Jay Taylor

So theoretically, you could introduce a new chip upgrade later on that could handle 120+ frame rates in 4k redcode raw? Are you guys looking into better ways to recover highlights? I remember reading somewhere on reduser about redcine offering ways of doing this. I understand right now it's best to expose for the highlights, and then bring the exposure back up in post. It'd be nice to not have to worry about doing that in the future. Jay

Hey Jim, Quick question. With regards to high speed capabilities, what would it take to be able to shoot 4k 120ish fps to redcode raw? That's probably a ways off, but I'm just curious if that's something you guys plan on tackling somewhere down the road. Jay

It's not a comparison. What I'm saying is a lot of people interested in the Red are coming from using an hvx200 or equivalent. The quality is nowhere near similar, which is why you read all the "second coming" comments on the reduser forum. Compared to what they have been using up until now (an hvx200 in a lot of cases!) the Red is blowing their minds! However, the comments you read from people who are used to working with film have less "fanatical" comments. They've seen good quality before! I think they're more interested in the workflow benefits of digital. In conclusion! :P People coming from an hvx200 will think the Red is all that and a bag of chips. People used to working with film are more intrigued by the digital workflow, since they're used to high quality images with film. At least, that's how I'm seeing it. Jay

I think the reason people get upset reading something like this is because it sounds like you (or really anyone that says something similar) are stating that as fact. And the guys that say the opposite state their opinions as fact. We all have different eyes, and different criteria for what makes a quality, versatile, image format. What I like about Red is the price, and possibly the workflow. Haven't read much about the workflow yet, though. As far as image quality is concerned, the most obvious benefit of the Red is lack of grain. Of course, some of us don't mind grain. In fact, I can't remember anytime a movie has been ruined for me due to grain! :P Better quality images? I'm not so sure about that one! Higher resolution images? Definitely! Everyone's putting such emphasis on resolution, and lack of grain! 16mm isn't 4k, but so far from what I've seen, I personally prefer it. I'm sure other people feel that way, too. Apparently, a lot of people agree with you as well! So for those whose utmost concern is resolution, they have a great option now! I should mention that when analyzing the 4k tiff's that have been uploaded, I feel like the sharpness is suffering somehow. From the discussion's I've read, it seems it has to do with the way bayer chips work. In reality, the chip's probably closer to 3.4k or something like that. But even so, still higher resolution then 16mm! But don't you see? It's the same attitude towards film from the Red enthusiasts. "Film is dead! Game over!" Why can't they both coexist peacefully!? It's the same reaction when the film guys claim Red isn't up to par. If we had some more footage, we could be analyzing it better, instead of arguing with each other! Where is all the footage!? Jay

YES! :lol: I think we need to look at peoples comments like these in the right context. In comparison to an HVX200, the Red is pretty great! I think that's where most of these comments are coming from, although there are some people who have apparently shot with film, too, and still think the Red is the second coming, and is going to take filmmaking to the "next" level. (Whatever THAT is!) I really can't understand the "that's better then film" comments I'm seeing on reduser. Do they mean less grain? Because, yes, that is the case. But what about everything else that makes good image quality? Someone earlier said it looks like cg, or hyper reality, and they assume some people must like that look. I agree with that. It looks? weird! But just to make sure I don't piss anyone off here, I will say that this camera is much cheaper then the Genesis, or the highend Sony's, and the quality is just as good. That's the revolution. I just happen to prefer film. Even though I've only shot 16mm so far! :P Jay

I think the really great thing about the Red is the price. Instead of spending a lot more for a sony, or a genesis, or whatever else, you can spend a lot less and get the same quality as those cameras. So the benefit is that lower budget productions can get much higher picture quality then they could with an hvx200 (assuming they can light properly!) BTW, what's the dynamic range supposed to be with the F23? I can't seem to find anything on it. Must not be looking in the right place? Jay

Hey Carl, I was actually being sarcastic about those companies shutting down. Talking to people who are really excited about the Red, you get the impression that they think all other companies and formats will be gone in an instance. But hey, we still have super 8mm, analog tape, and vinyl records! Regardless of the new technologies that came along to "replace" them. I think Red's going to be a really good option for a lot of people. Especially in the low-mid range budget productions. As far as the high end budgets, I think it'll still be about the same as it is now. Just another choice! If someone decides to shoot digitally, it'll be a lot cheaper to rent (or maybe buy) a Red, which can output 4k, with 35mm dof, as opposed to a 2/3" chip-size Sony, for much higher cost. Choices, choices, choices! Jay

