Jump to content

RED ONE footage


Emanuel A Guedes

Recommended Posts

I agree with John that it's all about the look, not the technical specs. Can specs make you a better Cinematographer than an ASC member?

To be frank, the look is invariably dependent on the technical specs.

 

I think there is a general misconception that the "look" or what you watch on a playback monitor or on a big screen is all there is to it. IT'S NOT. That "look" is the result of tons of data sifting, interpreting, adulterating, etc. It's just not as simple as throwing it up on a monitor and saying "oh yeah, that's nice." That Bayer, or whatever picture data you are dealing with must be very delicately handled in order to extract the best image possible. Without knowing the technical specs, there's no way to be 100% sure you are utilizing the data to its potential. Sure, you can know a little, and because Graeme and others have done most of the hard work for you in a technical sense, still get a nice picture. But there may still be ways the picture can be improved. An example is knowing about the limitations of Bayer and demosaicing. If you're okay with just knowing the bare minimum and getting an average result, then great! But some of us are willing to invest the time to learn the craft even deeper, to extract every single little bit of quality we can.

 

The quality difference might not be obvious to the average person, but it may very well be to me. And since clients are putting their trust in me to deliver the high quality product I say I will, it's my responsibility to recognize these flaws, no matter how insignificant others may think they are, and address them. If I didn't know about the technology, I wouldn't know what to look for.

 

Case in point: my photo example a few pages back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 463
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
I agree with John that it's all about the look, not the technical specs. Can specs make you a better Cinematographer than an ASC member?

It's one of those chain being as strong as its weakest link type things. To end up with a good movie, you need all the links to be strong: Art, technology, money, luck, insomnia ....

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> Just curious, did you ever get a chance to actually see the 4K RED projection

> either at NAB or IBC?

 

No, which is why I've limited myself strictly to technical discussion. I'm cutting a big project at the moment and NAB was just a bear garden. I'm sure I'll see it at some point.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be frank, the look is invariably dependent on the technical specs.

 

I think there is a general misconception that the "look" or what you watch on a playback monitor or on a big screen is all there is to it. IT'S NOT. That "look" is the result of tons of data sifting, interpreting, adulterating, etc. It's just not as simple as throwing it up on a monitor and saying "oh yeah, that's nice." That Bayer, or whatever picture data you are dealing with must be very delicately handled in order to extract the best image possible. Without knowing the technical specs, there's no way to be 100% sure you are utilizing the data to its potential. Sure, you can know a little, and because Graeme and others have done most of the hard work for you in a technical sense, still get a nice picture. But there may still be ways the picture can be improved. An example is knowing about the limitations of Bayer and demosaicing. If you're okay with just knowing the bare minimum and getting an average result, then great! But some of us are willing to invest the time to learn the craft even deeper, to extract every single little bit of quality we can.

 

The quality difference might not be obvious to the average person, but it may very well be to me. And since clients are putting their trust in me to deliver the high quality product I say I will, it's my responsibility to recognize these flaws, no matter how insignificant others may think they are, and address them. If I didn't know about the technology, I wouldn't know what to look for.

 

Case in point: my photo example a few pages back.

 

Sorry Thomas... I have to disagree to a point. Until someone knows every nuance of Bayer pattern and exactly what it yields (BTW, there are many variations of "Bayer" configurations... the term is often used broadly) and has a full understanding of the entire image chain... which we are not going to give out, you are not going to be able to plot the exact course of the technology and have it directly correlate to the final image. If you have enough info, you may get in the ballpark, but you won't have the whole story. You can go to science books and Wikipedia all you want, but what you will find there is history, not the present. Graeme and the team have done many things that have never been done before, let alone published. That's why one can talk tech all you want, but until you have an image to reference, you'll never get the full "picture". We have a saying here at RED. Trial and error is a valid form of development. Getting the result 1st is what matters. We use known science and technology, theories, experimentation, trial and error and blind luck as our toolset. You might be surprised what we have discovered... that other "big" companies are not doing.

