RED ONE footage

[Evan Owen]

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

 

Agreed. But Sweet & Low is starting to become palatable, finally.

[Keith Mottram]

Courtesy by Richard Darge

 

Here's the source:

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

 

Followed this link on to reduser and there is a shooter posting about problems he's haveing with the camera crashing or something. this caused the production to lose footage, but another poster (shawn) thought this should be left off the boards... this pretty much sumarises the attitude of reduser, but in defence Emanual and another did say that negative reporting should stay on the site..... i was going to say that this would be similar to the policy the kremlin has ('the only news is good news') but i think it's time to drop that line of red gags.

 

keith

 

ps never seen so much handbag swinging over a director before on this board. personally i thought the limey was a pretty darn fine piece of filmmaking.

[Evan Winter]

I can't help but think that when our children are grown up they'll look at our favorite movies and ask us why they look so fuzzy with all those tiny moving specks that are especially noticeable in the dark parts and the bright parts of the image. I have little doubt that the next generation (or maybe two) will view our grain-composed film images with the same degree of regard and interest with which the average cinema goer regards the odd herky-jerky movement of 18fps black & white film.

[Michel Hafner]

Replicating film digitally is as stupid a concept as replicating an orange or apple digitally.

It's a silly as replicating analogue audio with digital audio and analogue stills with digital stills. And we all know how utterly silly that was when it happened years ago. ;)

[Michel Hafner]

With all due respect Evan, you can't add grain to red footage in post

It's done all the time to sfx sequences to integrate them into 'grainy' footage. If it can be done for 2K CGI it can be done for 4K Red as well. No problemo.

[John Holland]

i can post if i could be bothered to show anyone a fantastic still taken with my Panasonic FZ70 i think thats what is called , stills mean f-all .

[Michel Hafner]

Do you know how many respected camera pros have no imdb credits at all? Commericals, docs, endless movies that don't make the list,

Documentaries are accepted on IMDb. Commercials are not.

[Michel Hafner]

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

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.

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

The raw image can be graded and processed to any look you want. There is nothing inherent to make blemishes stand out. They just are fully resolved. If you don't want that the solution is a digital filter away.

[Michel Hafner]

Followed this link on to reduser and there is a shooter posting about problems he's haveing with the camera crashing or something. this caused the production to lose footage, but another poster (shawn) thought this should be left off the boards... this pretty much sumarises the attitude of reduser,

That is the opinion of one poster and not the attitude of reduser. Other cameras have not even public boards where the developers participate.

[Evan Owen]

That is the opinion of one poster and not the attitude of reduser. Other cameras have not even public boards where the developers participate.

 

In fact, if you read the rest of that thread, it's quite clear that the general tone is one of wanting openness and honesty about the few bugs that may crop up early on. Jim even replied acknowledging RED knows about them and is about to release a firmware fix soon.

 

Remember, the camera's only really existed for a few months, in development for only a year and a half. It takes time to work everything out.

[Mark Williams]

The raw image can be graded and processed to any look you want. There is nothing inherent to make blemishes stand out. They just are fully resolved. If you don't want that the solution is a digital filter away.

 

The images look electronic and too sharp also it appears that blemishes wrinkles etc seem to stand apart from the skin I dont think this is a true lifelike representation Film does the job much better in my opinion. However I can't comment on what RED footage may look like projected.

[Michel Hafner]

The images look electronic and too sharp also it appears that blemishes wrinkles etc seem to stand apart from the skin I dont think this is a true lifelike representation Film does the job much better in my opinion. However I can't comment on what RED footage may look like projected.

Actually without acces to the raw unprocessed image you can not know if the look you don't like is just the result of a processing decision or something else. If too sharp means too much detail then 70mm is too sharp too. If it means unnatural looking digital sharpening then it's not on the raw like that. Why don't you grab some ungraded 4K tiffs or dpx files and start grading yourself, filter out detail, play with gamma etc. and let us know what life like means to you as present on 35mm but not digital data from Red?

