Films shot on the RED?

[Nicholas Shields]

Yeah, I'm getting out there right now to see what non-Red footage looks like - cause I haven't seen film before. Done here. Waste of time.

[Francis Kuhn]

I hear you Fran. RedUser is the bastion of fanboys, but there are very few other places to get other shooters' advice on shooting 4K (and the unique features of the RED). That's why I came here - for what I had hoped would be some progressive discussion about the camera - the kind of discussions that happen elsewhere on cinematography.com - always informative. Unfortunately, discussion of RED in forum is just as frustrating as it is at RedUser - only in the opposite direction. Both forums make it difficult to share information without the fear of attack. Even the validity of your metaphors are not safe. My comments about impact were based on my on-going interactions with some of the largest rental houses in the U.S. and Canada - historically a very reliable source of information.

 

 

Hi Nicholas,

 

I really had a hard time getting through the noise at REDuser. My second post over there was asking how I could un-subscribe, LOL! (never did get a reply.) Then I started to wade through the posts and started to see some familiar names, people I really respected. I guess it helps to have a sense of humor when you read these boards, try not to take things too seriously. There really are a lot of good people on both sides. That RED looks like a good tool for a lot of applications.

 

Fran

[DJ Joofa]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/knowing

 

I saw the trailer. I think the image quality is good, and in my opinion even if there are cameras around that produce better results, Red has joined that group that generate acceptable cinema quality images.

[Keith Walters]

I saw the trailer. I think the image quality is good, and in my opinion even if there are cameras around that produce better results, Red has joined that group that generate acceptable cinema quality images.

I've been down this road before. Unless you computer has a 50 foot monitor, a download is not a particularly reliable barometer of quality.

 

When the RED website was still stating that "Wanted" was "Shot of RED", I downloaded the trailer for that (in 640 x 480, but that still should have looked as good as a DVD). The pictures were downright diabolical! In the scene near the start where the main character meets Angelina Jolie in the supermarket, the fluorescent light fixtures were just glaringly bright vaguely-rectangular blobs. I thought: You've got to be kidding!

 

Only later did I discover that none of the RED footage shot was actually used.

 

But when I saw the film in the cinema, the same scene was fine, so it must have been just a terrible transfer.

 

and in my opinion even if there are cameras around that produce better results, Red has joined that group that generate acceptable cinema quality images.

 

I have little doubt about that.

 

I don't expect the RED to produce an awful picture, it's just that so far I haven't actually seen the results from one in a realistic situation, so I'm not really in a position to comment. As are 99% of the people who post on these forums!

 

My criticism is not about a product that I haven't actually seen in action, it's more the people who insist on crediting it with achievements it hasn't yet made. Or talking about it as though they somehow know for sure this is going to happen. Or talking about as-yet-non-existent products as though they were real, operating products.

[Keith Walters]

Hi Nicholas,

 

I really had a hard time getting through the noise at REDuser. My second post over there was asking how I could un-subscribe, LOL! (never did get a reply.) Then I started to wade through the posts and started to see some familiar names, people I really respected. I guess it helps to have a sense of humor when you read these boards, try not to take things too seriously. There really are a lot of good people on both sides. That RED looks like a good tool for a lot of applications.

 

Fran

You can use the "search" function to "find all posts by ......" which is all I ever do. I usually start with Jim Jannard, and then a few others who usually have something sensible or useful to say. When you're on the page that displays the list of all the posts, you can save that in your browser's "favourites" folder, so you can just jump straight to that page. (You have set the REDuser login thing to "remember me" for this to work though).

 

For example this link should show all recent posts by Jim Jannard.

 

It would be nice if REDuser had an "ignore" function that could be set to not display posts shorter than say 20 characters, to eliminate all the sycophantic drivel. That would certainly speed up the reading process :lol:

[Stephen Williams]

That's why I came here - for what I had hoped would be some progressive discussion about the camera - the kind of discussions that happen elsewhere on cinematography.com - always informative. .

