RED ONE footage

[Mark Williams]

I have heard a lot of nonsense regarding HD. As for me I can easily distinguish between video and film The claim that Video is far better than film is ludicrous it isnt. Even if video had 8million times more defination there comes a point where it dont matter anymore because the eye cant see it. As for Grain in 35mm I have hardly noticed it in most films at the cinema. The first thing you always notice though is the film look. So I can say in my experience and what I have seen so far that film out does video VERY easily.

 

Phils comments regarding the RED seem to revolve around testing against film and the data often quoted shows how the RED outperforms film in all areas and therefore is better. The only problem is it isnt. At least not to my eyes and doubtless the film going public.

 

Phil seems to be correct in his arguments which are null and voided by them being insignificant and meaningless although has been pointed out could have consequences in post etc.

 

Phil is very knowledgeable and is correct in what he has been saying so therefore the discussion has been worthwhile. Although Phil has been right, some want to undermine him and ask why he bothered when its so small. Phils answer is the truth is at stake. The same could be said of the reverse? Why make the claims why not just tell the complete story? Whose interest is it in anyway? Obviously the RED wants the camera to sound as good as it can but then if that gives a distorted picture Phil is quite right to point it out. And quite right to mention if thats wrong then other stuff might be too.

 

Thanks Phil for standing your ground and making the truth heard even though some are attempting to undermine and question your motivations. Funny the more they do that the more interested I become even if the technical stuff is beyond me.

 

I know what I see Film is still way better and by better I mean preferable and more lifelike.

[Phil Rhodes]

> Phils comments regarding the RED seem to revolve around testing against film

 

I've said several times that specifically isn't the case.

 

Phil

[Mark Williams]

> Phils comments regarding the RED seem to revolve around testing against film

 

I've said several times that specifically isn't the case.

 

Phil

 

Thats why I used the word seem and revolve and not is and does.

 

Much advertising has been done of the fact the red is better than film indeed some have openly said this. and lets face it if the argument was just about competing with HD then their would be no argument as the selling point would be HEY look you can use film lenses at a fraction of the cost of HD.

 

BUT NO

 

The real argument is to show the RED is better than film. Or not whatever the opinion of whatever camp your in is.

[Brad Grimmett]

But then this is the internet and bad posters, like bad comments, are easy to ignore. Or at least make fun of!

 

Jay

And then there are posters who constantly bait people in order to start arguments, while never adding any pertinent information to the debate.

[Jay Kelley]

And then there are posters who constantly bait people in order to start arguments, while never adding any pertinent information to the debate.

 

I agree Brad... Those idiots!

 

Jay

[Jay Kelley]

RED is not finished, in fact there are a number of accessories and features in the camera that are not yet available. They won't have a major impact on the image (The subject of this thread), but they will affect workflow.

 

A piece of equipment that is not yet out is the viewfinder. I am personally very interested in what this will do. My reservation number is 324 and I am due to have my camera in November. I have to say I am glad to be able to get the camera just late enough for these various issues to be worked out.

 

As for picture quality, it looks wonderful so far, but I have yet to see a seasoned color correction artist get a hold of some perfectly (or near perfect) lit shots to make magic with.

 

There are still so many unanswered questions. The answers are coming, but it's taking some time.

 

Jay

[John Sprung]

I know what I see Film is still way better and by better I mean preferable and more lifelike.

I saw the Red and also Arri's D-20 in 4k projection at CineGear back in June. What Red demos have you seen?

 

Much as I like film, I have to admit that Red, barring some new showstopper gotcha, hits a price/performance point that'll grab a huge share of the market.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jay Kelley]

I saw the Red and also Arri's D-20 in 4k projection at CineGear back in June. What Red demos have you seen?

 

Much as I like film, I have to admit that Red, barring some new showstopper gotcha, hits a price/performance point that'll grab a huge share of the market.

-- J.S.

 

I would lay you odds, that if Battlestar Galactica were not being shut down after this year, they would be seriously looking at RED. The DP on that show LOVES to push the digital format. He'd have a blast with RED.. But I'd be willing to bet he'd go with 2k scaled in order to get the higher frame rates promised (or heavily suggested) in the future. I believe space will be an issue to some. I could be wrong though..

 

Jay

[Gary McClurg]

But I'd be willing to bet he'd go with 2k scaled in order to get the higher frame rates promised (or heavily suggested) in the future. I believe space will be an issue to some. I could be wrong though..

 

Jay

 

I thought the frame rate thing was dropped because you had to go out through some port thing...

 

And I'm not sure if you had a good weekend or not there... with some of those wild posts of yours... :lol:

[John Sprung]

I would lay you odds, that if Battlestar Galactica were not being shut down after this year, they would be seriously looking at RED.

It would seem to be a natural for single camera episodic TV in general. If your market is digital, it makes sense to go digital all the way.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Most]

It would seem to be a natural for single camera episodic TV in general. If your market is digital, it makes sense to go digital all the way.

-- J.S.

