Difference between RED & VIPER image quality... and film?

[John Michael Corey]

I'm confused...

 

Does the RED camera promise "better" image quality than the VIPER?

 

If not, then is all the hoopla surrounding RED mostly because of it's price point?

 

I have to say i'm profoundly impressed by the imagery the VIPER produced in much of Zodiac. Currently, i'm watching it on DVD (at the 50-minute mark - and, yes, i already saw the movie in the theater). So, far there's only been one segment that struck me as VIDEO: 43:05 to 43:20 - the first shot being the most evident. It's at this 43-minute mark that i jumped up to check the filming specs on IMDb.com. Judging by the all the other Zodiac footage i've seen to this point, it seems to me that if that one particular segment was approached differently, then it probably could have been accomplished and felt congruous with the surrounding material/shots (i.e., not have screamed of VIDEO).

 

I say this ignorantly, and as a layman, because much of the imagery in Zodiac appears to be film not video (to the untrained eye). Yes, yes, yes, I am somewhat aware of film cameras' limitations such as low light shooting and night time clarity for the skyline/background/distant lighting. And, I understand that to professionals/experts the Zodiac footage stands out like a sore thumb, simply because they/you know that traditional film cameras are incapable of such shots. But, for all a layman (such as myself) or movie audience knows, the night time clarity in such a film as Zodiac may be the result of better lenses, new lighting techniques, or improved "traditional" camera technology of some sort. To the audience, night time clarity in and of itself does not reek of "video."

 

If a traditional film camera were to have some "technological breakthrough" where the same clarity as digital became possible in these type of shooting situations (and they were to use those cameras to film Zodiac instead of VIPER), then would one really be able to tell the difference while sitting in a movie theater watching?

 

I feel like the daytime shots and interior shots in Zodiac have not appeared to be VIDEO. Am i crazy? I know some people are tone deaf, well, am i "image blind?"

[Max Jacoby]

Until someone has done a direct comparison between the Viper and the Red, there is no point starting an argument about which camera gives a better image. What can be said is that the Red is way cheaper than the Viper.

 

I for one was not impressed by the look of 'Zodiac' in the cinema, the skintones looked very unnatural to me and the image did not look very sharp either. But once again a direct comparison to 35mm film would be most revealing since otherwise one does not have a direct reference point.

[John Michael Corey]

I feel like i'm in a doctor's office looking at an x-ray. I probably will spot a broken bone, maybe even a hairline fracture, but i likely may not be able to discern all the other nuances the x-ray has to offer. Especially if the x-ray were taken to scrutinize soft tissues. I'm seeking professional knowledge. I want to learn. I want to understand better.

 

Max, when you say, "...the skintones looked very unnatural..." do you mean: in all the interior office scenes, the night scenes, the day time scenes, or always? Could it be from make-up? From lighting? From the colorist and/or color timing? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Or, is there something inherently different about the way digital captures/replicates color?

 

As far as the image sharpness, it would definitely matter what size screen you were viewing the movie on, right? On my old 19" square TV Zodiac looks pretty good... but, theater screen sizes vary widely. I imagine a huge blow-up may reveal the "not very sharp" image you describe. Is the maximum resolution of the VIPER less than what is capable of being extracted from 35mm film? If the answer is yes, then that may explain the softness of the image on the big screen.

[John Michael Corey]

On paper, are the RED and VIPER equals as far as the amount of raw information (pixels or whatever) they are supposed to be able to capture?

 

For the VIPER in Zodiac, it seems to me like much of the footage blends well together. Very little seems to stick out as having a decidedly video look. For me (a layman), in Collateral there are many more shots that are "jarring" in that they look like VIDEO shots spliced in alongside film shots. For all i know, the "video" shots in Collateral are the F900 shots and the "film" shots are the VIPER shots...

 

In Akeelah and the Bee, the lone HD Digital shot of the sunset stuck out like a sore thumb. It did not blend well with the footage before it or after it. To me (a layman) the shot looked like video. It broke the spell the movie was weaving - it was distracting. So far in Zodiac, the movie has been pretty cohesive.

