Jump to content

I've been Banned from Reduser


Stephen Williams

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

I don't know why either, I guess its just fear of change.

 

I have seen bad footage come from every medium out there. So to say RED looks bad because you saw something that was posted on the internet or even something in theaters where the people shooting with the RED clearly had no idea what they were doing...or the post house. Plenty of places to drop the ball.

 

I'll search for specifics if you really want them but the post about RED that say "vaporware" and crap like that seems really small minded. Its like people have already forgot what happened. Before RED came out people were saying vaporware and that it would be impossible to build a camera like the one they did build. Even after the camera was out shooting on projects people were still saying vaporware. But now the camera has been out for over two years the vaporware comments have now gone towards Epic and Scarlet. Its like no one learns anything from the past.

 

Also is film exactly the same as it was 100 years ago...no. It too has gone through a great many improvements and different processing steps in the last 100 years. Not to mention the cameras that shoot film. So in a 100 years I'm sure footage shot on RED well be fine, regardless of if it was transfered to film or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
I'll search for specifics if you really want them but the post about RED that say "vaporware" and crap

 

3K for $3 anyone? Subject to change, count on it, sorry I am being rude.

 

Edit, sorry lets not forget schedules, FF35 Epic was delivered yesterday?

 

Stephen knowing how Geoff Boyle feels at times Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I avoided actually commenting on the subjective picture quality for a long time.

 

All I'll say about red pictures is that when I first heard what they were doing and how I thought: that'll be noisy, clippy and muddy, and let's face it: it is. The fact that it manages to be noisy and clippy simultaneously takes some serious doing on the basis that one generally plays off against the other. Obviously it is usable because people are using it, but subjectively the pictures from something like an EX3 are rather nicer. With any luck the improved sensor will bring it nearer to fulfilling all the promises we were given three or four years ago.

 

I think all this talk of "4K future proofing" is rather optimistic, though. The red camera that exists at the moment is widely recognised as being not, in its 2K mode, really sharp enough for broadcast HD production. Whether that's due to the demands made by the sensor on PL mount lenses, the sensor itself, or the codec, we can't tell, but whether you ever accepted the 4K idea (and I don't think anyone who can count should), it's certainly never been capable of good 4K.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...how many times they've actually encountered all the terrible drawbacks the Digi-philes are so fond of repeating off each other (you know scratches, processing errors, hairs in the gate, fogging, those sorts of disasters, which for most practical purposes, simply never happen unless you're complete moron).

 

:lol:

 

+1

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
(and I don't think anyone who can count should), it's certainly never been capable of good 4K.

 

P

 

Hi Phil,

 

The myth thet Red is not 4k was dispelled by Jim on CML in the last 48 hours.

 

Stephen trying to be neutral in this thread Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is not with the red camera but with all the rhetoric.

 

To my mind there is no question that the red delivers the best quality footage in it's price range. As a result I find that the majority of projects I shoot these days are on the red, and I am generally happy with the results.

 

However, I feel that there is a lack of analysis on the shortcomings of the camera and how to approach and work around those issues.

 

There is a relatively small group of people in who's interest it is to hype and promote each development as if it will cure cancer because they've built their careers around the camera, and there are vast numbers of people happy to blindly buy into the hype.

 

I would agree that being blindly negative is also not constructive, but criticism is an essential part of the learning process.

 

For example I find it hard to swallow every time people start telling my the new sensor will shoot clean 1280 iso equivalent footage, especially considering the first sensor barely made 200.

 

I hope it does, because that would be nice, but until I test it and shoot with it I reserve the right to remain skeptical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is not with the red camera but with all the rhetoric.

 

To my mind there is no question that the red delivers the best quality footage in it's price range. As a result I find that the majority of projects I shoot these days are on the red, and I am generally happy with the results.

 

However, I feel that there is a lack of analysis on the shortcomings of the camera and how to approach and work around those issues.