 

Only if it doesn't take any longer to shoot with it (i.e., no additional lighting or recording issues), and you have all of the same production options (i.e., overcranking and undercranking), and you have a sensible, acceptable archival element when you're done. The fact that single camera episodic shows are still overwhelmingly shot on film is largely due to these three factors. What you say is theoretically true, but only if these conditions are met. Even though we've had HD capable production cameras for over 6 years now, it's still not the case. If it were, things might have changed by now. They haven't.

[John Sprung]

Yes, as I've said, unless there's some new showstopper gotcha....

and you have a sensible, acceptable archival element when you're done.

How about S.two and their LTO tape backup? Getting away from helical scan sure would be nice.

 

The multi-camera shows have already pretty much flipped over to HD shooting. They're trusting D-5 and HDCam SR as archival elements. The DOF they get from 2/3" chips is also an advantage for sitcoms.

 

We'll have to see what happens over the next few months as the rental houses get their Reds and people test them. It could be fun.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Seung Han]

I know what I see Film is still way better and by better I mean preferable and more lifelike.

 

I actually think Red footage looks much more lifelike than film, whatever that means. I don't see different sizes of grain when I open my eyes. As far as people zooming in 400%-800% on Red images to point out aliasing and compression artifacts, my eyes don't do that either. When my eyes see, it actually looks more similar to what Red is recording, if that is what you mean by more lifelike.

 

Also, I don't necessarily want my digital images to look like film. Film is film, digital is digital. Let Kodak come up with better stock and let Red come up with better code. The directors will decide which is the more suitable 'look' for their story. Red doesn't need to prove that it is better than film. It just needs to show that it is a viable option as a tool to express creative ideas...

[Phil Rhodes]

> How about S.two and their LTO tape backup? Getting away from helical scan sure would be nice.

 

For a start there's currently no way of recording Red to that system - or rather, I interpret previous statements to indicate that the HD-SDI outputs are not yet active. Whether the onboard demosaic is up to production standards is another matter entirely.

 

This is quite apart from any concern over whether you want to have anything to do with S2, which I would personally suggest you don't.

 

For the moment, you may as well just dump the recorded, er, whatevertheyare files onto a network-attached tape drive such as those made by Quantum. There's no software innovation really required to do that tomorrow and I don't think anyone could reasonably have a problem with it.

 

Phil

[Jay Kelley]

I actually think Red footage looks much more lifelike than film, whatever that means. I don't see different sizes of grain when I open my eyes. As far as people zooming in 400%-800% on Red images to point out aliasing and compression artifacts, my eyes don't do that either. When my eyes see, it actually looks more similar to what Red is recording, if that is what you mean by more lifelike.

 

Also, I don't necessarily want my digital images to look like film. Film is film, digital is digital. Let Kodak come up with better stock and let Red come up with better code. The directors will decide which is the more suitable 'look' for their story. Red doesn't need to prove that it is better than film. It just needs to show that it is a viable option as a tool to express creative ideas...

 

I like the look of film more as well... But I cannot afford it. I also wonder what the simulation factor of RED footage will be for someone that wants to attempt to make it resemble film... We'll see.

 

I grew up watching film, and I doubt I will dismiss it anytime soon. Just cause I cannot afford it does not mean I don't think it's beautiful.

 

 

Hey Gary, the weekend was ok, but today was pretty wild. Very stressful with work offers, new productions and stuff. Sometimes helps to blow off creative steam. Better now...

 

:)

 

Jay

[Seung Han]

I grew up watching film, and I doubt I will dismiss it anytime soon. Just cause I cannot afford it does not mean I don't think it's beautiful.

 

I think this is key in underestanding what we expect in moving images in terms of aesthetics. I grew up watching film and tv as well, but recently I have been watching more digital cinema than film movies and I have slowly started to appreciate its aesthetics as being different than film. For some stories, especially relationship dramas, the slight video look in high res maintains a cinema quality while giving the viewer I believe a more intimate, voyeuristic texture that can be pretty powerful. I think advances like Red well blur that line even more.

 

When I talk to my nephews, who play video games all day and watch HDTV, they know the difference between film and digital but get much more excited about advances in digital imaging. They buy the latest digital still cameras, record on the latest consumer digital video camera and they play around with those images in PSD and iMovie. They don't think film looks better because their main point of reference in moving images is the best they've seen in digital.

 

Many people involved in this industry have a very evolved aesthetic tied to film which is understandable. But that deep committment stems from a lifetime of experience through a long process of fine-tuning. Younger people who have spent most of their time dealing with zeroes and ones to capture images do not have all those years invested in making film look the best film can look. They have a few years invested in making zeroes and ones look the best zeroes and ones can look. But, most importantly, this younger generation whose main reference is the digital aesthetic have many more years to finetune their tastes than we do...

[Mark Williams]

I actually think Red footage looks much more lifelike than film, whatever that means. I don't see different sizes of grain when I open my eyes. As far as people zooming in 400%-800% on Red images to point out aliasing and compression artifacts, my eyes don't do that either. When my eyes see, it actually looks more similar to what Red is recording, if that is what you mean by more lifelike.