 

Hi,

 

With all due respect, you don't seem to have been involved in those other discussions elsewhere on cinematography.com. You just come to the RED forum to be a nuisance with nothing useful to add like many other fanboys.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[Keith Walters]

You can use the "search" function to "find all posts by ......" which is all I ever do. I usually start with Jim Jannard, and then a few others who usually have something sensible or useful to say. When you're on the page that displays the list of all the posts, you can save that in your browser's "favourites" folder, so you can just jump straight to that page. (You have set the REDuser login thing to "remember me" for this to work though).

 

For example this link should show all recent posts by Jim Jannard.

Except...now it doesn't work.

It used to work. They must have changed the software on Reduser.

Hmmm maybe JarRED lurks here and saw my post:-)

[Keith Walters]

That's why I came here - for what I had hoped would be some progressive discussion about the camera - the kind of discussions that happen elsewhere on cinematography.com - always informative.

How many of the Red threads have you actually looked at?

 

Yes there are some that express criticism of the RED that wouldn't be tolerated on Reduser.

But plenty of them start with perfectly straightforward technical questions that get answered in a straightforward manner. If people prefer to come here to ask such questions instead of Reduser, that pretty well says it all.

 

If you're here to preach or indulge in viral marketing or general red-nosing you'll get what you deserve. Truth is the deadly enemy of marketing and all that.

 

This forum has a lot of things going for it in particular:

1. Unlike Reduser, posts can't be edited by anyone other than the person who wrote them, (and then you have to be a sustaining member to do that after a couple of minutes if I understand it correctly). Generally, what is said on the forum stays on the forum. Posts can come back to haunt you.

 

2. Unlike Cinematography.net, the user interface is very easy to use, making casual browsing much more practical.

 

Being exposed to a broad range of opinions is essential for up and coming production people. It can mean the difference between a foot in the door and being shown the door.

[Matthew Rogers]

I've been down this road before. Unless you computer has a 50 foot monitor, a download is not a particularly reliable barometer of quality.

 

Okay, I've seen you say that multiple times and I've finally got to call BS. Since most DI's are done at 2k (just slightly more resolution than 1080P) then a 1080p H264 should give you a good idea about quality. In fact, I would say that if the 1080p H264 download looks good, then the original should look even better since it can be 2k 4:4:4 (instead of the H264's 8-bits.) Now, if you were looking at a 640x480 file, then I might say that you are correct. However, since you can watch the knowing trailer in 1080p and the Crossing the Line trailer in 2k, you should know exactly the quality the RED can produce. On my 1080p 24" monitor here the footage looks great in both ProRes 1080p AND h264 1080p.

 

I know you've also said that because of how broadcasters butcher the signal to get it down their pipes you want to see how the RED looks broadcasted. However, I don't see how a 4:4:4 source tape from film isn't going to be degraded the same amount as a RED 4:4:4 source tape. They should both look bad (and you should be able to see that easily) or they should both look great (if the source was done well.)

 

Matthew

[Stephen Williams]

I know you've also said that because of how broadcasters butcher the signal to get it down their pipes you want to see how the RED looks broadcasted. However, I don't see how a 4:4:4 source tape from film isn't going to be degraded the same amount as a RED 4:4:4 source tape. They should both look bad (and you should be able to see that easily) or they should both look great (if the source was done well.)

 

Matthew

 

Hi Matthew,

 

I have a theory that multiple compressions can be a serious but often ignored issue. The sooner that RED can get nearer to uncompressed the better.

 

FWIW I am not a Fan of 2K D.I., often the end result starts to looks like video, OK many 2K's are actually 1080P HDCAM SR's done using video color space by facilities that don't know better. It's a much cheaper workflow but the results suck.

 

Stephen

 

EDIT If RED was really 4:4:4 then blue screen would be as good as green screen which it clearly is not. This lack of full color information may be one of the reasons that film seems to handle skin tones better than RED.

[Chris Gloag]

Red should be more focused on a 5D MK 2 competitor than match film.

[DJ Joofa]

I've been down this road before. Unless you computer has a 50 foot monitor, a download is not a particularly reliable barometer of quality.

 

I think that may be true. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a large screen. I guess I have to wait for a theatrical release.

[K Borowski]

I'm sorry to fuel the fire, but I just cannot let this post go. . .

 

 

I'm amazed at the aggression towards Red in this forum. Sure there are fanboys making unreasonable claims - but that's an everyday occurrence in every forum on the net.