 

The added clarity in the skyline shots and in the night time shots in Zodiac don't scream VIDEO to me (a layman) just because they are clearer than what i've seen in movies before. They are absorbing - they suck me more into the movie; they cast a deeper spell on me. It wasn't until the 43-minute mark that a shot broke my spell because of its VIDEO-ISHNESS.

[Carl Brighton]

On paper, are the RED and VIPER equals as far as the amount of raw information (pixels or whatever) they are supposed to be able to capture?

 

The Viper has three separate 2 megapixel CCD sensors, with Red, Green and Blue colour separation achieved by a precision dichroic prism assembly. The method of operation is identical to that of most broadcast quality TV cameras, either High Definition or Standard Definition, although the Viper is optimized for cinematography rather than TV work.

 

So it produces 2 milllion each of actual Red, Green and Blue pixels.

 

The RED uses a single 12 megapixel CMOS sensor with the colour separation achieved by screen printing a microscopic matrix of red, green and blue filters directly onto the individual photocells, which is the same way it is done with most home video cameras and digital still cameras. Because of the alternating pattern of the filter matrix, the raw signal from the RED only contains about 2 million Green samples, and about one million each of Red and Blue.

 

The proprietary REDCODE processing which comes with the camera supposedly is able to calculate the values of the missing Red, Green and Blue pixels, effectively giving Red, Green and Blue outputs with equal resolution to an unfiltered monochrome version ("4K") of the CMOS chip.

 

While there is little argument about the RED's potential performance as a 2K 4:2:2 HD TV camera, there is considerable skepticism about whether the REDCODE output really constitutes a true "4K" signal. Similar claims have been made before, and none have held up to close scrutiny.

 

The major operational advantage of the RED, (and similar offerings from Arri and Panavision and others) is that, because the image sensor is comparable in size to a standard 35mm film frame, digital operators will be able to tap into the vast inventory of high quality lenses already available for 35mm film cameras. It will also offer a similar level of control over depth-of-field, but will also make accurate focussing much more difficult that many people seem to realize!

 

In the case of the Viper and similar 3-chip cameras, it is impractical to mass-produce dichroic beam splitting prisms for 35mm-sized sensors, and in most cases 35mm film camera lenses could not be fitted anyway because the prism would get in the way.

 

While it is certainly possible to make high quality lenses suitable for cameras like the Viper, to put it on a truly level playing field, you would have to duplicate the huge "back catalog" of 35mm lenses already available, which is out of the question, so anybody who wants to use a small-format digital camera has to be content with a much smaller selection of lenses.

 

Scanning this and certain other forums, you would be forgiven for getting the impression that direct comparisons have been made between the RED and other electronic cameras; in reality, the amount of RED-derived footage that anybody has actually seen is very small, and none of it has been produced by entirely independent operators. The first deliveries of privately-owned REDs are supposed to take place at the end of this month, although I'll believe that when I see it. Only then will any independent testing take place,

 

So for the moment, the answer is, "We don't know". Anybody who claims otherwise either works for RED, or is guessing or hallucinating :rolleyes:

[jan von krogh]

I'm confused...

Does the RED camera promise "better" image quality than the VIPER?

Yes, it does indeed.

 

The recorded resolution is more than 4 times higher than on the traditional digital cinematography systems or the common 35mm film 2K D.I. process.

Sonys progressive HDCAM Cameras (750/900/F23), Pananvisions Genesis and the mentioned Thompson GV Viper all record 1920*1080, or approx 2 million pixels per frame.

Red records up to 4520*2540, approx 10 millions pixel per frame.

Having said that - it is important to remember that the 35mm projection in the cinema won´t be able to resolve the higher resolution. Today 35mm cinema projection resolves slightly below 2k.

 

Another factor is the DOF, which is different between the digital cinematography cameras you can buy (they all offer 2/3, which is ~<16mm) and the 35mm DOF, whereas the Red has a S35 mm sized sensor.

The Depth of Field is another typical attribute of image composition which affects the audience and which is part of the film look.

 

If not, then is all the hoopla surrounding RED mostly because of it's price point?

The price point is indeed interesting, however, the price of the red can be misleading.

