open to all. The values integrety professionalism will be over ridden by low cost, high profit, violent sexual and bad taste films. Take a look at you tube to see the films that make it to the top. Quality always goes out of the window in favour of titilation bad taste and acts of bravado and violence. In other words real life thrills and spills. Let alone the abilty of communities even gang culture will be able to spread propaganda through high quality low cost images that will affect some peoples mind sets. Once Hollywood led the way they have more and more sold out the family side and allowed unconstrained business to profit. NOW everyone has access to this technology and I think without control or responsibilty its a step backwards.

Edited by Mark Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well David Mullen has said there is no noticeable difference between your camera and film.

 

That's not what I said. If anything, I said that what it resembles most is DSLR photography. I said it looked very clean and sharp, like a 4K scan of 35mm 50D stock, but again, I was referring to the amount of fine detail and the lack of grain, which are not the only attributes of a film image. I don't think it has the dynamic range of color negative, just as DSLR photography doesn't, but it is certainly workable.

 

It's definitely very film-like but it also has its own look.

 

You have a terrible tendency to make wild sweeping generalizations and farfetched conclusions from a minimal amount of information. But I also suspect that you are not a person who cares whether they are accurate or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I said. If anything, I said that what it resembles most is DSLR photography. I said it looked very clean and sharp, like a 4K scan of 35mm 50D stock, but again, I was referring to the amount of fine detail and the lack of grain, which are not the only attributes of a film image. I don't think it has the dynamic range of color negative, just as DSLR photography doesn't, but it is certainly workable.

 

It's definitely very film-like but it also has its own look.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well what you said was

 

QUOTE

For me, the RED camera was the highlight of NAB. The Peter Jackson short film shot on the two RED prototypes was an amazing achievement. I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean. Fine detail even in extreme long shots (of course, the demo also points out the beauty of 4K digital projection to show-off that detail.)

 

It's to the point where I don't care if "de-Bayered 4K Bayer-filtered is truly 4K", etc. because all that matters to me is that I didn't see any compromise in image resolution compared to 35mm, unlike with HD where it visibly craps-out in extreme long shot on the big screen.

 

Exposure range was excellent, though I would say that color negative still holds the edge in overexposure detail. This was closer to what you'd expect from a high-end digital SLR still image in terms of dynamic range, or a slightly contrasty color negative stock like 5245.

 

I didn't see any problems from the REDCODE compression, even though it's something like 12:1. It truly seems to work, although I'm sure someone could design a test that could stress it probably. But it seems a godsend for making RAW Bayered-4K field acquisition practical. An attached hard drive the size of a camera battery can hold something over three-hours of 4K material because the data rate is so reduced.

--------------------------------------------------

 

And I said "Well David Mullen has said there is no noticeable difference between your camera and film."

 

Apologies if I misinterpreted or didn't say exactly what you said. And yes this was a generalisation in terms of summing up your post. So to help me understand better are you saying that the red is not up to film standards? Or just that it is but its look is different? My opinion is the look can be fixed easily in post for the most part anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

You have a terrible tendency to make wild sweeping generalizations and farfetched conclusions from a minimal amount of information. But I also suspect that you are not a person who cares whether they are accurate or not.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes I do make generalisations sometimes but Not far fetched Im afraid the impact red will have will be far reaching and extremely damaging to the film industry but don't you think Jim Jannard himself had this in mind anyway? How else was his camera going to make Billions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - The footage from the camera looks great.

 

He and his team had one week to do post and deliver to NAB. They had never worked with digital.

 

Correction: Never used RED before, we're no strangers working with digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread needs to be wiped clean except for the first original post and about 2 others. Come on... <_<

 

I'm not a big movie producer or DP but I think that the stills and the early video clips are really amazing. This is only an alpha version also! I'm interested in what they were doing for lighting. Is there any info for these particular batch of photos?