 

There is a relatively small group of people in who's interest it is to hype and promote each development as if it will cure cancer because they've built their careers around the camera, and there are vast numbers of people happy to blindly buy into the hype.

 

I would agree that being blindly negative is also not constructive, but criticism is an essential part of the learning process.

 

For example I find it hard to swallow every time people start telling my the new sensor will shoot clean 1280 iso equivalent footage, especially considering the first sensor barely made 200.

 

I hope it does, because that would be nice, but until I test it and shoot with it I reserve the right to remain skeptical...

 

 

Well I've seen footage shot at ISO 2000 projected in 4K on a 40' screen and you would have to look very hard to see noise...oh yeah, no noise reduction was done to that shot either. Of course me saying it and seeing it with your own eyes are two completely different events. All I'm saying is that most of the negative posts on here come from people that aren't informed enough to trash a product. Its also funny to see when someone posts amazing footage that cannot be denied as beautiful that then people start talking about how horrible the workflow is. Again these people don't have a clue what they are talking about. All you have to do is LEARN how to process the footage and I'm not talking about work-arounds or something like that. There are plenty of post houses that know what to do with RED footage. Or you can process your shots from home or on the road.

 

Do any of you guys have a motion picture film lab in your house or one you can put in your backpack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've seen footage shot at ISO 2000 projected in 4K on a 40' screen and you would have to look very hard to see noise...

 

Seeing it alone doesn't provide enough information, let alone having someone else say they've seen it. There are too many possible variables in the shooting situation.

 

As I said before, I'm willing to be open, but until I shoot a low light scene AND take it through various levels of aggressive color correction I will remain skeptical.

 

Workflow remains important because clients can be slow to change, I know of several major cable channels that still require their final materials on digibeta. Likewise many network channels prefer to maintain their HDCAM postflow. These are important considerations when recommending a camera for a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of you guys have a motion picture film lab in your house or one you can put in your backpack?

 

Again, just because RED or any other video format has some conveniences and cost savings involved doesn't make it better. In my view the end result that the viewer actually sees is all that matters. If it takes more work to get the image onto 16 or 35, fine with me, the end result looks better.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think I've ever seen a red produce anything that "cannot be denied as beautiful". I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I thought was both noisy and clippy simultaneously.

 

It's also a bit dangerous to start describing it as "best for the money". Personally I think that an EX3, which produces astoundingly persuasive HD and costs really rather a lot less even without factoring in the $100k support package, is quite a lot better than a red. For the money.

 

What I will wholeheartedly second is the idea that the problem is less the technology (although the technology is mediocre), the problem is the attitude.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
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 Andrew,

 

Camera companies routinely solicit opinions from experienced users. RED is not unique in that respect. I have twice been approached to evaluate prototype still cameras by two different manufacturers (sorry, I can't name them due to the non-disclosure agreement I signed). I spoke directly to the the Large Project Leader and a team of designers rather than a CEO as these companies are quite large.

 

Not sure how useful the REDuser forum is to the RED designers, though. Typically, when someone tries to post anything critical at REDuser, they had better be ready to duck and run for cover. The majority of responses on the REDuser forum critical of Christopher Probst's American Cinematographer article (Assessing The Red One Camera) were absurd. I'd be willing to bet that the RED development team found more useful information in Mr. Probst's "denigrating" piece than most of the suggestions posted on the REDuser forums by inexperienced dreamers. Being as they are smart people, I'm sure the folks at RED actually value this kind of criticism and are working on solutions to many of the issues pointed out in the article.

 

-Fran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Currently the European market demand is seems to be for £1m or 1m Euro features. Which is really prime RED or HD territory, assuming crew members and cast are receiving reasonable payment (if on the lower side). However, producers don't have to rely on UK labs, co-production deals can involve using other European labs.

