Jump to content

Peter Jackson's Movie Live


Michael Newton

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm just getting the quick time logo. Do I have to wait a long time?

 

What are others getting?

 

I have every form of QT installed on my Mac and running OSX.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm just getting the quick time logo. Do I have to wait a long time?

 

What are others getting?

 

I have every form of QT installed on my Mac and running OSX.

 

R,

 

Same thing is happening to me on OSX. I'm on a T1 connection and it's still going super slow, if it's going at all.

 

Edit: It went eventually. Just a bandwidth problem, I think. The file is only 71 MB.

Edited by Christopher D. Keth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
LOL. Stephen, pls give Richard a break. He's now the unofficial Red's spokesperson on this website.

 

Hi Michael,

 

Richard has ambitions to shoot & complete the first RED feature, using crew from this forum that might have problems buying a camera in their own name.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you pleased with what you see, since your a now a reservation holder?

 

 

Well... Don't know what Richard thinks, but I, for one, am quite pleased with those pictures. I can only imagine what the result is in 4K, projected on a big screen. But still: I, as an early reservation holder, do have a BIIIIIG smile on my face right now !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok it finally played...looks really good. Jackson is certainly putting NZ in the spot light. I lived there for two years, I love kiwi land.

 

I don't know what to say with regard to its "look" vs 35mm. It will simply come down to individual choice.

 

I wish I could have seen a lot more.

 

No need to flame me, I cry "uncle", it looks good, it looks good....I just think 35mm will be my format of choice for a variety of reasons. None of which I can mention without enraging half the forum, all of DVXuser.com, and 99% of Reduser.net.

 

But it looks good, it looks really good!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Richard has ambitions to shoot & complete the first RED feature, using crew from this forum that might have problems buying a camera in their own name.

 

Stephen

 

And if JJ sees his threat through, then Richard will surely have more than enough "crew accomplice" to wrap his Red picture :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to flame me, I cry "uncle", it looks good, it looks good....I just think 35mm will be my format of choice for a variety of reasons. None of which I can mention without enraging half the forum, all of DVXuser.com, and 99% of Reduser.net.

 

I think you're completly off the board here: no one on Reduser.net or dvxuser.com will really care about the fact "35mm film will be Richard Boddington's format of choice for variety of reasons". Why? Simply because RED DID DELIVER (and even you, and that's quite a surprise, seem to agree with that fact)! The quality is good enough for most of us! It might not be the same as 35mm, but it is close! Different for what I care! It is just as if Red was a new type of film: neither inferior, nor superior, just looking slightly different than existing 35mm film.

 

So, I, for one, couldn't care less if some people choose to shoot in 35mm film rather than Red or vice-versa: I know the Red will become quite a usefull tool for the job I am doing and the type of things I am shooting! Period! Sure, there are situations where film will hold an advantage, but I don't believe I will face any of these situations in the next future, so I really don't think I am going to say anything but : THANK YOU RED! YOU DID DELIVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're completly off the board here: no one on Reduser.net or dvxuser.com will really care about the fact "35mm film will be Richard Boddington's format of choice for variety of reasons". Why? Simply because RED DID DELIVER (and even you, and that's quite a surprise, seem to agree with that fact)! The quality is good enough for most of us! It might not be the same as 35mm, but it is close! Different for what I care! It is just as if Red was a new type of film: neither inferior, nor superior, just looking slightly different than existing 35mm film.

 

So, I, for one, couldn't care less if some people choose to shoot in 35mm film rather than Red or vice-versa: I know the Red will become quite a usefull tool for the job I am doing and the type of things I am shooting! Period! Sure, there are situations where film will hold an advantage, but I don't believe I will face any of these situations in the next future, so I really don't think I am going to say anything but : THANK YOU RED! YOU DID DELIVER!

 

Well thanks for some what verifying my theory.

 

I was pointing out that if I go back over listing why I prefer 35mm, it immediately infuriates the Red and other HD users. Even though one may be pointing out a very logical benefit of film. And since we've been down this road 1000 times it's obviously pointless at this stage.

 

Regardless of how good the Red picture looks, it won't be the saviour of those who feel they are currently barred from greatness in Hollywood for the sole reason that they can't afford to shoot 35mm. Just as being able to shoot 35mm doesn't open the gates of Hollywood either.

 

I said the picture looks good, and it does. But it will still be a matter of taste in the final analysis and that's fine. "Good" HD systems have been around for some time now, yet the producers of "er" and "Law and Order" are still shooting on 35mm. I assume they have their reasons.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Good" HD systems have been around for some time now, yet the producers of "er" and "Law and Order" are still shooting on 35mm. I assume they have their reasons.

 

FWIW... Battlestar Galactica is the new favorite series here in the studio. The dop does CC on set with his hdcams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW... Battlestar Galactica is the new favorite series here in the studio. The dop does CC on set with his hdcams.

 

Here in the studio? What exactly does that mean? I thought the show was shot in Vancouver BC?

 

I'm sure the producers of BG have their reasons for using HD.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say based on this footage, RED is much closer to film than HDCam currently is which may sway some TV Producers.

 

I've never seen any HDCam footage that looks anywhere near as good as film. Battlestar has a very specific look which masks the difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i always thought battlestar galactica was shot on dv...

they started on 35mm, then switched to hdcam. its broadcasted in HD in the US.

 

seriously though last time i looked the 'look' they were going for seemed to be heavily graded video.

the dop does the grading on the set, afaik with the F900 camera itself.

had a short look at their workflow in their blog, seems he is using multimatrix & blackgamma all the time :)

however it won them a peabody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my opinions on what I thought would be the result if red gave a picture as good as film. That was based on Davids observations. Well after watching this footage I'm disapointed. It may do according to the technical specs etc. But After watching the footage In my personal opinion its a great picture and the film is well made but it looked like video?????

 

If you asked me to pin it down I would say it looked electronic I.E. Noughts and ones, highlights seemed to blow out and shadows did not seem quite right. Perhaps film is capturing something more that cannot be captured by noughts and ones? I do know the film was made using less latitude than the camera is now said to be capable of so maybe this is still not a good enough test?

 

Personally I was disapointed. Just my very humble opinion.

Edited by Mark Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you asked me to pin it down I would say it looked electronic I.E. Noughts and ones, highlights seemed to blow out and shadows did not seem quite right. Perhaps film is capturing something more that cannot be captured by noughts and ones? I do know the film was made using less latitude than the camera is now said to be capable of so maybe this is still not a good enough test?

 

Personally I was disapointed. Just my very humble opinion.

This the most common mistake here. The most important part of the image capturing chain is the light-sensitive device itself. Whether it is CCD, CMOS or old-fashioned camera tube, the light pickup is ANALOG. Only after the analog sensor has converted the photons to a mosiac of electrical charges in the shape of the image, it is then converted to your "Noughts and ones".

 

Film scanned in a telecine is also starting out analog and then converted to "Noughts and ones" but the pictures still look better than CMOS analog pickup converted to "Noughts and ones"!

 

As analog imaging devices go, film is simply better at capturing pictures with a wide dynamic range. 11 stops is quite good as the video camera goes, but it does not equal film. Nobody said film is easy cheap or convenient, but easy cheap and convenient do not impress the paying audience, picture quality does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

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...