 

It's not an aggression towards RED, rather a backlash from RED's attitude towards film.

 

Is it the possibility of change that angers some?

 

In general, no, change is a great thing that holds the hope of freedom for all mankind, the end of polution, prosperity, and an end to all forms of discrimination.

 

When it comes to the notion of change for the sake of cavalierly casting aside the the original, highest-resolution & dynamic range means of capturing real-world objects motion, in favor of another medium that isn't as good for the sake of economy, you're damned fu cking right it does.

 

If someone were to go about and forcibly seize every compatible memory card or recording device for your digital camera, you'd understand how film shooters feel.

 

If you don't like the hype, don't read it. Most, if not all, reasonable people can see hype for what it is.

 

Well said.

 

However, it is undeniable that the camera has made a massive impact in the marketplace. It has become a useful tool for many film makers including Steven Soderberg and Peter Jackson. Some of Hollywood's biggest stars are allowing their image to be captured by this $17,500 camera without complaint. It has far out-sold high-end offerings from Arri/Aaton/Sony/Panasonic combined.

 

Didn't you just condemn hype? Let me refer again to what you said just prior to this marvelous piece of propaganda. . .

 

If you don't like the hype, don't read it. Most, if not all, reasonable people can see hype for what it is.

 

That really is a clever attempt to condemn hype and utilize it at the same time. Ever considered a career in politics instead of filmmaking?

 

If the net was available at the time of the "flat" vs. "round" world discussion, the threads would probably parallel this one in their descent into the ridiculous.

 

So film is not only a detriment to the democratized utopia that free filmmaking will usher in just as free music did, but it is a factual fallacy now too? How many people has the Catholic Church imprisoned for using a video camera?

[Keith Walters]

It's not an aggression towards RED, rather a backlash from RED's attitude towards film.

Well to be fair, it's more a backlash against extravagant statements by ignorant fanboys than any attitude from "RED" .

Jannard has never claimed the RED was better than film, as this post points out

Having said that, he doesn't exactly go out of his way to tie down all the loose cannons flying around the deck of the good ship RED I :lol:

 

When it comes to the notion of change for the sake of cavalierly casting aside the the original, highest-resolution & dynamic range means of capturing real-world objects motion, in favor of another medium that isn't as good for the sake of economy, you're damned fu cking right it does.

I don't think people would be quite so irritated if the notion was pushed purely of the sake of economy, it's more the bonehead notion that all the highly-paid professionals with thousands of years' experience between them, can suddenly be replaced overnight by a rabble of ignorant fanboys, by the simple expedient of switching to video origination.

 

From what I've heard from actual working pros here and elsewhere, using a RED is neither easy or cheap.

[John Doe Walters]

using a RED is neither easy or cheap.

You wish! :lol:

[Francis Kuhn]

Unfortunately, discussion of RED in forum is just as frustrating as it is at RedUser - only in the opposite direction.

 

Hi Jarred,

 

Nicholas makes a good point. I just cracked open your "Branded" Red Discussion thread over there at REDuser while trying to show my six year-old daughter a few things about the camera. (She actually likes all those nifty space-age renders.)

 

Look, don't get me wrong--I can still remember my first beer. But do us all a favor: If you and the rest of the frat boys and girls are bored and feel the need to post these things, it's totally cool with me. Nothing wrong with a little fun. Maybe just put a PG warning on it. Fair enough?

 

Thanks,

 

-Fran

[Keith Walters]

Hi Jarred,...

Jarred? As in JarRED?

Did he actually post something here, or you just turning on the Bat Signal :rolleyes:

Perhaps this forum has its uses after all!

[Matthew Rogers]

I have a theory that multiple compressions can be a serious but often ignored issue. The sooner that RED can get nearer to uncompressed the better.

 

I think that's why RED is moving towards the REDCODE 225/250 for compression. I know that the new FCP/Color workflow has much less noise now than my previous workflow of rendering ProRes out of RedCine, using Color for CC and then rendering ProRes again out of Color.

 

EDIT If RED was really 4:4:4 then blue screen would be as good as green screen which it clearly is not. This lack of full color information may be one of the reasons that film seems to handle skin tones better than RED.