 

I don't think labs are going to give a quote that will work for a no budget film (the days are gone when you could get free BBC NEWS shortends from the local BBC lab and get it processed there for a bottle of whiskey), I doubt a RED would work either unless it's been done on a friendship basis.

 

Shooting on film was never cheap and when making a short in the past you always did need to dig deep into your pockets unless you were part of a scheme. Unfortunately all the short film production funding schemes are geared towards digital because they're about directors rather than cinematographers. However, I suspect you can get extremely good rental deals on a film kit that would go part of the way towards shooting costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well I've seen footage shot at ISO 2000 projected in 4K on a 40' screen

 

Hi,

 

Depending on how I use my light meter I could claim I exposed at 200 - 2000 ISO. It will be very interesting to see how many stops I can go over at 2000 ISO without clipping. ISO 2000 could well be what I call 500 ISO or less.

 

Stephen just saying Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also a bit dangerous to start describing it as "best for the money". Personally I think that an EX3, which produces astoundingly persuasive HD and costs really rather a lot less even without factoring in the $100k support package, is quite a lot better than a red. For the money.

 

You're right Phil, I should have qualified my statement significantly.

 

What I meant was, at it's price point the Red provides the best narrative filmmaking device utilizing 35mm lenses, support and depth of field. In addition it's design means that it fits handily into established production workflows (operator, first AC, 2nd AC, loader) making it also suitable in jobs that use that workflow.

 

While the EX3 produces excellent HD footage, it lacks the 35mm depth of field which is popular in narrative production, and the fact that it is essentially a prosumer camera would make it hard to find acceptance on a professional narrative shoot (not counting reality, gameshow, sketch comedy, or it's always sunny in philidelphia)

 

However, if a direct graph was made of image quality to cost, I'm sure the EX3 would beat the Red. Of course a flip cam may well beat the EX3, for the money.

 

Dagnabit, why'd you make me go and defend the red...

Edited by Mathew Rudenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everybody so obsessed by '35mm DOF'?, the best digital flick I ever saw was Ben Button, that was shot on 2/3" Viper.

 

I think it's for much the same reason that many people prefer 24p to 60i...

 

Over the years we became acclimatized to seeing films shot in 24p and tv shot at 60i, and as a result the frame rate became a subconscious cue as to whether something is a 'movie'

 

Likewise movies have had a tendency to be shot with 35mm or anamorphic depth of field, which until recently was not easily available for lower budget productions.

 

I think that 35mm dof is now an easy shortcut to access the subconscious response that something is a 'movie,' even though it is now fairly widely available. Hence people snapping up Red cameras, 5d's and 7d's and thinking they can make movies... I think this trend is more substantial than people snapping up EX3's, although it is somewhat similar to the DVX100 craze of the early aughts, when 24p suddenly became widely available.

 

dvxuser forum to reduser forum :)

 

This certainly doesn't mean that 35mm dof is necessary, just that it's popular. As always the most important thing is the story - which is why I couldn't finish Ben's Butt - terrible movie imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everybody so obsessed by '35mm DOF'?, the best digital flick I ever saw was Ben Button, that was shot on 2/3" Viper.

 

I heard that it was mostly shot on the F23. Oh yeah and David Fincher is shooting with the new M-X sensor in two RED Ones on his new movie. Now lets sit and think why would he choose to shoot RED when there seems to be so many better options out there than RED, according to some of the people here. It might be because RED smokes all the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That, Andrew, or because it's "appropriate" for whatever reason he deems necessary-- which could be aesthetic, budgetary, or ergonomic. There is no "one size fits all" format/camera out there, or one budget which allows one all the things one necessarily wants. Hell, I had to talk a production into an EX1 not because it was the best camera for them, but because they couldn't afford to shoot S16mm without sacrificing performance for price (limited to a 5:1 ratio). Other times I've worked with 35mm, such as for a documentary, and used expired stock happily because it fit with what the project needed.