The camera body is traditionally only ~30-60% of the net worth of a camera package.

Lenses, supportsystems, recording, monitoring, transport/cases, mattebox, powersupply, batteries, chargers, tripods etc are the other part of the camera package.

 

Anyhow, red offers many features which artists and producers alike wanted, which were, until now, not available in one camera.

Overcranking (shooting at higher speeds) was difficult with or impossible with the classic sony/thomson/panavision cameras. red records up to 100fps.

For handheld and steadycam, many cameras where hard to operate - as they were heavy and bulky. red is small and pretty lightweight.

Then, the camera feature a PL-Mount. This allow the use of the huge inventory of cinelenses.

As it can record to flashmemory and ssd, many shots which have problematic influences (vibrations etc) influencing tape or film or disc transport are now easier.

Also, the camera records RAW Data - which allows colorists, DP and VFX folks to extract the best part of the recorded image, whereas Panavision and Sony fallten the Sensor data down to RGB or YUV.

 

Another aspect is that they have an fast and high-quality workflow model for 4k. The red writes Quicktimefiles which can be easily accessed from almost any NLE.

For Sony and Panaviision, you need to buy/rent an hdcam or hdcam sr vtr, which is easily in the 50-100.000$ pricerange, and find an xpri nle to edit native or you have to upsample to uncompressed.

Thomson GV has no native editing, and you have to be tethered or use the (pretty expensive as well) venom discrecorder.

 

The dps, director, vfx-experts who used or are using the red so far were pretty excited or at least gave it double thumbs up.

Among them are Steven Soderberg, David Stump, Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor, Peter Jackson, Rodney Charters, Jon Farhat...

[jan von krogh]

The Viper has three separate 2 megapixel CCD sensors, with Red, Green and Blue colour separation achieved by a precision dichroic prism assembly.

So it produces 2 milllion each of actual Red, Green and Blue pixels.

You are wrong.

The Viper has 3 * 9.2 megapixel sensors.

The electronics inside the camera bring that down to 1920*1080.

They have, as remmarked by GV, not enough computing power inside of the Viper to handle more.

 

The RED uses a single 12 megapixel CMOS sensor with the colour separation achieved by screen printing a microscopic matrix of red, green and blue filters directly onto the individual photocells, which is the same way it is done with most home video cameras and digital still cameras. Because of the alternating pattern of the filter matrix, the raw signal from the RED only contains about 2 million Green samples, and about one million each of Red and Blue.

You are wrong and obviously don´t understand how debayering works.

Modern debayering, named by the way after Mr. Bayer who researched this method for Kodak, easily extracts a good 75-90% of the cmos array resolution.

Contact a local Leica, Canon, Nikon, Arri, Panavision or Hasselblad representative. He will gladly explain you how this works en detail.

And just try basic mathematics. As you write yourself, the camera has a 12 MP. You write 2 MP Green, 1 MP Red and 1 MP Blue. That makes 4 MP.

 

While there is little argument about the RED's potential performance as a 2K 4:2:2 HD TV camera, there is considerable skepticism about whether the REDCODE output really constitutes a true "4K" signal. Similar claims have been made before, and none have held up to close scrutiny.

Sadly, wrong once more.

Be it Dalsa, the pioneers for moving 4k or bei it Hasselblad - 4k basing on Cmos is reality since years.

NHK already demonstrated (working) 8K digital cameras last year at IBC and at NAB - together with projection in that resolution.

 

Scanning this and certain other forums, you would be forgiven for getting the impression that direct comparisons have been made between the RED and other electronic cameras; in reality, the amount of RED-derived footage that anybody has actually seen is very small, and none of it has been produced by entirely independent operators. The first deliveries of privately-owned REDs are supposed to take place at the end of this month, although I'll believe that when I see it. Only then will any independent testing take place,

Thousands of people around the world have seen red footage projected in 4k within the last 12 months.

Red is right now, as we speak, in use at multi-million productions. Heres a quote from "wanted" starring Angelina Joline and Morgan Freeman. They shot around the corner in Prague and now moved on to Chicago.