 

So then, no Bayer pattern sensor could ever be considered 4:4:4, correct? Even as uncompressed data. What would you rate the RED as then? 4:2:2? 4:4:2? I know other people have been having issues with a more gray skintones, but I have yet to run into that problem. Been getting very nice, accurate skintones when in Rec709.

 

Matthew

[Dan Goulder]

I know other people have been having issues with a more gray skintones, but I have yet to run into that problem. Been getting very nice, accurate skintones when in Rec709.

 

Matthew

How have you avoided this "problem"? Can you post some examples?

[David Mullen ASC]

How have you avoided this "problem"? Can you post some examples?

 

I don't see why getting good skintones is impossible with 4:2:2 in Rec 709 for TV broadcast --even film only ends up 4:2:2 for most video viewing. On my Genesis TV series, we used 4:2:2 mode for everything and the skintones looked fine.

 

It's not really technically accurate to call a debayered image naturally "4:2:2".

[Matthew Rogers]

How have you avoided this "problem"? Can you post some examples?

 

Here is a frame from a short film I DP'ed back in early Sept. on the RED http://www.macvilleproductions.com/larry/A...907RL_00121.jpg

 

I feel like the skin tone on him looks pretty good. It's pretty accurate to what the actor with his makeup on really looked like under the lights.

 

All I do is make sure the talent has good, strong makeup on (if I am using a lot of light), and I've had no issues otherwise. I do monitor off the camera in REC709 instead of Redspace and that seems to help the image a ton (with Redspace on, I find that people tend to underexpose.) If the client is complaining about the slightly desaturated look in REC709, I just bump the saturation to 1.2 or 1.3 and their complaints go away.

 

David, what would you say is the native 0:0:0 of the RED? I've noticed in my tests that I do lose just a slight bit of information when I go to 4:2:2 (but not enough to matter to me since I tend not to push my image that far), but it does make sense that the camera is not capturing a full "4:4:4" image so to speak.

 

Matthew

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know if there really is a way of measuring whether a debayered RAW image is "true" RGB or 4:4:4 video. I suppose you can try measuring line resolution in each individual channel to see of they match each other, versus an obvious drop in resolution in the red and blue... on the other hand, film certainly does not have the same resolution in each color layer, and perhaps even 3-CCD cameras don't deliver identical color resolution in each channel at 4:4:4. I don't know.

 

In fact, one DP I know is convinced that one method to make 3-CCD photography look more film-like is to defocus the red channel, to match the softer look of red information when shooting film.

 

So I'm not sure, other than obviously 4:4:4 has the same data levels per channel, to know what 4:4:4 means in practical terms compared to other formats. It probably makes a difference in some cases and less in others.

 

I thought the main problem with using blue for chromakeys with the RED was the level of noise in the blue channel (a similar problem with film actually, except that it is a grain issue) not a lack of blue information or resolution. Anyway, for "Manure" we were actually told to use blue instead of green for the RED camera by the company doing the effects. So we did, though I wasn't entirely convinced it was the right idea. But considering how much brown we had in our shots, perhaps blue created a stronger difference than green.

[Matthew Buick]

I don't think people would be quite so irritated if the notion was pushed purely of the sake of economy, it's more the bonehead notion that all the highly-paid professionals with thousands of years' experience between them, can suddenly be replaced overnight by a rabble of ignorant fanboys, by the simple expedient of switching to video origination.

 

I don't think that could happen. Whether it's the RED or a 35mm camera expertise will be needed to succesfully use either. No fanboy, either a RED one or 35mm one could replicate the work, or threated the livelihood or employability of a true professional, whether they shoot film or otherwise.

 

Not that I call myself a true professional you understand. In few years maybe, for now I'm wearing an 'L' plate, and with pride too.

 

I don't really understand the situation with RED. Why is there such a fanboy scene? Why are there not groups of chauvinistic sycophantic fanboys for other cameras too? I have personal experience of the HV20 forum, and none of the members I have encountered are like that. Absolutely none. Why does the RED attract such a bizarre crowd? Could it be baceause it looks like a rifle's heatseeking sight?

 

Not that I'm critiscising the RED, Jim Jannard, or any genuine RED users.

