RED ONE footage

[Guest]

It's amazing how far this topic has wandered... and back... and away again.

 

How does every one feel about 14th century French poetry?

 

R,

[Mark Williams]

Hiding behind words like 'organic' and 'natural' to compare film and digital is rather flimsy.

 

Pixels are not reacting to light?

 

Sensors are not made from 'natural' matter? I think many filmmakers using the digital workflow might argue convincingly that the digital workflow is more 'organic' than the workflow for film. Read up on Fincher and other directors never turning back after experiencing a tapeless workflow. Unless there is some 'organic' cinema committee I am unaware of certifying freshness for movie projects, I am not getting your argument...

 

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

What argument? My view that film is organic? Thats not an argument its a statement of fact. the silver halide layer absorbs light, electrons within the layer attach to the halide crystals, creating what are known as sensitivity specks. Light accordingly effects chemical changes in the silver-halide layer, leaving a latent image on the film.

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

 

As far as the Indy film is concerned, I believe Steven Spielberg is directing, and I completely respect his choice to shoot on 35mm. I am sure the film will look fantastic. Again, different directors will choose what they believe is the best format to tell their stories.

 

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

Yes he went for his artistic choice and the one Steven believes will be the best. George whos experience with HD went along with this choice.

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

 

 

My point was that big name directors who can choose any format regardless of budget considerations are choosing digital workflows because they believe the aesthetic is right for their stories and also they like the 75% certified fresh workflow...

 

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

Seems like many directors are queuing up to work in HD and are returning to film?

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

 

As far as your predictions about 16mm film, I wouldn't double down on those cards...

 

 

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

Thank you for your opinion. However I have mine. Film has undergone dramtic improvements and there is no reason to suppose it wont go much further.

[Evan Winter]

Hey R,

 

don't know much about 14th century french poetry :) but here is a large quicktime (viewable through the link) of uncorrected and naturally lit footage shot with the Red One: http://brainspasm.com/red/MiniRedGuy.mov (the link was posted at www.reduser.net).

 

I like what I see so far and I'm looking forward to the right opportunity to take the Red camera out for a test spin on a music video (hopefully before the year is out). If I get the chance I'll report back on the experience (with notes, stills, thoughts, workflow, etc).

 

Evan

[Guest]

Hey R,

 

don't know much about 14th century french poetry :) but here is a large quicktime (viewable through the link) of uncorrected and naturally lit footage shot with the Red One: http://brainspasm.com/red/MiniRedGuy.mov (the link was posted at www.reduser.net).

 

I like what I see so far and I'm looking forward to the right opportunity to take the Red camera out for a test spin on a music video (hopefully before the year is out). If I get the chance I'll report back on the experience (with notes, stills, thoughts, workflow, etc).

 

Evan

 

It's an interesting "look". Sharp any way. I notice the shooter deadstacked the baby. Most pros would not make a composition error like this. Just an observation.

 

R,

[Evan Winter]

'deadstacked'? pardon my ignorance, what exactly is that? :huh:

[Evan Winter]

p.s. - two more links to Red One footage:

 

1. http://brainspasm.com/red/UpInSmoke.mov

Red Settings: ASA 1000, Shutter 1/48.

Red Zoom: 50mm, T3

The shot opens lit solely by the flame of a match.

 

2. http://brainspasm.com/red/KillerRedFish.mov

Red Settings: ASA 1000, Shutter 1/48.

Red Zoom: 50mm, T3

[Mark Williams]

Judging from the RED footage I have seen so far I really cant see any comparison with 35mm Just a very sharp perhaps harsh video look that seems to pick out blemishs and highlight them even adding to them? Not to sure if I was an actor that I would want to have my blemishes highlighted in this manner. The blurred background looked too neat almost like a picture background had been added. The edges of the baby seemed so sharp that it looked seperate to the picture it just didnt look right to me? Also the film look seems to have been lost?