"We are actually inter-cutting the digital images with film. It?s not enough to say it is the best digital image out there. The RED image looks remarkably better than the filmed images. I thought I would never be able to say that?

- Jon Farhat

 

So for the moment, the answer is, "We don't know". Anybody who claims otherwise either works for RED, or is guessing or hallucinating :rolleyes:

You might want to include Peter Jackson, Timur Bekmambetov, Steven Soderbergh, David Stump, Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylorin, Rodney Charters in your list of people who work for RED, or is guessing or hallucinating.

[Max Jacoby]

Having said that - it is important to remember that the 35mm projection in the cinema won´t be able to resolve the higher resolution. Today 35mm cinema projection resolves slightly below 2k.

I don't understand how you can go on repeating this nonsensical argument. Although there is a resolution drop during 35mm film projection, suggesting that there won't be any difference between a print made from 2K and one made from a 4K master is just plain wrong and uninformed.

 

It is always better to start with a higher resolution and keep it as long as possible throughout the post-production chain. On the same projector a 4K DI will look much better than a 2K DI.

 

End of story.

 

As for the Red giving a 'better' image than the Viper, there is more to an image than just resolution. Namely highlight latitude, noise floor, color reproduction are other factors that are just as important.

[Brian Drysdale]

The important thing is using the camera and system that is appropriate for the story that you're trying to tell. There are a number of factors that come into play and it's down to the individual judgement of each filmmaker as to which are important for their production.

 

Until people have run tests and seen completed productions screened by various types of projection this discussion is premature at present.

 

Even then, people will have their own subjective take on the results.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Amen to that Brian.

[Phil Rhodes]

Jan,

 

People have been cashiered on this forum before on the basis that they're spouting incompetent drivel and lowering the overall quality of conversation. With gems like this:

 

> Modern debayering.... extracts a good 75-90% of the cmos array resolution.

 

...you are suggesting yourself as a future candidate for this treatment. You appeal to authority; you cite unreliable sources. Please stop.

 

Phil

[jan von krogh]

I don't understand how you can go on repeating this nonsensical argument.

Max,

our classic 35mm exhibition doesn´t give us 2k.

Under ideal cirumstances, the test have been run over and over again.

With Arii & Panavision cameras and lenses, with different projectors and screens, all over the world.

Led and realised by highly respected filmmakers from many different nations.

Many of those tests are published. Below you will find the link to ITU-R tests.

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

 

Although there is a resolution drop during 35mm film projection, suggesting that there won't be any difference between a print made from 2K and one made from a 4K master is just plain wrong and uninformed.

Read carefully, thats not what i said.

I said that the 35mm cinema typically doesn´t resolve 2k.

I didn´t suggest that there are no differences between a 2k and 4k originating master.

I pointed out however, that one of the main advantages of the red vs. the 1080 digital cinematography cameras, its higher resolution, will not be transported in its full effect to the audience in a classic 35mm chain.

 

It is always better to start with a higher resolution and keep it as long as possible throughout the post-production chain.

That is correct, and i didn´t say anything else.

 

On the same projector a 4K DI will look much better than a 2K DI.

That is mostly so, but not always the case.

I have seen some of our films in 35mm and was happy with the filmprojection, later on i saw them on a 4k DCI projector and noise that was masked in the grain of the 35mm out was slightly visible.

 

 

As for the Red giving a 'better' image than the Viper, there is more to an image than just resolution. Namely highlight latitude, noise floor, color reproduction are other factors that are just as important.

Correct.

noise floor: Viper according to Thomson is at -54db, The One according to red at -66db, both at their ISO rating sweetspot btw.

 

highlight latitude: Have you seen Peter Jacksons "Crossing the line"? Especially the aerial shot against the sky, with cloud details and shadows on the actor faces?

 

color reproduction: http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/9_1184475391.jpg. Finetuning color , however, is becoming more and more an creative postproduction process, no matter what media or camera has been used.

[jan von krogh]

> Modern debayering.... extracts a good 75-90% of the cmos array resolution.

 

...you are suggesting yourself as a future candidate for this treatment. You appeal to authority; you cite unreliable sources. Please stop.