 

I have handcuffed Graeme to some extent. He can talk about known theories and obvious techknowledge, be he is biting his tongue more than you know. Our job is to make a high quality camera at a very low price. Not necessarily to explain everything we are doing to get there.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have handcuffed Graeme to some extent. He can talk about known theories and obvious techknowledge, be he is biting his tongue more than you know. Our job is to make a high quality camera at a very low price. Not necessarily to explain everything we are doing to get there.

I know your position, Jim. And it's cool. And although I used Bayer as my example in the above post, I really meant understanding the overall process from start to finish. Your camera is a very important tool in this process, but the footage from it is only a contributor to the overall work. I could go on for hours about editing workflows, color correction, etc. as being just as important. It just so happens that we've been stuck on this Bayer thing.

 

I won't downplay others' methods of achieving results. We all have our own methods. I frequently approach my work from a technical standpoint because I have learned that my ideas of what is appropriate or my aesthetic may not be appropriate in every situation. My idea of acceptable compression, for example, may not be someone else's. So, I find a way to work uncompressed. The point is that the technology is the "control," or the common point of reference. Not that it is always that easy, of course, but by knowing what I'm up against -- that is, being aware of all the parameters -- I can make better informed decisions.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to argue with that. My clients certainly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to do it but after reading 11 pages of this I feel compelled to add my 2 cents. :)

 

First a question - what are we using these cameras for? Are we, as cinematographers, shooting with them so we can get a better understanding of demosaicing, debayering, 4k'ing, and RGB HDSI RAW outputting?? Or are we trying to capture an image that will communicate something to its viewer?

 

Arising from this somewhat rhetorical question come two key points:

 

1.) The artist needs to be able to accurately predict/previsualize what type of image they will get out of the camera (creative control through consistent camera performance).

 

2.) The image the artist ends up with should please the artist as its creator.

 

I believe someone concerned with cinematography and mastering the art and craft of the field would do the following if they were interested in the Red camera.

 

a.) Test the camera - do you, from an artistic perspective, have control over the results? can you learn to consistently predict what the camera will give you and thus gain mastery of this tool.

 

b.) Look at the footage - do you like it???

 

If you can create what you desired to create and if you like the resulting visual quality/texture/vibe of the footage then you have found your new tool. The rest of it, while on occasion interesting, is for engineers to argue over.

 

Any cinematographer can follow 'a' and 'b' above and fully satisfy the needs of their art from a creator standpoint. Anyone, in our specialized and small field, not rigorous enough to follow 'a' and 'b' may well deserve to fall prey to marketing hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a.) Test the camera - do you, from an artistic perspective, have control over the results? can you learn to consistently predict what the camera will give you and thus gain mastery of this tool.

 

b.) Look at the footage - do you like it???

 

Any cinematographer can follow 'a' and 'b' above and fully satisfy the needs of their art from a creator standpoint. Anyone, in our specialized and small field, not rigorous enough to follow 'a' and 'b' may well deserve to fall prey to marketing hype.

The tech discussion that has taken place here follows "a" and "b" by default. So, by speaking up I assume you are disputing the necessity of a "non-engineer" taking it farther than that.

 

If "a" and "b" were the only factors, you could go in every other forum and dispute the necessity of learning film chemistry, manual exposure, focus, or really any photographic technique at all. Because to me, achieving "mastery" may not include those things. And who's to say I'm wrong? You? Why not go into the 35mm forum and tell John or Dominic that what they're talking about is boring and question the point of that? I mean, I don't have to know anything about film chemistry, I just have to load film, set the lens to "2.8" and press run. And I'm happy, so there is no point in learning any more than that.

 

I find it rather arrogant and selfish that many of you have "complained" about this thread. You don't have to read it. Some of us are highly intrigued by the intricacies of the tools we use, and it's not up to you to decide the level at which I'm allowed to discuss it. I have learned a great deal just from this one topic. If you want to talk about something else, go make another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I find it rather arrogant and selfish that many of you have "complained" about this thread. You don't have to read it. Some of us are highly intrigued by the intricacies of the tools we use, and it's not up to you to decide the level at which I'm allowed to discuss it. I have learned a great deal just from this one topic. If you want to talk about something else, go make another post.