 

Obviously LIFELIKE would mean a 3D representation along with the smells etc ALL video and film is a representation and a move up from theatre. NO Media is lifelike yet.

 

VIDEO does not capture reality in any sense of the world it somehow manages to remove any and all emotions and sense of scale it presents the world in a sort of graphical representation that censors it. This makes it good for news footage.

 

FILM does not capture reality in the true sense but it gives a feeling of unpredictabilty along with beautiful images that capture nature in a more fluid and therfre natural way.

 

As for Video many kids are bought up on it and wont neccesarily have the sense to know what their missing however those films from the past made with real film will continue to outdo future efforts in video

 

IE Indiana jones. The original starwars and any number of films that will never be replicated or have the same impact from video.

 

Yes the RED is a breakthrough camera and will help many to learn and establish themselves in the art of film making

 

BUT SERIOUSLY RED cannot compete with film. Simply because its Video and will never achieve that film look with its rigid boxes.

[Thomas Worth]

They don't think film looks better because their main point of reference in moving images is the best they've seen in digital.

As far as motion pictures go, it is going to take a very long time for video or digital cinema to be anyone's frame of reference, no matter what your age. The reason is there's already 100 years worth of movies in circulation, most of them shot on film. Not to mention all the TV shows and music videos shot on film. Plus, because of BitTorrent and YouTube, many old music videos and TV shows are coming back.

[Michel Hafner]

VIDEO does not capture reality in any sense of the world it somehow manages to remove any and all emotions and sense of scale it presents the world in a sort of graphical representation that censors it. This makes it good for news footage.

FILM does not capture reality in the true sense but it gives a feeling of unpredictabilty along with beautiful images that capture nature in a more fluid and therfre natural way.

That is just ideology not rooted in reality. An illusion. Red is not video in the traditional video sense anymore than scanned film is video or digital stills are video. If this is about analogue versus digital and especially their different artifacts no side has a monopoly for beauty or fluidity or reality or whatever the buzzword is to justify one's conditioning and subjective response as truth. Digital cinema will in time have the power to give any look one wishes, from typical film look with all its artifacts and peculiarities respectively qualities to looks film is not capable of, with a precision impossible to achieve with traditional film means. Just the same as with digital audio. Digital is just a more powerful technology to deal with originally analogue signals than analogue processing is. Plain and simple.

[Mark Williams]

Sorry Michael have to disagree with you there Fluidity is not created by a conditioning of the mind. It is actually real and present. For example when light strikes silver halides it creates a different effect on each and everyone. Leaving behind a fluid record of reality. Video is confined to rigid boxes. We can see the world because of light. Light is ever changing and effects physically the halides size and shape. Matching the pattern of nature itself.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Mark Collins

[Seung Han]

One strength in critical analysis is to find great value in differences, not in repitition. To approach something, anything, from a negative standpoint breeds a bias analysis towards a perspective looking up.

 

But, I didn't know this was a competition between 35mm film and digital cinema.

 

All I can say is it is never bad to have different options to create something meaningful. And from the footage I am seeing from the RED, I think a lot of people will appreciate this choice to tell their stories from an aesthetic consideration independent of money, tech specs or hype.

 

Also, most people I know watching content do it mostly off plasma screens, HD screens and computer screens. A movie maybe once a week or once a month, then chances are good that its digitally projected... Go figure.

[Mitch Gross]

I would lay you odds, that if Battlestar Galactica were not being shut down after this year, they would be seriously looking at RED. The DP on that show LOVES to push the digital format. He'd have a blast with RED.. But I'd be willing to bet he'd go with 2k scaled in order to get the higher frame rates promised (or heavily suggested) in the future. I believe space will be an issue to some. I could be wrong though..

 

Jay

I guess that's why they shot with the Phantom HD for a bunch of high speed.

[John Sprung]

Also, most people I know watching content do it mostly off plasma screens, HD screens and computer screens. A movie maybe once a week or once a month, then chances are good that its digitally projected... Go figure.

And how often do they see a live stage play? We're talking about a much smaller jump here, between film and digital, than happened a century ago when film began to compete with live performances.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Seung Han]

And how often do they see a live stage play? We're talking about a much smaller jump here, between film and digital, than happened a century ago when film began to compete with live performances.

-- J.S.

 

I agree, but its like shouting into the wind...

[Michel Hafner]

Sorry Michael have to disagree with you there Fluidity is not created by a conditioning of the mind. It is actually real and present. For example when light strikes silver halides it creates a different effect on each and everyone. Leaving behind a fluid record of reality. .

Nonsense. In the end it's an analogue signal with a measurable dynamic range, noise floor and resolution (far from infinite) and there is a digital version of it that contains all relevant information. There is no magic here. There is no need to model every molecule of the film emulsion to replicate the look exactly so no human can tell the digital version apart fro the analogue. Digital can do all film looks. Film can only do a subset of all digitally created looks. Digital is a superset of film, not the other way around. (I'm talking about the principle, not specific product. There are no digital cameras yet that can simulate all film cameras.)