Jump to content

I've been Banned from Reduser


Stephen Williams
 Share

Recommended Posts

No one.... but why bother when you can just look at an HD Monitor and see final image? (I speak from experience. I have used varicams etc.... boring :rolleyes: )

 

...prelighting without a camera/ monitor (maybe)...

 

Exactly, boooooring.

 

Shooting film is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you gonna get :D

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was amused to log in today & see the following message

 

"You have been banned for the following reason:

No reason was specified."

 

I was going to say "Welcome to the club", which includes distinguished alumni like myself that got banned from RedUser, but I noticed in further reading of this thread that you were restored. I guess you are high profile. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting film is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you gonna get :D

R,

 

As a Cinematographer I like to think I do... but I know what you mean Richard! ;)

 

With all the video guys here, I guess I set myself up for something like this! :lol: .... BRING IT!!!!!! :P I'll bet Stephen felt like this over at REDUser :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
The fundamentals of lighting, ASA, exposure, shutter, focal length, etc are still the same. The image is just being "saved" in a different way. If anything, shooting electronically is HARDER in that film gives so much more latitude ....

 

Sort of a nitpick: ASA is defined in terms of film density curves, and really doesn't exist for anything else. With any electronic camera, it's a "sorta works as if" thing. That's why people find it so difficult to decide if 320 or 160 or some other number is what they should use with the Red. It's a comfort thing, all the electronic camera makers want to bring along the familiar light meter and ASA. Trouble is, they all have a high end like slow film and a low end like fast film, the narrower dynamic range/latitude you point out.

 

Most important, all electronic cameras are their own best light meters. They have access to the data coming from the chip. It's much safer to go by their false color/zebra pattern/crawling ants display rather than any ASA and light meter approximations.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem ahem anyone shot VNF or K14 on here?

 

Anyone ever shot the original ECN?

 

 

 

Film used to be hella harder to shoot. IDK, with few rare exceptions, video just still looks UGLY, and I can't get past that, like an ugly girl. Just hard to get past, a turnoff.

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
How is it not?

 

Red is not a video camera because it's not limited to outputting video formats. To the extent that it does output video, it's for monitoring purposes, like the video tap on a film camera. The whole idea behind the Red is to do a whole bunch better than is possible within the constraints of video.

 

All chip cameras, CCD or CMOS, three chip or one, have a lot more data and dynamic range coming from the chips than can fit in even the best available HD video formats. The video camera way of dealing with that is to do loads of sophisticated and irreversible manipulation to get the picture to fit in the tiny space of tape. This means having a DIT on set, basically your dailies colorist plucked out of post and on the clock full time in production. The Red and ArriRaw idea is to simply record everything that comes off the chips as data, and deal with it in post. To accomplish this, Red uses data compression, a whole different idea than dynamic range compression.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stevie wara
...video just still looks UGLY, and I can't get past that, like an ugly girl. Just hard to get past, a turnoff.

 

There is no such thing as an ugly girl, and if there were, then you have just insulted all the ugly girls in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red is not a video camera because it's not limited to outputting video formats. To the extent that it does output video, it's for monitoring purposes, like the video tap on a film camera. The whole idea behind the Red is to do a whole bunch better than is possible within the constraints of video.

 

All chip cameras, CCD or CMOS, three chip or one, have a lot more data and dynamic range coming from the chips than can fit in even the best available HD video formats. The video camera way of dealing with that is to do loads of sophisticated and irreversible manipulation to get the picture to fit in the tiny space of tape. This means having a DIT on set, basically your dailies colorist plucked out of post and on the clock full time in production. The Red and ArriRaw idea is to simply record everything that comes off the chips as data, and deal with it in post. To accomplish this, Red uses data compression, a whole different idea than dynamic range compression.

 

-- J.S.

 

I didnt want to hijack this thread, so I responded to this on a new thread I made:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=44389

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
I was going to say "Welcome to the club", which includes distinguished alumni like myself that got banned from RedUser, but I noticed in further reading of this thread that you were restored. I guess you are high profile. ;)

 

Hi,

 

It's a shame the Red Herring forum folded, you would have fitted in well.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
It must be strange to be Jannard - every time you go online and say, well, pretty much anything, 10,000 fan boys get down on their knees crying how wonderful you are and so forth.

 

I wonder what that does to your psyche?

 

I think he likes it, if he wanted a different reaction he would post here more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he likes it, if he wanted a different reaction he would post here more often.