Here's free software to do that if you have none at the moment: http://www.cinepaint.org/

[Adam Thompson]

It's a silly as replicating analogue audio with digital audio and analogue stills with digital stills. And we all know how utterly silly that was when it happened years ago. ;)

 

You are missing the point entirely. It's obvious where you are coming from.

 

Why is it so many people listen and digest information like an angry child?

 

Have fun in your own little worlds.

[Adam Thompson]

I can't help but think that when our children are grown up they'll look at our favorite movies and ask us why they look so fuzzy with all those tiny moving specks that are especially noticeable in the dark parts and the bright parts of the image. I have little doubt that the next generation (or maybe two) will view our grain-composed film images with the same degree of regard and interest with which the average cinema goer regards the odd herky-jerky movement of 18fps black & white film.

 

Now it sounds like films of today or even 30 years ago are all fuzzy. This is getting funny guys. I went to see Harry Potter recently and couldnt even see grain. What is it you are talking about man?

 

I don't think this thread has any merit anymore.

[Mark Williams]

Actually without acces to the raw unprocessed image you can not know if the look you don't like is just the result of a processing decision or something else. If too sharp means too much detail then 70mm is too sharp too. If it means unnatural looking digital sharpening then it's not on the raw like that. Why don't you grab some ungraded 4K tiffs or dpx files and start grading yourself, filter out detail, play with gamma etc. and let us know what life like means to you as present on 35mm but not digital data from Red?

Here's free software to do that if you have none at the moment: http://www.cinepaint.org/

 

Wouldnt be much good I have seen Peter Jacksons film and didnt think much of that it looked electronic and videoy Its no good grading a still because film is about movement. I have no doubt this new sensor will revolutionise all things digital including still cameras but I am not at all impressed with footage I have seen so far. I have heard a lot of people praise it even intercutting it with film and having to degrade it down to match. The only problem is I have only seen red footage on a computer and I dont see anything that looks resembles matches or comes close to film BUT I do see a video electronic look that I am familiar with with digital.

 

I can see an overprocessed picture that seems to increase imperfections and make them stand up and apart from the surface. Im sure many stars with lines will not apreciate even more being added through electronic processes. NOW even if you use filters your not going to end up with stars looking quite the way they did. I reckon there will be more than a few problems getting this camera in the longer run to replace film.

 

UP TO now I have yet to see a single convincing bit of red footage that competes with film.

[Tenolian Bell]

I can't help but think that when our children are grown up they'll look at our favorite movies and ask us why they look so fuzzy with all those tiny moving specks that are especially noticeable in the dark parts and the bright parts of the image.

 

Is that the same way we look at fine art paintings from 200 years ago? Today do we feel fortunate that we can take pictures that more accurately represent reality, instead of those distracting brush strokes they had to endure back then.

[Mark Williams]

I can't help but think that when our children are grown up they'll look at our favorite movies and ask us why they look so fuzzy with all those tiny moving specks that are especially noticeable in the dark parts and the bright parts of the image.

 

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

This is just getting silly Most people dont have 40' TVs and those going to the cinema are not really interested in seeing peoples skin blemishes as the new highlights. I mean are future people going to want to get up to the screen with a magnifying glass? Everyone likes the small DOF to concentrate the attention. Now it seems we need every detail in that small dof to be razor sharp before throwing a filter on it. AND TO BE ABLE TO COUNT THE Nasal hair and its glossy colours up someones nose just like you do in real life.

 

Look at me living in this HD age and yet Im happy with my old CRT Projector shoving out ordinary DVDs foregoing the HD digital projectors Perhaps Im so old fashioned and ancient

 

Film is more than just the camera its about lighting editing script acting and all the other things. Having a beautifully photographed image with nice colours is important and film does this brilliantly. I have yet to see this matched by digital films ever. Watching Indiana jones and the temple of doom seing the lush jungles and indianas rugged character NOW instead it will be Digital indy where every thing is in sharp focus and looking electronic. Thank goodness George and steve chose film.