[Evan Owen]

Judging from the RED footage I have seen so far I really cant see any comparison with 35mm Just a very sharp perhaps harsh video look that seems to pick out blemishs and highlight them even adding to them? Not to sure if I was an actor that I would want to have my blemishes highlighted in this manner. The blurred background looked too neat almost like a picture background had been added. The edges of the baby seemed so sharp that it looked seperate to the picture it just didnt look right to me? Also the film look seems to have been lost?

 

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain.

 

Here's an example of some of the best footage from RED so far. Whether or not it looks like film, it sure doesn't look like ANY video I've ever seen:

 

Music Video - "Solo El Principio"

 

[EDIT] Oh yeah, this is mostly flat, ungraded footage. The graded version will be coming along soon I think.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Evan Owen

[Ken Cangi]

'deadstacked'? pardon my ignorance, what exactly is that? :huh:

 

I've never heard the term, either, although I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the backround formatiom growing out of the baby's head. That is a very obvious compositional flaw.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Jay Taylor]

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain.

 

Here's an example of some of the best footage from RED so far. Whether or not it looks like film, it sure doesn't look like ANY video I've ever seen:

 

Music Video - "Solo El Principio"

 

[EDIT] Oh yeah, this is mostly flat, ungraded footage. The graded version will be coming along soon I think.

 

It's funny you talk about grain, because that music video has quite a bit of "noise." The compression probably emphasized it, but still.

 

I keep reading comments where someone says it doesn't look like any video they've ever seen. I'll admit the Red is much higher resolution, but that's the only difference I can see. I keep waiting to be blown away, and proven wrong, but I just keep ending up disappointed! It's really rather? disappointing! :P

 

Oh well, I think I'll retire from this thread!

 

 

Jay

[Adam Thompson]

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain.

 

Here's an example of some of the best footage from RED so far. Whether or not it looks like film, it sure doesn't look like ANY video I've ever seen:

 

Music Video - "Solo El Principio"

 

[EDIT] Oh yeah, this is mostly flat, ungraded footage. The graded version will be coming along soon I think.

 

With all due respect Evan, you can't add grain to red footage in post and stocks used for film outs are extremely slow, ultra fine stocks that are basically grainless. You are talking about some kind of digital video "filter". Film grain is not something that can be truly replicated without using film, which is an organic medium. The footage is nice video and lets leave it at that, it doesn't mean it's better as is implied over and over -mostly by video users, and it clearly doesn't replace anything. It's just another tool like the first F900's were or the Genesis and Dalsa, etc. is now. It's nothing new, it's just a lot cheaper.

 

Sometimes Sweet & Low works and sometimes real sugar is needed.

[Robin Buday]

With all due respect Evan, you can't add grain to red footage in post and stocks used for film outs are extremely slow, ultra fine stocks that are basically grainless. You are talking about some kind of digital video "filter". Film grain is not something that can be truly replicated without using film, which is an organic medium. The footage is nice video and lets leave it at that, it doesn't mean it's better as is implied over and over -mostly by video users, and it clearly doesn't replace anything. It's just another tool like the first F900's were or the Genesis and Dalsa, etc. is now. It's nothing new, it's just a lot cheaper.

 

Sometimes Sweet & Low works and sometimes real sugar is needed.

 

I think you'll be surprised. Over the next year or so you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. When the HVX first came out no one was extremely happy with the images but over time people tweaked with the settings and started getting some very filmic images. I think RED is going to be able to do it. Don't think that that "organic" quality won't eventually be replicated digitally. That would be a silly assumption.

[Adam Thompson]

Remember, most people go to the cinemas to escape into a fantasy world and if the advances in digital technology was hindering this process in any way, our master storytellers like Mann, Soderbergh, Lucas, Fincher, the Wachowski Bros, etc...would not even consider it.

 

What are you, 16 years old? I've never heard anyone put guy's like Soderbergh in a list of story telling "masters". I had to laugh. You need to watch some real movies man. Look at some films made in the 70's for example... damn. He's one of the worst out there... commercial, yes, and also why people with a brain refer to most modern Hollywood films as "crap" so often.