Yes, and it's also very quiet! With all the hype surrounding this camera, you would've thought Kodak, Fuji, Arri, Aaton, Panavision, Sony, etc., would've shut down their operations by now! ;) Jay

Hey Stephen, Yes! I've heard that before, and I agree! Using 35mm film, or the Red, or 70mm isn't any indication of how well you can paint a shot. Jay

Hey Glen, Of everything that's been posted so far, the Hero tiff looks the best to me. Although, I think I read they had a hard time nailing the focus, which is why it looks a little soft? I don't even know if "smudgy" is the right word here. Something it reminds me of, which isn't really related, is vectorized line art. Ever seen any? Say you draw a picture, and then you ink it all nice with markers. Scan that in, and then vectorize it. The actual inked drawing is all smooth, but the vectorized copy looks off. Instead of a nice curved line, you might end up with "lumps". It's not one smooth curve, it's a bunch of smaller curves. Turns the original curve into sort of a wiggle! And if you have two lines connected, it isn't a straight angle where the connection is. It ends up creating a tiny curve at the intersection. Of course, if you scale the vectorized art down, you don't notice these artifacts anymore. So I'm wondering if it's the same thing with the Red footage, and even 35mm film. Perhaps the reason I'm thinking of 35mm as being so super sharp, is because I'm always watching a scaled down ntsc version of it! If I scale down the Red frame grabs, it doesn't have the smudgy look anymore. The correction you made does look better. Perhaps I'm just not used to seeing this stuff at such high res. Anyways, I really want to see some more footage with proper lighting, framing, dof, and all the good stuff. I need a "cinematic" example to decide on if I'd like to use this camera or not! Jay

There's some really short test clips that someone shot with one last night. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4123 Scroll down and find the one the says "2k". Want my opinion? As a non-professional, only just started shooting 16mm film, wannabe? When I first heard about Red I was super excited! Achieving 35mm quality with a digital camera sounded great. Ever since, I've been keeping up with the forums, and looking at any framegrabs or clips that could be found. To be honest, I'm kinda disappointed! :unsure: It's really hard to judge from what little we've seen, but to me, it just looks like good video. I kept looking at pictures on flickr thinking, "If the Red can give me this quality, that'll be great!" Digital still's to me don't seem to have quite the image quality that 35mm has, but it's real close. So far, from what little I've seen, the Red looks like a step down from digital still cameras. To me, I can't see much difference between the Red and any of these other digital cinema cameras. Just that the Red has higher resolution, and is a lot cheaper! One thing I've noticed (and remember, I don't exactly have a trained eye or anything) is with any footage shot with the Red, the details look kinda smudged? I realize that what I'm watching is compressed and scaled, so maybe the Raw output doesn't look like this. I don't know. Hopefully we'll see some proper footage with better light setups, rather then just quick tests. As of right now, I feel like 35mm is still king, and is in no danger of being dethroned. But I will admit that it's great you can get the same quality of a high end digital cinema camera for a fraction of the cost now! Jay --- P.S. I'm pretty sure my post will probably piss off anyone interested in Red, and this thread, like so many others, will be closed. But just remember, I'm no professional! I've never shot on anything other then 16mm. Everything stated above is my own personal opinion. I tried my best not to type anything as being factual! :)

Trying to understand the "old school" way of doing things? Think back to before they had digital audio workstations, and NLE's, and all that stuff. Once you shot your film, did your edit, how did you record music/dialogue/sound effects in sync while watching the film? If I have my edit finished, and now I want to create the score, how can I record the score on a tape deck (analog) while watching the film to make sure everything's syncing correctly? Ditto with dialogue and sound effects. Example: Someone shuts a car door. I want to watch that scene, while recording the sound effect, to make sure it's in sync. And THEN I want to be able to go back, and watch the scene from the beginning to make sure it looks and sounds right. How is this done with flatbeds and tape decks? Jay

Answer printing, huh? Sounds good. About the other stuff, is there a textbook that you would recommend? Does anyone know of any labs in Nashville that offer this stuff? There's MPL Media, but I think they only process and transfer film. No prints or anything. Jay

Here's what I'm thinking about doing. First, I'd like to make some short films in 16mm. I'd want to have a transfer done for offline editing. Then I'd want to send an edl to (negative cutters?), and have a final print made. I have a couple of questions regarding this workflow. How does color correction work? Can you tell the lab, or whoever makes the final print, to make such adjustments? I'd want to be there obviously to make those decisions. What would this cost? How do you sync sound? Could you sync it in your offline edit, and then just supply the audio from that? And finally, does anyone know of any places in Nashville (or nearby) that would do this, and what would you estimate the cost would be for the transfer, the negative conforming, any color correcting, adding the sound, and the final print? I'm guessing a fortune, but I'm hoping you guys will tell me otherwise! Jay