 

Phil

 

Phil, some more unreliable sources.

Arri.

Hasselblad.

Leica.

They are as wrong as i am, i suppose.

 

Just to remind you - the Arri D20 uses a 3018 x 2200, 4:3, 6.6 MP Sensor.

And outputs 2880 x 2160 in datamode. And HD.

 

In your wrong mathematic - the D20 therefore wouldn´t even be a 1920*1080p camera, correct?

 

You really should call arri, hasselblad, dalsa, red, leica and share your knowledge.

Their expertise regarding digital interpolator quality, in that special case debayering, is according to your findings, simply fraud.

[John Holland]

Yes shadows on face from a 12/18k hmi .

[jan von krogh]

Yes shadows on face from a 12/18k hmi .

 

if you have crossing the line - as example look at tc 01:54 - tridecker passes behind doubledecker.

there you have all - faces, sky, clouds, landscape. and clearly no hmi on the doubledecker - no shadowcast.

furthermore the helishots, iirc where done without aerial light and the two camera where prototypes with ~2 stops less iirc.

 

anyhow - i am all in for as many test as possible, and you can shoot excellent films on D20/viper/sony hdcam/s:i.

however having seen the red footage in 4k, i am convinced.

[John Sprung]

The Viper has 3 * 9.2 megapixel sensors.

The electronics inside the camera bring that down to 1920*1080.

They have, as remmarked by GV, not enough computing power inside of the Viper to handle more.

Well, sort of. The Viper has 1920 photosites across the chips, and 4320 photosites top to bottom. Most important, those photosites aren't square. They're four times wider than they are high. It doesn't gain any resolution at all from that. Instead, the reason for it is to support both aspect ratios in the neighborhood of 1.78 - 1.85:1 and 2.37 - 2.39:1. It has two modes. It either groups the subpixels in groups of four, creating 1920 x 1080, 1.78:1, with square pixels, or in groups of three, discarding part of the image area and squareness, to get 2.37:1 with the same 1920 x 1080 pixel grid.

 

There is no way to address the subpixels individually. Even if there were, there would be no advantage to it. Images with a resolution mismatch of up to 2:1 appear to have the lower of the two resolutions. Beyond that, even the untrained observer begins to notice that the tops and bottoms of things are either softer or sharper than the sides.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[jan von krogh]

Well, sort of. The Viper has 1920 photosites across the chips, and 4320 photosites top to bottom. Most important, those photosites aren't square. They're four times wider than they are high. It doesn't gain any resolution at all from that. Instead, the reason for it is to support both aspect ratios in the neighborhood of 1.78 - 1.85:1 and 2.37 - 2.39:1. It has two modes. It either groups the subpixels in groups of four, creating 1920 x 1080, 1.78:1, with square pixels, or in groups of three, discarding part of the image area and squareness, to get 2.37:1 with the same 1920 x 1080 pixel grid.

There is no way to address the subpixels individually. Even if there were, there would be no advantage to it. Images with a resolution mismatch of up to 2:1 appear to have the lower of the two resolutions. Beyond that, even the untrained observer begins to notice that the tops and bottoms of things are either softer or sharper than the sides.

-- J.S.

yes, that is exactly how it works.

When we asked GV why they didn´t start with a sensor with the full resolution instead (i think it was in 2005), we were told that they were lacking recording & processing power - so even if they the elements would all get a readout, they would have no way to process & store them.

 

Btw - i wouldn´t be surprised if Thomson GV enters the 4k market space soon. They have excellent technology, clever engineers and do understand the market quite well. Right now the shadow of the infinities delayed introduction is hiding this.

[Phil Rhodes]

> so even if they the elements would all get a readout, they would have no way to process & store them.

 

Well - yes - it's an SDI camera, there's a limit to what you can fit down SDI. What point are you trying to make here?

 

Phil

[Gary McClurg]

Another aspect is that they have an fast and high-quality workflow model for 4k. The red writes Quicktimefiles which can be easily accessed from almost any NLE.

 

I thought you could bring it into FCP... but according to a friend (A Red Head)... still trying to find the email.. but he says no you still can't bring Redcode into FCP... that was a beta program shown at NAB....