 

Actually, Sir, YOU should be the one to create another thread since the original point of this thread was to discuss the LOOK of the image Manny posted. Do we all have eyes? I think we can judge the look of an image with our eyes without holding Doctoral degrees in mathematics/ science/ etc.

 

Furthermore, it is a ridiculous notion to say that understanding Bayer algorithms is as important to a Cinematographer as understanding exposure. That's like saying a great Guitar player has to understand how to build a guitar in order to play it well, and that understanding the building process is as important to playing a guitar as tuning it. Absolutely ridiculous reasoning...with all due respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this techno babble is really a function for people using a RED camera to capture images can you guys holding the PhDs on 'Frequency-domain methods for demosaicking of Bayer-sampled color images' should make an effort to relate your ideas or concepts directly back to the images at hand or at least bring back it to reality with...'so that's why I decided to go with 'this' and 'that' setting for a shot like this...'

 

Otherwise, if you guys, who seem way ahead of the curve, can't agree on this esoteric 'Frequency-domain methods for demosaicking of Bayer-sampled color images' what real practical applications does it have?

 

Besides, if Nattress won't explain the whole process, and there is no reason why he should, then everybody else's guesswork can just continue to confuse matters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is a ridiculous notion to say that understanding Bayer algorithms is as important to a Cinematographer as understanding exposure. That's like saying a great Guitar player has to understand how to build a guitar in order to play it well, and that understanding the building process is as important to playing a guitar as tuning it. Absolutely ridiculous reasoning...with all due respect.

I didn't say that. And of course it's ridiculous. My point was that I feel it's not fair to criticize me, or anyone else, for their personal approach to judging the adequacy of a piece of equipment they may use to provide a service at some point. Do you disagree?

 

The people I would have expected to tell me to get lost before anyone are the Red team themselves. But Jim and Graeme have been pretty polite and helpful. So if they don't seem to have a problem with the topic, why should you or anyone else?

 

I think we can judge the look of an image with our eyes without holding Doctoral degrees in mathematics/ science/ etc.

See, that's where our methods differ. I'm not judging it just with my eyes. As I said before, there's more to cinematography than just pulling frame grabs and posting it in a forum. The amount of latitude and how far I can push the image in color correction, for example, are not necessarily visible in a JPEG image. There's lots of data there that you don't see, that must be carefully massaged to achieve the desired result. Much like film negative vs. print.

 

Again, if you don't understand or don't care, stop bothering me. Some of us are trying to learn instead of pick a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to add, that please don't judge image / demosaic quality from the grabs posted earlier. Please look at the new stuff that people are posting instead. We've made really significant improvements throughout the image chain since April. Also, I saw an image posted from elsewhere showing a bayer pattern artifact, and again, we're working via different methods than that demosaic used (you can sort of tell what method people are using via the specific artifacts you see).

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can filter out the information they feel they need. From what I've read in the thread so far, the technical stuff is no worse than you'd find in a lot of the advanced photographic books. However, it's certainly not PhD material.

 

Musicians mightn't know how to build the guitar, but quite a few are aware of the woods being used to create the tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> Graeme and the team have done many things that have never been done before

 

Oh, I really, seriously doubt that :)

 

There ain't nothin' new in the world.

 

If they were that confident in their work they'd be publishing test charts, rather than making excuses.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Please look at the new stuff that people are posting instead. We've made really significant improvements throughout the image chain since April."

 

Graeme,

 

Is this a process that will continue indefinitely? If so, is the chip upgradeable on Red?

 

As new and improved chips come out, can you swap out the old for the new? (Kinda like putting newer film stock in an old film camera)

 

Maybe you addressed this already, my apologies if you did.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say I really have enjoyed this thread so far. I loved the technical aspect of it, and the debate of technical knowlege vs. artistic use. Even the "fighting" has had an air of fun to it (Except for Phil of course, who reminds me of a guy watching a 1000 people in a lake, swimming towards a large pot of gold, as he screams over and over: "Hey, that water's dirty!).

 

I have found all the posts very educational.