[Adam Thompson]

I think you'll be surprised. Over the next year or so you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. When the HVX first came out no one was extremely happy with the images but over time people tweaked with the settings and started getting some very filmic images. I think RED is going to be able to do it. Don't think that that "organic" quality won't eventually be replicated digitally. That would be a silly assumption.

 

No Robin what's silly is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Someday you might understand why you sound so ignorant. You also insulted my intelligence with that post. Replicating film digitally is as stupid a concept as replicating an orange or apple digitally. Will some sort of electronic medium replace film some years from now, yes, but that is because of economics, not because it's replicating anything. And I'm not saying the goal is to replicate... anyway, please post that kind of thing elsewhere. I and most here do their homework.

 

Oh and an HVX never made, nor will it ever make, a "filmic" image. You show too many true colors when you say things like that. Tools like that are toys and are built for college girls to hold when they are hired to shoot cable TV reality shows where no one apparently cares about quality... as it seems is the case for everything else now. And yes, I've used one before and feel dirty because of it, but who else was going to buy my food that week!? :blink:

[Robin Buday]

No Robin what's silly is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Someday you might understand why you sound so ignorant. You also insulted my intelligence with that post. Replicating film digitally is as stupid a concept as replicating an orange or apple digitally. Will some sort of electronic medium replace film some years from now, yes, but that is because of economics, not because it's replicating anything. And I'm not saying the goal is to replicate... anyway, please post that kind of thing elsewhere. I and most here do their homework.

 

Oh and an HVX never made, nor will it ever make, a "filmic" image. You show too many true colors when you say things like that. Tools like that are toys and are built for college girls to hold when they are hired to shoot cable TV reality shows where no one apparently cares about quality... as it seems is the case for everything else now. And yes, I've used one before and feel dirty because of it, but who else was going to buy my food that week!? :blink:

 

Adam, I'm not going to argue with you because it would just be a waste of time. Just know that time will tell what the future holds for film. I'm happy that you are a film purist but it is obvious from your posts that your knowledge of digital acquisition is minimal at best. It has been the goal for many years to have a "film alternative" in the digital realm. RED never advertised as such but it is poised to do just that in the coming years. I will check this forum for a response from you in a couple minutes because with the amount of time you spend here it should be there by then. Also, if you are going to be as brash in your coming responses as you have been so far, please be kind enough to list your credentials so that we know who we are really talking to. I looked you up on IMDB, but alas, nothing more then a couple entries. One of them video...

[Seung Han]

I was just pointing out current directors who were choosing digital over film because of aesthetic and workflow reasons. I happen to enjoy many of Soderbergh's films and think he is one of the few commercial directors who actually has the ability to build on film history and film theory in his films.

 

Sex Lies and Videotape, Kafka (daring choice for a second film), King of the Hill, Schizopolis, Underneath, The Liimey, Out of Sight...I think he has an interesting body of work. You disagree so you decided to dismiss me by saying I was sixteen.

 

Yes, yes, there are many great directors, Wilder, Sternberg, Stroheim, Hawks, Huston, Ford, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Ray, Kazan, Fuller, Cassavettes, Cocteau, Godard, Truffaut, Renoir, Fassbindeer, Ozu, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky...etc...etc...

 

My favorite films are One Life to Live by Godard, To Have and Have Not by Hawks, In a Lonely Place by Ray. Out of contemporary cinema I like the young French directors like Francois Ozon, Bruno Dumont, Olivier Assayas, Erick Zonca... I also like some of the new horror/action directors emerging from the East, particularly Miike, Park Chan-woo, Joon-ho Bong and also Kim Ki Duk, although he is more of a surreal dramatist similar to Lynch.

 

I wrote my thesis on the Pre-code films before the Hays Code went into effect. My favorite film theory books are by Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: The Movement-Iimage and Cinema 2: The Time-Image although I will always have a soft spot for the writings of Bazin.

 

Now do you feel a little better about me liking Soderbergh?

 

If you are making judgements about my 'film knowledge' from a few posts on a cinematography messageboard regarding footage from the RED ONE, I think you are being quite silly and immature...