 

Why would he want to post here when most of the people here seem to hate RED for no reason what-so-ever. I keep hearing all this negative talk about RED and how a great many of the people posting in this thread think there are too good to even touch a RED because its not film or a $200K VIDEO camera, which is what the Genesis, F23 and F35 are...1920x1080 is video. At least with film and the RED cameras you can future proof your films for when 4K delivery has ramped up. Also what camera company do you guys know of where you can talk with the owner of that company and tell him what you would like to see in a camera. Now it helps if you don't just start off bashing the cameras for not good reason...then just maybe if you do that he might listen to your requests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
Why would he want to post here when most of the people here seem to hate RED for no reason what-so-ever. I keep hearing all this negative talk about RED and how a great many of the people posting in this thread think there are too good to even touch a RED because its not film or a $200K VIDEO camera, which is what the Genesis, F23 and F35 are...1920x1080 is video. At least with film and the RED cameras you can future proof your films for when 4K delivery has ramped up. Also what camera company do you guys know of where you can talk with the owner of that company and tell him what you would like to see in a camera. Now it helps if you don't just start off bashing the cameras for not good reason...then just maybe if you do that he might listen to your requests.

 

Hi,

 

Not sure why anyone would hate a tool of their trade, they may have other preferences, I am sure carpenters prefer some tools over others as well.

If people don't want to touch a RED or any video camera, that's their choice. Not everybody eats pork.

In 100 years we will know if RED will future proof your films as well as film. Probably many RED films will survive because they were future proofed by being printed to film.

Who is bashing cameras for no good reason, can you give me a link?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
Who is bashing cameras for no good reason, can you give me a link?

 

Stephen

Pleae don't let this turn into a rewind of this thread . <_<

 

The moment anybody comes on here and starts talking about catastrophic film processing and processing failures as though they're a daily occupational hazard, that should tell you straight away how much real experience they've had.

A second giveaway is an over-eagerness to answer rhetorical questions.

The third is that they appear to think a rhetorical question is what Scarlett O'Hara asked on Gone With the Wind :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
I say, let the footage do the talking.

 

Which is why I have been terribly disappointed withe very feature I have seen in the cinema & the majority of posted material. The original sensor just did not cut it IMHO. Dreadful highlights & skin tones as people had to overexpose to hide sensor noise. With possibly 7000 original sensors in the field, nothing is going to change soon.

 

EDIT Tom it looks like there will not be many films shot on Epic 'The Ultimate Film Slayer' any time soon, so yor bet looks dodgy. Shame I did not take up Jim's offer LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Clearly there is something of a disconnect going on here because while on paper the Red One with its original sensor should have delivered stunning images for the big screen -- the the 4K Red Demo Reel looks stunning projected in 4K -- after seeing almost everything shot on Red in a movie theater, I have to say that a lot of factors beyond resolution come into play in the course of making a movie and getting it into a theater.

 

A number of Red movies have a somewhat muddy look in 35mm prints (as do many Genesis and F35 movies), muddier than 35mm photography having gone through a similar 2K D.I. process, which is not optimal for any of those cameras or formats, but still the 35mm originated projects tend to look better.

 

And while one could say "just watch Red-shot movies in 4K theaters" since there aren't currently any 4K theaters showing 4K DCP, that's not possible.

 

Plus clearly there is a lot of variation going on in terms of how well the post houses are processing and color-correcting Red images.

 

As Stephen suggests, a number of Red-shot movies in theaters have a somewhat muddy look with brownish fleshtones and clippy highlights and/or crushed shadows. Some of that is intentional but not all of it.

 

On the other hand, I believe things are improving on a number of fronts for Red -- we have the new color science, better on-set display and post-conversion software, more experience at the post houses with handling Red footage, and finally, we have the new MX sensor with its improved noise, sensitivity, and dynamic range. All of this should combine to make Red-shot features of 2010 and 2011 look better than the ones of 2009.

 

Now if only we can get the 35mm film-outs to look better, or make sure that Red movies are only distributed digitally...

 

As I said, there's a disconnect going on between the promise and the reality -- in other words, what's coming out at the other end of the process and into the movie theaters basically doesn't look as good as it should, so the question is why and the challenge is to solve the problem. And just praying for 4K digital distribution & exhibition is not really a practical short-term solution, not for someone making a movie in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeremy Hunt

No one seems to be saying anything about this, but it seems RED is winning out in the low/no budget part of the film industry (at least in the UK) due to a lack of response from films labs. It costs way to much to make a short on film than it does to simply rent a RED. I have talked to plenty of DP's and camera assistants who would like to shoot on film but cant due to finance. Since these people and people like me are the up and coming cinematographers of the film industry, it would be nice to use the meduim that we want to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have talked to plenty of DP's and camera assistants who would like to shoot on film but cant due to finance.

 

Those that really want to shoot film, shoot film. You make the budget work buying re-cans, taking off hours at the transfer house, fewer takes on set, using older 35mm cameras like a BL3, etc.

 

You make it work. Problem is that many people want all the bells and whistles that come with film on a video budget. People need to adapt the use of film to a video budget.

 

RED users may say well Richard just shot down why people should use film. However, film is beautiful, and sacrifices must often be made to achieve beauty.

 

Video users will quickly discover that the quality of their work will go up with the use of film because they will be 10x more disciplined in their shooting.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Forum Sponsors

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Serious Gear

VidGear.com - Broadcast Video Warehouse

FJS International

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...