 

EXCUSE ME IF I GIVE UP GOING TO THE CINEMA.

[Brian Drysdale]

A lot of what people think of film comes from limitations of the old telecine transfers. If you transfer the old films though a modern TK chain (especially if you've got the neg) the result bears little relationship to the older transfer version in quality.

 

I've also seen B&W WW2 newsreel material used in a couple of feature films. It's stunning and doesn't look anything like the multi generational copies that you see in so many TV documentaries.

 

These first RED cameras are basically being beta tested, so you would expect bugs to pop up. From what has happened in past with camera teething problems, you can also expect them to be discussed (sometimes at length) on forums.

[Adam Thompson]

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.

 

Oh ok so you aren't a DP... you don't want to shoot. I see. Credits? Is that all you have now? You types love to sidetrack like that. My credits are many shorts, commercials, some doc. stuff, couple industrials, several low budget indie features. Are they on imdb? Maybe or maybe not, doesn't matter. What matters is I put my time in, you have not. And why does it matter that you work for LP? Does that mean you yourself have anything worth contributing to the type of subject matter here? No way.

 

Insulting? Then you need to get out more if you can't handle my simple little comments. Your statements are bizarre because they lack interest and aren't thought out... you are a fat-free snack my friend.

 

I speak with passion because I live cinematography 24/7 and I put my time in, too many posters don't bother. They dream and arm-chair their world. I like making my arms sore from holding cameras and love trying to figure out how to make shots move someone. If a tool and an apparent emerging ideology counter my ability to do that, then I will take time to uncover it.

 

You'll never add grain or do anything like that to my footage. I'd make sure it was in my contract or I'd not bother working on it. BTW, LP bid a job I was doing recently but your sales people didn't bother returning calls to the director/prod. Nice sales staff you have there. You think I'm crude... you should hear the dir. when he's treated that way. -It ended up at a NY facility where they were nice enough to bother with someone that didn't have $1000000000000.

 

You people and your Sweet & Low... damn ya. <_<

[Adam Thompson]

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.

 

Cool Evan.

 

Here's a grab or two that was lit by candels. Shot in 1974 I think it was. It's of course too grainy to really enjoy on a big screen, but Alcott at least tried.

 

Thank you ladies and germs... I'm here all week!

 

 

Edited September 17, 2007 by Adam Thompson

[John Sprung]

film is analog each granule is infinitely variable.

Actually, no. Each grain is either latensified or not. Each grain captures exactly one binary digit worth of information, exposed or not exposed.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

And my opinion is that film manufacturers will up their game still higher when that happens then 16mm cameras will again be the mainstay of TV shows.

TV's big problem is that fewer and fewer people are watching each show as more and more streams of programming become available to them. Therefore, the only direction for budgets in down. Any show that is viable on tape will never revert to film, because film costs more.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

The raw image can be graded and processed to any look you want. There is nothing inherent to make blemishes stand out. They just are fully resolved. If you don't want that the solution is a digital filter away.

That, or just put some makeup on the actor in the first place.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Seung Han]

Just out of curiosity, you guys who don't like digital cinema, you didn't think Zodiac looked cinematic? Most people don't believe me when I tell them it was shot digitally. I thought it looked really nice.

 

By the way, I'm Korean with a full head of black hair, I look nothing like Soderbergh... :lol:

[Mark Williams]

Actually, no. Each grain is either latensified or not. Each grain captures exactly one binary digit worth of information, exposed or not exposed.

-- J.S.

 

So your saying all grains are the same size and follow a grid like pattern? Well if your disagreeing with me then youd have to You wouldnt be trying to subvert my meaning to score points would you?

 

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

TV's big problem is that fewer and fewer people are watching each show as more and more streams of programming become available to them. Therefore, the only direction for budgets in down. Any show that is viable on tape will never revert to film, because film costs more.

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

 

Programs that invest in production standards do well. People will watch high quality shows and always will.

 

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

That, or just put some makeup on the actor in the first place

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

 

NOT a good idea with the RED.