[Seung Han]

And yes I enjoy 70s films. They are OK. :rolleyes:

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Courtesy by Richard Darge

 

Here's the source:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...85653#post85653

[Adam Thompson]

Adam, I'm not going to argue with you because it would just be a waste of time. Just know that time will tell what the future holds for film. I'm happy that you are a film purist but it is obvious from your posts that your knowledge of digital acquisition is minimal at best. It has been the goal for many years to have a "film alternative" in the digital realm. RED never advertised as such but it is poised to do just that in the coming years. I will check this forum for a response from you in a couple minutes because with the amount of time you spend here it should be there by then. Also, if you are going to be as brash in your coming responses as you have been so far, please be kind enough to list your credentials so that we know who we are really talking to. I looked you up on IMDB, but alas, nothing more then a couple entries. One of them video...

 

You are so smart and clever... you caught me! I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm a "purist", as you fans love to call anyone not on board, but stated I've worked with 24p cams, in other posts, and even said I'd own a RED (or something like it) someday more than likely... although now I'm not so sure since the hvx like footage is turning me off. Furthermore if you think imdb credits is what makes someone worthy, you are just showing how inexperienced you really are. Do you know how many respected camera pros have no imdb credits at all? Commericals, docs, endless movies that don't make the list, endless other forms of visual mediums... all don't get listed you little wannabe. Where are your credits? You have like 3 posts. Where are your other posts? reduser? or are you another film student that hopes digital technology will make you somebody one day? No one that make statements like yours would ever get to work with the people I have so far, and will be soon. I would probably fit into an emerging DP status, never claiming anything more. I'm not the most technical DP out there as digital tech bores me and I was in film school after 2000 so I'm not old and "set in my ways" with film cameras. I work on instinct and am very sensitive to what looks and feels right, and what does not in the narrative film world, and red footage and the Genesis shot Superman movie, etc. just all feels wrong to me... feels fake, kind of like I feel about you. I own a couple of the little popular 24p digi cams actually and a real camera too, an Aaton S16 cam. I'm in the running to maybe shoot an F950 feature soon and will definately be shooting a S16 feature very soon. Sounds like you have no idea how to shoot anything. I don't blame you for being jealous. Spend some time in the trenches before opening your mouth and learn to understand the field first.

 

You see fans, some men don't mind women with huge fake breasts, lots of perfume, etc. Some people even like tofu burgers and McDonald's chicken nuggets.

 

I happen to like girls that are all natural and I like grilled animal meat. Go figure. :lol:

[Adam Thompson]

If you are making judgements about my 'film knowledge' from a few posts on a cinematography messageboard regarding footage from the RED ONE, I think you are being quite silly and immature...

 

Uh, no, you are the one that listed Soder in your post, there's no way around that one man. I guess you didn't know that he's sort of a cliche in the film student and loser 40yo guy that wants to one day make a movie world. He's like you guys' god or something. It's really funny to me. You all list him... maybe it's because a lot of you guys look like him? It's as if he's the one king virgin-dork that made it out and lots of these guys all adore him for it. :lol: Not one of his films are talked about a few years after. Well maybe the Sex Lies one, but other than that, no way. He's the king of trendy not to mention he ruined one of the best Sci-fi stories ever with his student-like remake pile of crap with some of the worst casting ever. (Rent the Russian version!)

 

Immature and silly? You use the language of an annoying sister dude. ;)

[Mark Williams]

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain.

 

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

No I didnt mean grain. Im talking about skin blemishes they appear to stand out way to much and exagerrated. I would have to say that its not defination and sharpness its actually highlighting strengthening and expanding on anything different? If you look in the mirror skin and belmishes have a rounded and merging quality. Sorry but this doesnt look right.

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

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Uh, no, you are the one that listed Soder in your post, there's no way around that one man. I guess you didn't know that he's sort of a cliche in the film student and loser 40yo guy that wants to one day make a movie world

 

He's the king of trendy not to mention he ruined one of the best Sci-fi stories ever with his student-like remake pile of crap with some of the worst casting ever. (Rent the Russian version!)