 

This forum is really improving. People are finally listening (Except for Phil of course, please see above). :)

 

Good job Stephen you've turned things around (Except for Phil... See above, then look above that again)

 

:)

 

Jay

 

I'm sitting here laughing my butt off cause I know the FLAME that is to come my way. This is very entertaining if you don't take it too seriously.

 

If I tell people I'm 39 and I am really 40, does that make me as bad as Phil says RED is? Gee... I hope not!

 

:)

Edited by Jay Kelley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the alises you get on film are not so much of a problem because of the way that the the sampling pattern is changing every frame, and is essentially random. On any system of regular samples, it's going to be easier to spot the aliases. I wonder if grain also has a masking effect?

 

Graeme

 

Is it fair to say that film gives you both signal and localized decorrelated noise ? Built in dithering so to speak, benign up to the point where it becomes (very subjectively !) objectionable.....

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> If I tell people I'm 39 and I am really 40

 

Then you're a liar; you're someone with whom I will, on point of principle, be hesitant to do business; I will start to suspect everything you say, and fear that perhaps you're also attempting to mislead me on other, more critical things.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Oh yeah? I know you are, but what am I . . . times infinity times a google!

You might want to take a look at the mathematics of countable and uncountable sets -- it sort of looks like bigger and smaller kinds of infinities.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
a.) Test the camera - do you, from an artistic perspective, have control over the results? can you learn to consistently predict what the camera will give you and thus gain mastery of this tool.

 

b.) Look at the footage - do you like it???

While shooting and looking at tests is certainly a very valuable thing do do, bear in mind that it's not by itself sufficient because you can't shoot tests of every possible image. Some knowledge of how a system works is helpful in choosing test material that might break it. Take NTSC for instance: The pattern in a herringbone jacket may in an MCU be just the right size to nail the chroma subcarrier. The windows of a distant building may give you large area flicker by nailing interlace.

 

Of course the Red guys have to keep a lid on the proprietary/patentable stuff, so they can't tell us what to look for along those lines.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think that the alises you get on film are not so much of a problem because of the way that the the sampling pattern is changing every frame, and is essentially random. On any system of regular samples, it's going to be easier to spot the aliases. I wonder if grain also has a masking effect?

That's actually something I looked into about ten years ago -- pseudo-random sampling arrays. Subject matter with regular patterns aliasing against a regular sampling structure is the worst case -- moire patterns. But to use a pseudo-random array, we'd have to standardize it in order to exchange images. The other option would be to oversample pseudo-randomly and downconvert to a regular structure. But if you're going to do that, you might as well oversample with a regular grid 2:1 and make the output Nyquist limit with a digital filter. So, bottom line, it was too much pain for too little gain.

 

BTW, random fine detail can alias against a regular sampling structure. I had a shot once with some distant trees on a dead calm day. But it looked like the leaves were fluttering in the breeze in HD. I don't know about film grain having a masking effect so much as it just has a graceful transition from image detail to small area aliasing to just seeing the grain itself.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If I tell people I'm 39 and I am really 40

 

Then you're a liar; you're someone with whom I will, on point of principle, be hesitant to do business; I will start to suspect everything you say, and fear that perhaps you're also attempting to mislead me on other, more critical things.

 

Phil

 

Well, seeing as how I am married, and not gay, therefore not trying to get laid.. I think it's safe to say I'm not TOO worried about missing out on the "more critical things" (Or did you mean something else?)

 

:)

 

Seriously, don't you think you are taking this all a little too seriously? You seem to be hung up on the fact that RED is quoting their numbers from a point of view that works for them. I am trying to think of a company that doesn't. The phrase "buyer beware" comes to mind. I believe the reason there are so few worried about the items you are, is cause as many have pointed out, all the sales statements in the world fly out the window once the customer "sees the picture".

 

RED is getting out there, and I dare say in the near future more people will be sold on the camera (Or not sold) based seeing it working before they even get a chance to read the "hype".

 

Continue to complain about this if you wish, I think most of us will just have to see for ourselves.

 

If anything it did start an interesting debate. As for the insulting statements (Which you call "being straight) to Jim and Graeme, I have no respect for that. But then this is the internet and bad posters, like bad comments, are easy to ignore. Or at least make fun of!

:)

 

Jay

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

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...