 

Found the email...

 

"Regarding FCP and REDCODE, it's true that the current version of FCP cannot read REDCODE, but as the camera still has yet to ship this isn't really an issue. The version of FCP that was cutting REDCODE at NAB is an as-of-yet unreleased version. This was all out in the open since NAB. Enabling REDCODE in FCP will require downloading an update to FCP and will be free to owners of FCP 6. I suspect that Apple will release that update when RED announces the first camera has shipped, which by all accounts I'm aware of pegs the first 50 REDs hitting the streets in early September."

 

So then what equipment are these big guys who are shooting with the camera doing their post... downconverts in Avid... what format are they saving to...

[jan von krogh]

I thought you could bring it into FCP... but according to a friend (A Red Head)... still trying to find the email.. but he says no you still can't bring Redcode into FCP... that was a beta program shown at NAB....

That is correct. Peter Jackson used the beta for Crossing the line, but redcode isn´t in the Quicktime library yet.

Apple demonstrated the integration on their US-Roadshow.

btw : Assimilate Scratch can conform 4k redcode already now.

 

So then what equipment are these big guys who are shooting with the camera doing their post... downconverts in Avid... what format are they saving to...

PJ shot in Redcode, edited Redcode with FCP and onlined on Quantel Pablo on cineon/dpx. the redcode to cineon/dpx was done in redcine, according to the FCP EDL.

IIRC, they edited "Crossing" on a Notebook.

 

We will use different workflows. I am still not decided which additional 4k D.I. System to buy. DVS, Assimilate and Iridias all are interesting, none however fullfills all our needs as of yet.

Maybe we will move the decision to Q1/2008.

[Mark Williams]

Yes, it does indeed.

 

The recorded resolution is more than 4 times higher than on the traditional digital cinematography systems or the common 35mm film 2K D.I. process.

 

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

Resolution? Or missing pixels replaced?

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

 

Sonys progressive HDCAM Cameras (750/900/F23), Pananvisions Genesis and the mentioned Thompson GV Viper all record 1920*1080, or approx 2 million pixels per frame.

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

They are proven video cameras with a proven track record

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

 

Red records up to 4520*2540, approx 10 millions pixel per frame.

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

Again it contains pixels drawn out of thin air lucky then your following statement applies to make your first have any credibility

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

 

Having said that - it is important to remember that the 35mm projection in the cinema won´t be able to resolve the higher resolution. Today 35mm cinema projection resolves slightly below 2k.

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

Sorry thats rubbish. You can commission or draw on any tests you want. I know what I see. I watched a 2k transfer the other day on a calibrated projector and big screen and in no way does that match a 35mm film. Perhaps our cinemas are higher quality? Not to mention your tests show a cinema projector brings it down much further than even 2K

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

 

Another factor is the DOF, which is different between the digital cinematography cameras you can buy (they all offer 2/3, which is ~<16mm) and the 35mm DOF, whereas the Red has a S35 mm sized sensor.

 

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

And so does a JVC 110 with a lens convertor. It too can output a HD signal.

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

The Depth of Field is another typical attribute of image composition which affects the audience and which is part of the film look.

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

Yes a 2/3 inch camera can also offer a smaller dof although not as much as a red. I would have thought those wanting a video look would use a video camera that is a video camera. Although some have flirted with the idea of a video camera can be a new modern film camera and have found many problems It may be easier to use a film camera for film and a Video camera for video and for FX laden films try to use a psuedo film look from a video camera for the kids?

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

 

The price point is indeed interesting, however, the price of the red can be misleading.

The camera body is traditionally only ~30-60% of the net worth of a camera package.

Lenses, supportsystems, recording, monitoring, transport/cases, mattebox, powersupply, batteries, chargers, tripods etc are the other part of the camera package.

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

Exactly the red is still not a filmmakers dream answer by the time you pay out for everything else you could have paid less for a 16mm set up and got a real film look with better contrast and a gorgeous picture.

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

Anyhow, red offers many features which artists and producers alike wanted, which were, until now, not available in one camera.