Alright, I tried searching for info on this, but didn't seem to find a definitive answer. But maybe one doesn't exist. With 16/s16mm, can you achieve shallow dof? If so, HOW shallow? And how would you do it? I understand how focal length, and t-stops affect dof. And how the image format apparently affects it as well. So maybe rather then discuss all the technicalities of this, would some example video/stills be possible? Are there any examples out there of successful shallow dof with 16/s16mm? Jay

The stuff on his site looks great! Of course, I think he's using higher end zeiss lenses, but a bolex is involved! That at least shows me that professional results are possible. Well, after reading everyone's comments, I think I'll go for a bolex. If nothing else, it'll be a good start to learning this stuff. I appreciate all of your help. Sounds like you guys really know your stuff! I'll have many more questions for ya later on once I start filming. THANKS AGAIN! Jay

Is there an older set of cooke or zeiss lenses that wouldn't cost so much now? But would still be high quality? I've looked into 35mm as an option, too, but there's much higher costs involved obviously. A Mitchell GC is perfect for animation. Then for live action, maybe an Arri 2c with a soundblimp? No idea where to find those original 120 sound blimps, or how much they'd go for. Don't assume I'm set on 16mm. If I can stretch to 35mm without a HUGE increase in cost, I'll do it. I've been researching this stuff for months now, and it doesn't seem I've gotten anywhere. So I'm hoping you guys can help me finally decide on something! Jay

For starters, if I decide on a Bolex, I'd probably get one from JK Camera. So it'd already be converted to super16. And I've already been looking into crystal syncs, so I understand all that. There's two sides to my camera choice, because on the one hand, I've got live action. On the other, animation. I know the Bolex works well with animation motors. With my live action stuff, mostly not a lot of dialogue. I realize the bolex is supposed to be loud. Think music videos, yet not a music video. I think all my live action stuff would be synced to music, and maybe I could record the dialoque with the music. Haven't quite figured all that out yet. If there's another camera that could double for live action and animation, let me know! Plus, handles better lenses, and doesn't cost a fortune. Of course, better lenses seem to cost a fortune. Which brings me back to renting? How does renting work? These applications scare me! Jay

The basis of my question is this? Assuming my lighting/composition/etc are good, will a bolex with standard switar lenses give me a good picture when transferred to HD? Can it look at all professional? I'm sure if it was transferred to SD, it could. The smaller resolution might smooth it all out, so to speak. But what about HD? I'm talking 1080/24p. The telecine makes a lot of difference. What would you recommend? I guess when I say "professional" I mean shows like The O.C., Scrubs, Sex and the City, etc. I realize they were shot in s16mm, but how much of a difference did their equipment make? If those shows were shot on bolex's with switars, would it look like crap? Trying to decide on a camera is really frustrating! I've looked into renting cameras, but I'm somewhat confused by all the paper work. Credit applications, insurance, blah blah blah. The only credit I have is from paying back student loans. I honestly feel like I wouldn't be eligible to rent. Anyways, help me out! Jay

Awesome! I think I understand dof a lot better now. You guys are fast and thorough! I appreciate your help! Jay

Wow, that was fast! So let me see if I'm understanding all this? DOF becomes shallower as you open up the lens iris. Which in turn means more light would be hitting the lens, so I'd have to control that. So does that mean if I wanted a shot with a large DOF I would shoot with a larger f-stop? Wouldn't that mean I'd need MORE light for those types of shots? If I was shooting outdoors, lots of sunlight, and I wanted just about everything in focus, would I need more light? Or would the sun cover it? I'm sure these questions are idiotic! lol. So lets see? Smaller f-stop = shallow dof = lots of light / Larger f-stop = large dof = less light Is that right? Or is it the other way around? Jay

Hey everyone. I'm new so bare with me! My grandad just gave me his old Bell & Howell 16mm Filmo! Nice camera! Non-reflex, but still nice. What I'm curious about is setting up dof effects with a movie camera. I understand setting the f-stop accordingly, but you can't really change the shutter speed to compensate for any loss of light. What I'm interested in is shallow dof. I don't see a way to do this without a way to control shutter speed. I've seen that certain zeiss lenses have an added control, t-stop, that apparently controls the light seperately from the f-stop. Would I need a lens like this in order to achieve shallow dof? If so, is there any affordable lenses that offer this!? The zeiss lenses are $3k and up! The filmo uses c mount lenses, so I guess I might need an adapter as well. Anyways, thanks for your help! Jay