 

 

Technically I would say Tarkovsky's Solaris is also sort of cliche film student--indie--snob film material... but then again it's one of my favorite films of all time along with Tarkovsky's Sacrifice... uh oh... but ... wait... that means... I'm--We're--- oh no.

 

P.S. the cinematography of the new Solaris was gorgeous I do have to give credit where credit is due.

[Adam Thompson]

Technically I would say Tarkovsky's Solaris is also sort of cliche film student--indie--snob film material... but then again it's one of my favorite films of all time along with Tarkovsky's Sacrifice... uh oh... but ... wait... that means... I'm--We're--- oh no.

 

P.S. the cinematography of the new Solaris was gorgeous I do have to give credit where credit is due.

 

Well I didnt say I liked it that much. I mean he copied 2001 in his own way. I hate to say that, but we all know its true. :unsure:

 

You liked that new version? I'll agree to disagree with you there, outside of the talented composer he got to work with. Maybe it was the very dated production design that upset me so much but I thought the camera work was extremely average or at least very trendy, like all of his. He's also a prick in that he doesn't give his gaffers the credit they should get. He'd be nothing without them lighting everything for him. I guess he's just the epitome of everything I hate about the business so it's tough to look around that.

 

I'm steering things way off topic, sorry!

[Dominic Cochran]

He's also a prick in that he doesn't give his gaffers the credit they should get. He'd be nothing without them lighting everything for him.

 

Are you kidding or serious?

 

Where have you seen that he actually DENIGRATES the contribution of his "gaffers" specifically?

 

I mean, if he never specifically mentioned them in some interview, does that mean that Kubrick thought gaffers were a waste of budget?

 

From what I can see after watching Soderbergh's films gaffers get full credit, and from what I know for sure, all the checks have cleared.

[Robin Buday]

You are so smart and clever... you caught me! I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm a "purist", as you fans love to call anyone not on board, but stated I've worked with 24p cams, in other posts, and even said I'd own a RED (or something like it) someday more than likely... although now I'm not so sure since the hvx like footage is turning me off. Furthermore if you think imdb credits is what makes someone worthy, you are just showing how inexperienced you really are. Do you know how many respected camera pros have no imdb credits at all? Commericals, docs, endless movies that don't make the list, endless other forms of visual mediums... all don't get listed you little wannabe. Where are your credits? You have like 3 posts. Where are your other posts? reduser? or are you another film student that hopes digital technology will make you somebody one day? No one that make statements like yours would ever get to work with the people I have so far, and will be soon. I would probably fit into an emerging DP status, never claiming anything more. I'm not the most technical DP out there as digital tech bores me and I was in film school after 2000 so I'm not old and "set in my ways" with film cameras. I work on instinct and am very sensitive to what looks and feels right, and what does not in the narrative film world, and red footage and the Genesis shot Superman movie, etc. just all feels wrong to me... feels fake, kind of like I feel about you. I own a couple of the little popular 24p digi cams actually and a real camera too, an Aaton S16 cam. I'm in the running to maybe shoot an F950 feature soon and will definately be shooting a S16 feature very soon. Sounds like you have no idea how to shoot anything. I don't blame you for being jealous. Spend some time in the trenches before opening your mouth and learn to understand the field first.

 

You see fans, some men don't mind women with huge fake breasts, lots of perfume, etc. Some people even like tofu burgers and McDonald's chicken nuggets.

 

I happen to like girls that are all natural and I like grilled animal meat. Go figure. :lol:

 

Wannabe? I don't want to shoot. I'm not a DP. I work in the coloring world for a company called Laser Pacific that is owned by Kodak. Digital acquisition and film scans are my business. So okay, IMDB doesn't necessarily put you on the map you are right about that. That's why I asked you what you have done, something you still haven't answered I might add... I find it hard to believe that you can find my statements at all bizarre considering the insulting and crude nature of your own. Trust me Adam, jealousy doesn't factor into it. I feel sorry that we can't talk about this in a civilized way. Maybe we got off to a bad start... If I insulted you I apologize but please give us some idea of what kind of experience you have in this industry and the projects you have worked on. If you would like to see a list of our work, please visit laserpacific.com.