 

I'm glad they used the Cookes because it isolates what is effecting what. If they used the Red Lenses then you could talk all day about if the results were from the camera or the lenses. But that day will come soon I'm sure.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But anyway, getting back to the stills... It seems that some people over at reduser didn't like them so now they are trying to color correct them to make them look more like 'film'. Interesting.

 

Okay, the frames posted in this uh...interesting...forum discussion look awesome. But I have a question.

 

Many people are saying it doesn't look as close to film, or are trying to amke it look like film...WHY!? Why is the look of film so desireable? Obviously it looks great, but RED looks amazing as well! But why does it have to look like film to be acceptable?

 

This could be a weird question, but I'm just confused, since I think the RED stills are amazing as they are.

 

Thanks!

 

Dan Goldberg..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Because:

 

1. 35mm color negative is the gold standard for feature film and high-end TV and commercial production so any evolving technology that promises to be the eventual replacement for 35mm has to meet that standard or surpass it

 

2. If you don't need a film look, there are already plenty of products on the market that you can use

 

The goal for awhile has been to build a true digital cinema camera that does not compromise on what we can currently get with 35mm color negative. It doesn't have to match it completely, but it does have to meet certain gross technical requirements in terms of resolution, color information, exposure latitude, variety of frame rates available, and most importantly, be lacking in non-film-like digital artifacts.

 

After that, it has to be: affordable, readily available and serviceable, reliable, and have a practical shooting and post workflow.

 

And after that, hopefully it will be archivable.

 

Now if you take the attitude that most of that stuff doesn't matter, then there are plenty of video cameras that will suit your needs.

 

I do think though that as gross technical standards get closer to being met, the subtle textural "gulf" between digital and photochemical images becomes more and more of an issue -- it's almost like the Uncertainty Principle starts to kick in -- you'll never cover that final 5% difference, or whatever, partly because film is a moving target, and also because they capture images is so fundamentally different ways.

 

But that doesn't mean that we've reached the point where we can stop trying to meet the standard set by 35mm color negative. But it does mean that the cameras that come closest to that technical quality level will start to be judged by other, more subtle textural qualities and then you start to crossover into personal taste issues. But I don't think we've completely crossed over to that point where it's only about personal taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What that actually looks like is slightly overexposed.

 

I'm not sure what abilities the thing has regarding onboard LUTs, and I'd certainly like to see the ungraded footage, but those pictures have the slightly peaky gloss of something shot by a traditional film guy with a light meter, which typically results in a bit of overexposure with electronic capture. The camera is, from what I've seen, very low noise, so it would stand a lot of underexposure. The objection I think is to the highlights on the guy's face, which by this technique could be lessened or removed. I'd also like to see how it deals with polarisation.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"those weirdos who make nine-digit blockbusters and never post on forums like this?"

 

Do you think it is a possibility that Jim has his new attidude now because this is the first time he has had any kind of conversation with one of your nine digit weirdos? :lol:

 

I actually think he's done a pretty good job of producing the camera. (Well, the people he's hired to make the thing for him have at any rate). From what I've seen, it's better than anything else that's been produced, and if can make a reliable camera for that price, well more power to him.

I think he is still very much at the bottom of a very steep hill. He has to make all those cameras and make them all work. Then he has to set up a structure for after-sale service. Also, for those cameras to be legally used in the EU at least they will have to pass some very stiff EMC compliance testing. And very expensive testing. And sometimes very expensive work is needed to get them to pass such testing. That's why even Arri battery cables these days have ferrite interference sleeves fitted!

 

Still he has the money to do it.

Edited by Werner Klipsch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Also, for those cameras to be legally used in the EU at least they will have to pass some very stiff EMC compliance testing. And very expensive testing. And sometimes very expensive work is needed to get them to pass such testing. That's why even Arri battery cables these days have ferrite interference sleeves fitted!

 

Still he has the money to do it.

 

Hi,

 

As they are not sold in Europe, is that an issue?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...