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

Well the red has only got one feature the ability to record up to 100fps

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

Overcranking (shooting at higher speeds) was difficult with or impossible with the classic sony/thomson/panavision cameras. red records up to 100fps.

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

Well you can get slow motion by using programs like AE But I think for birds flapping their wigs flies etc youd need more than 100fps

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

For handheld and steadycam, many cameras where hard to operate - as they were heavy and bulky. red is small and pretty lightweight.

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

Yeah so I guess pros will tie a brick to it to make it more steady

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

Then, the camera feature a PL-Mount. This allow the use of the huge inventory of cinelenses.

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

And a film camera doesnt?

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

As it can record to flashmemory and ssd, many shots which have problematic influences (vibrations etc) influencing tape or film or disc transport are now easier.

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

Yeah long upload times difficulty in editing expensive programs and kit

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

Also, the camera records RAW Data - which allows colorists, DP and VFX folks to extract the best part of the recorded image, whereas Panavision and Sony fallten the Sensor data down to RGB or YUV.

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

Well with film you get a head start with great colour and balance from the word go. Even if it has to be corrected

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

 

Another aspect is that they have an fast and high-quality workflow model for 4k. The red writes Quicktimefiles which can be easily accessed from almost any NLE.

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

A proper colourist will still cost loads a money.

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

For Sony and Panaviision, you need to buy/rent an hdcam or hdcam sr vtr, which is easily in the 50-100.000$ pricerange, and find an xpri nle to edit native or you have to upsample to uncompressed.

Thomson GV has no native editing, and you have to be tethered or use the (pretty expensive as well) venom discrecorder.

 

The dps, director, vfx-experts who used or are using the red so far were pretty excited or at least gave it double thumbs up.

Among them are Steven Soderberg, David Stump, Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor, Peter Jackson, Rodney Charters, Jon Farhat...

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

How many of those people are giving there love of this film camera for free? Or are their incentives involved if there are then your basicly paying people one way or another to promote the camera.While there is no doubt a pplace for the red and in films shown at the cinema or a way to create a look its really never going to replace film or even be an option to film. It will be a high quality camera which in order to create professional films will be cheap however a Camera alone has never been a big expense anyway. You still have to pay for the myriad peripheral extras and everything else that filmmaking requires IE camaerman grip lighting for video and post etc. SO as a consumer would the red be cheaper and give better results than say a JVC HDV? for example?What use would the red be to a consumer who cant afford to make a film or if he was budget conscious could get an old camera and use real film?

The red offers a do it all camera and thats great but there are many reasons why in the real world it cant compete even if people are seeing it as the future. I think many will come unstuck as they realize this amazing tool is only part of a wider set of which to play with the big boys you still need big boys money.

Give me a red camera that has the battery a decent zoom lens a battery and all the neccesary peripherals for $14000 and you might compete in the consumer arena.

Give me a red that you can load film into and you might compete in the film arena

Give me a red with a proven record in HD and you may win this market.

 

Untill you get the prices down and the peripherals cheaper with a post path that comes with the camera or is cheaply available so we can all edit HD film with proper compositing affordable programs so we can do our own FX instead of paying weta then we may be talking.

The camera is far in advance of what people have and will take years to catch up. And even then its not guaranteed a higher fomat is what consumers want look at betamax.

[jan von krogh]

Hello Mark,

 

first of all i would recommend to try to learn the "quote" feature of this board.

It helps people who actually are trying to read your post and it isn´t hard to master.

 

Sonys progressive HDCAM Cameras (750/900/F23), Pananvisions Genesis and the mentioned Thompson GV Viper all record 1920*1080, or approx 2 million pixels per frame.

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

They are proven video cameras with a proven track record

Correct. And be it David Fincher, Robert Altman, the Wachowski Bros, Michael Mann, Mel Gibson, Bryan Singer etc they have produced many excellent movies.

 

Red records up to 4520*2540, approx 10 millions pixel per frame.

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

Again it contains pixels drawn out of thin air lucky then your following statement applies to make your first have any credibility

Resolution? Or missing pixels replaced?

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

Resolution. Any mid-class photographer should be able to explain you how CMOS Bayer-design works.