[David Mullen ASC]

A 35mm-sensor digital cinema camera for the same price as a Panasonic SDX900 more or less (accessories not included...) has lowered the entry point for many people who wanted to be shooting high-end HD and digital cinema images but couldn't afford it. Of course, some have discovered they couldn't afford the RED ONE package either, but now there is the Scarlet to get their hopes up.

 

It has brought out a lot of latent hostility that some people have against a professional world that seems to require a lot of money to compete in (never having spent more than $900 on any piece of equipment, I beg to differ on the cost of entering the professional world...) along with independent filmmakers who, for irrational reasons, have blamed expensive technology (like film) as the barrier to their success or ability to get a movie made.

 

So it's a bit of a feeding frenzy -- RED plays to their youth, energy, and feeling of being outsiders with marketing terms like "revolution" (and I don't really blame a successful marketing strategy, this is capitalism after all) and they in turn feed the fire more and more through posts that attack anything they consider part of the "establishment" that is holding them back. And their targets are wide-ranging, from other camera companies, film and video, to anything else that actually costs money to buy or rent.

 

The constant political furor over the still camera lenses vs. cine lenses debate is a prime example. For some people on RedUser, enumerating the deficiencies of still camera lenses for movie work is akin to being the Czar of Russia and praising the virtues of serfdom, just because of the high cost of cine lenses. It's like being called an elitist for pointing out that gold is more expensive than lead.

 

The simple truth is that what RED provides is basically a higher-quality cinema image at significantly lower costs than were previously available. Whether that is revolutionary or merely evolutionary, I'll let historians decide. It certainly was a sea-change that shook up the video camera market, not to mention is part of an accelerating trend away from film as an origination medium for motion pictures. But it's my nature to avoid hyperbole, so I am loathe to toss out labels like "revolutionary" or "genius", etc. Some people, more passionate types, are not so hesitant to avoid such terms.

 

Now mind you that, before RED, lower-quality technology did not stop many people from pursuing their filmmaking dreams, whether they were shooting on Super-8, Super-16, DV, HDV, whatever they could get their hands on. I'm not sure if significantly more people today are shooting movies thanks to RED... or it's the same number, just that their movies simply look better than they would had they been shot on a HVX200.

 

I don't want to knock passion though -- without it, great things are never accomplished. I just wish some people coupled it with a more accurate view of the world around them, and valued the things that truly should be valued.

 

Ultimately, the RED camera is a tool, and whether it ends up being used to create art or crap is up to the person wielding the tool. But for some people, RED is also a religion, a lifestyle choice, a fashion statement, whatever, and it can be hard to have a rational discussion of the RED technology with people who want to put the camera on a pedestal and worship it, rather than put it on their shoulders and shoot with it.

 

What I admire about RED the most is that they have taken a significant leap away from ENG-style video technology into the future of digital cinema cameras that we all knew was coming but wondered why it hadn't arrived yet. The Arri-D20 was promising, as was the Dalsa, yet they seemed to be merely experiments that some people dabbled in. The lower price point of RED, naturally coupled with a high volume of sales, did more to push RAW data recording technology than five years of Vipers, D20's, etc. It's a significant achievement that will have long term ramifications. They have also shook other camera companies out of their technical doldrums and showed that a much faster turnaround in camera design evolution was possible. Now everyone else has to figure out how they will address RED's products. This ultimately benefits the consumer no matter who they end up going with.

[Matthew Buick]

So RED could actually be a vessel for dispassionate and/or untalented filmakers to hide behind? That would explain why it attracts such a crowd. I blame the pace of digital imaging technology foer the dispassion.

 

Not that I say I'm especially talented as a DoP. But I'm certainly very passionate.

 

If these people choose RED to allieviate their stresses, worries, or percieved shortcoming then they should be allowed to. One of the hallmakrs of a democratic society is freedom of belief. What I personally don't tolerate is the aggression these people show to those who even suggest their chosen diety (Jannard or RED) is nothing less than perfect. They need a real lesson in respect for their fellow individual.

 

I think keeping a RED tongue while around these people is a good course of action. :P Don't offend their god, and they shouldn't offend yours.

 

 

With that in mind, I'm off to bed. Night all!