What is folly, and this is a folly we all have at least once suffered, is assuming anyone is choosing one camera or system over some other because it's the "best." There is no such thing as "best," just what's "right for the film."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that it was mostly shot on the F23. Oh yeah and David Fincher is shooting with the new M-X sensor in two RED Ones on his new movie. Now lets sit and think why would he choose to shoot RED when there seems to be so many better options out there than RED, according to some of the people here. It might be because RED smokes all the others.

 

I believe David Mullen has suggested a more sophisticated reason for selecting digital cameras in that since the sensors seem to give different looks. so you make a choice for the same reason used when selecting a film stock - the one that produces the look you want for the story you're trying to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't like is how people worship numbers like 2000 ISO, 4K and such.

A 500 HP car might be faster than a 200 HP one, but it also uses more fuel, is louder etc etc.

 

It's great that someone saw ISO 2000 projected in controlled enviroments in 4K and it might have been an awesome picture. But as long as I go into the cinema and don't like what I see on the screen that has been originating from RED, and lust for 35mm origination (yes I hated Public Enemies), it doesn't help me if some people saw some nice 4K projection somewhere. It happened before, I vaguely remember how people saw the first RED ONE images and where blown away, similarily to what they are reporting now.

 

RED can't even be blamed, there's so many ways the ball can be dropped.

 

For example we got a deal to finish a low budget film shot on the RED at a leading post house. We contacted them to ask about the workflow, how they would approach the material. They said they'd convert it to DPX with something they've written theirselves using RedRushes. We asked for the color space they'd use, they didn't really know. When I asked him to make sure to go through the new color science that was released already back then, he couldn't care less and brushed me off. I guess it never made it through the NCS. It took quite a lot of convincing to ask the production to go back to the RAWs even! If post houses continue to treat it like that, well I'd rather see movies originated on 35mm then.

 

What resolution was Avatar for example shot on? It looked so much better than any other digital movie that I've seen. I guess they did the post right. They were Sonys I think, not 4K, definitely not even 2K. I enjoyed the quality much more than for example "Knowing", "Antichrist", "District 9" (although District 9 was technically ok, but I didn't like the grading)

 

Well see what Fincher does with the new M-X sensors and if they can get the post right.

Edited by XiaoSu Han
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't like about digital is the fact that it captures all my pictures in square boxes while film has a more natural random grain pattern. I don't live in a box and I don't like my pictures captured in boxes and my eyes do not capture images in square boxes. Of course when I explained that to Jim he got upset and accused me of never bothering to show up and see a real 4K digital projection. But has Jim bothered to show up at the laboratory in Italy doing research on advanced machine vision systems?

 

The charts came out after RED was called out as a 1K camera by Phil (then he changed his story to 2K). There has been much discussion about what RED 4K bayer really is. The charts just show what it really is. 4 times measured 1080P from the best 1080P camera. Now... that doesn't seem to matter any more? It seemed so important awhile back.

 

Stephen... not sure why you are having skin tone or highlight roll-off issues. Stop on by at RED and we can help you with this. There are a lot of ways not to get the best results from our cameras.

 

Phil's "don't quote higher authority" is certainly interesting. You speak mis-information. Trained professionals (the higher authority) use the cameras and don't get the same results you speak of. That just doesn't make sense. Either they have no interest in quality or you are missing something? Maybe they are "higher authority" because they know something you don't? Your comment that RED 4K is really only 1K is dispelled by both the "higher authority" and the charts.

 

Someone gets bad results. Others get good results. The ones that get bad results say it is the camera. Maybe the question should be "what are the other guys doing to get better results than I get?"

 

I don't post here very much because this is the one place where RED bashing is encouraged. I'm not a masochist (anymore).

 

This whole thread seems to have come from Stephen getting his feelings hurt for being given a "timeout" on reduser. That was probably a mistake. So we'll take the punishment here for that. But mis-information of performance doesn't seem like the way to get even.

 

So here you go... lots of new reasons to keep this thread going.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...