 

Having said that - it is important to remember that the 35mm projection in the cinema won´t be able to resolve the higher resolution. Today 35mm cinema projection resolves slightly below 2k.

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

Sorry thats rubbish. You can commission or draw on any tests you want. I know what I see. I watched a 2k transfer the other day on a calibrated projector and big screen and in no way does that match a 35mm film. Perhaps our cinemas are higher quality? Not to mention your tests show a cinema projector brings it down much further than even 2K

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

I am not sure to what you refer to with "your cinemas".

Test have been conducted in the USA, EU and Asia.

ITU-R tested several of the best cinemas on different continents combined.

Read this:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Independent from country, Arri or Panavision gear - in the typical distribution chain, the 35mm film process doesn´t resolve 2k at the end on the screen.

 

Exactly the red is still not a filmmakers dream answer by the time you pay out for everything else you could have paid less for a 16mm set up and got a real film look with better contrast and a gorgeous picture.

We left 16mm (and S16mm) years ago. We wanted better images. The remaining 16 and S16mm lenses will be put to new use on the Red.

 

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

As it can record to flashmemory and ssd, many shots which have problematic influences (vibrations etc) influencing tape or film or disc transport are now easier.

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

Yeah long upload times difficulty in editing expensive programs and kit

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

If you are in a hurry: Attach drive (or SSD). Edit.

If you are more the guy who likes security: backup first, then edit from the disc. directly.

If you prefer to digitize from a hdcam vtr in the field or wnat to have a portable lab at the set, ok.

Furthermore, if you already think that FCP/Apple or PPro/Windows are expensive, then Red is clearly to expensive for you.

 

While there is no doubt a pplace for the red and in films shown at the cinema or a way to create a look its really never going to replace film or even be an option to film.

Even before delivery, academy award winning directors disagree. You did notice what productions are actually shooting on red already now i suppose?

For us film is becoming a rare exception. To compare, in 1999, i think that > 75% of all the stuff we did was film - and the rest was broadcast or animation.

 

Give me a red that you can load film into and you might compete in the film arena

In case you didn´t notice:

With over 2000 order in their books, red has become the marketleader in the 35mm camera manufacturer segment.

[Max Jacoby]

I said that the 35mm cinema typically doesn´t resolve 2k.

I didn´t suggest that there are no differences between a 2k and 4k originating master.

I did find your original post a bit ambiguous, hence my response to it. At least we agree that there are visible beneficts to 4K as opposed to 2K.

 

noise floor: Viper according to Thomson is at -54db, The One according to red at -66db, both at their ISO rating sweetspot btw.

I think it is wise not to base our judgement on numbers released by the manufacturers, but rather on an idenpendently done comparison test.

[jan von krogh]

I did find your original post a bit ambiguous, hence my response to it. At least we agree that there are visible beneficts to 4K as opposed to 2K.

Yes.

And my comment that we typically don´t get 2k resolution at the end of the distribution chain was indeed made to underline that the Viper (or any 2k camera or process) will not show a dramatic falloff in typical exhibition scenarios.

Might be different if we still would have plenty of 65mm large screens around, might be different if the digital cinema rollout would be mainly 4k.

 

And, FWIW, 4K is also a considerable advantage, be it film or digital for anamorphic work or, as simple as that, to get out the boom without scaling the image when working with a 2k target.

 

I think it is wise not to base our judgement on numbers released by the manufacturers, but rather on an idenpendently done comparison test.

Yes.

I am -seriously- considering renting out a red before we get delivery of ours, simply in order to qualify speed, quality and issues of the camera.

I took us over half a year to get the hdcam and 1080p uncompressed workflows up to maximum quality back then in 2002 - and we already had a solid 2k workflow existing.

 

There will be pitfalls, there will be issues, there will be tons of things to master.

And it will take years of up-hill fighting to get the cinemas into 4k digital or 65mm exhibition.

[Max Jacoby]

In case you didn´t notice:

With over 2000 order in their books, red has become the marketleader in the 35mm camera manufacturer segment.

I believe there are more than 2000 Arri cameras around worldwide.