Ralph Oshiro

Oh yeah? I know you are, but what am I . . . times infinity times a google!

Yes, I agree. Well, the cameras are starting to trickle off the production line as we speak. And those lucky new owners seem too busy playing with their REDs to provide us with as much footage and feedback as we're craving. But I would guess that for those not planning a film-out, that 99.99999% of those shooting with RED will cut and deliver an "offline" 1080p master only (at best; most will actually have to deliver only 720p and 1080i), and simply archive the master data. Apple ProRes 4:2:2 and 1080p will be the new "mastering" format for the bulk of RED-based production. I've seen the 2K ProRes footage. It looks f*cking great!

Brian: While I don't thnk RED is necessarily targeted at the EFP market at first glance, I think that will change. Abeit, perhaps, a bit slowly. I think perhaps one tactic may be to actually seek out clients that are more likely to embrace both the upgrade in quality, and the added workflow. Production companie who supply the major HD outlets, and others who want their masters continue to be marketable in the coming all-HD future of cable/TV/HD media. Although I didn't buy my RED to necessarily market myself as an owner/operator (I'd rather it just sit on a sound stage somewhere, without me, and earn money), that's the approach I would take. My own commercial interests for RED are actually non-Hollywood applications. As far as workshops, I'm sure something will pop up at a local vendor soon. There's far too much interest in this product, and the product technically is certainly complex enough to warrant several money-making workshops to be had in the L.A. area. I've always enjoyed attending the (free) Moviola open houses and workshops. Maybe something like that. Also, since many of the big L.A. rental houses are rumored to have an ample amount of RED reservations, I'm sure they'll be motivated to get their customers informed about the product as well, and will likely hold similar workshops. I work for network broadcast show. One of the editors became excited about RED, independent of me, and is lobbying the bosses to purchase a full-blown MacPro system, in addition to our plethora of Avids. You know, an 8-core, 16GB RAM, 30" dual-CinemaDisplay kinda system. Hey, if they buy it, they might even use it! If they have FCS and ProRes, then they may even want some RED footage shot for it!

Phil: Just curious, did you ever get a chance to actually see the 4K RED projection either at NAB or IBC?

I'm no expert in workflow, but I'm planning on "offlining" in 1080p for the time being, working in FCS ProRes 4:2:2, then transcoding out to an HDW1800 HDCAM VTR for deliverables, since anything beyond that would be a pretty specialized application anyway. An 8-core MacPro with 16GB of RAM would probably be most comfortable, but you can probably get by with a slightly less-exotic MacPro set-up, since the ProRes CODEC is rumored to be pretty efficient. I'll then just archive the full-res, RED master datastreams, if I ever need them later. If I remember correctly, both 1K and 2K QT proxies are kind of "built-in" to the RED datastream, so yes, proxies of more than one resolution are available, and would then work more fluidly on lesser machines. Again, I'm no expert on RED workflow, and I may have some of this wrong. Certainly, Graeme or someone else much smarter than me about this will chime in . . .

Actually, to clarify, what I meant to say, was that there is not now an installed base of ProRes-ready machines in Hollywood (or your local equivalent, media-centric community). And I don't expect there to be any for at least a while. Either RED owners will have to accomodate their clients, or their clients will have to accomodate their vendors. Of course, there are many scenarios in the EFP market, and many things may start to change as both ProRes becomes more popular, and as EFP markets become aware of RED-based production. But, I wouldn't expect any kind of large-scale "awakening" of the EFP market, to suddenly gear up to accomodate RED's workflow. That's not to say, that it isn't worth, perhaps, even doing some "evangelizing" to the larger production companies with whom you do business, to, "think about the future," and to consider how RED-sourced material may somehow benefit their product, or how by accomodating RED workflow, provide them with some measurable marketing or competitive advantage.

The way I see it for EFP markets, there are two primary routes: 1. Downconvert to an HDCAM edit master to hand to your clients using a rented HDW1800 (you can rent them from my friend pretty cheap, if you're in the Los Angeles area). 2. Partner with an editor. Have him buy a fast MacPro to edit in ProRes so he can do the finishing for your clients. Either you buy it, and finish for your clients, or have a partner (usually, After Effects-kinda artists like to own edit bays) do the finishing for you as a "partnered vendor." Until more production companies move from Avid-based bays to ProRes-based bays, there will be no economic workflow option for the bulk of the EFP market for RED. As far as I know, at least in L.A., only boutique shops and reality shows tend to have FinalCut bays. All the broadcast editors I know are still largely Avid-based.

NO, NO, NO?WAIT . . . I know what I'd like to see RED shoot . . . the next VICTORIA'S SECRET commercial! Duh, I was just on the set of a Victoria's Secret commercial! And yes, Adriana Lima is THAT hot. Wish I could clear the BTS footage I shot to show you guys. She smiled at my lens like all day. Adriana Lima . . . pure SEX.

Here's another one I'd like to see lensed with RED . . . A night exterior. Mercury vapor street lights. Street completely wetted down. A row of 18K HMI Fresnels raking the street. Some police cars in the background with their lights and strobes on. A space light, nearer to camera, filling the actors. LOTS of contrast. LOTS of rich blacks. LOTS of saturated color.

Just catching up on this thread after chasing after some other passions in the last couple months. I may have a sense of what you're objecting to in the "Crossing the Line" demo. Now, I've actually seen the demo on a 4K projector?twice. Once, about 6 feet from the screen, the second time, about 18 feet from the screen. And it looked pretty goddamned good. No noise. Tack-sharp. But still, I think I know what you mean. I think we'll have a better sense of RED's "look" once we see some low key, studio-lit interiors. You know, some high-contrast, color-saturated stuff with say, a girl's face in the shot. Much of the RED footage so far has been daylight exteriors. Flatt-ish looking, bright, outside kinda stuff. But in video, where its biggest imaging hurdle has historically been its limited contrast-handiling ability, flat in this sense, is "good," because that translates into more captured dynamic range. But what I mean, is, we haven't seen the kind of photography that I would like to shoot. Colorful, contrasty, lit, night interiors and night exteriors. Even a nice contrasty daylight interior would be nice (think "breakfast cereal" :30 spot kinda kitchen; it's daylight, but very contrasty, because it's studio-lit). Anyway, here's what I can't wait to see . . . A beautiful model in an interior scene. Lots of practicals in the shot. A 2K Xenon streaking in through a rear set window, bouncing off a polished floor, and gently bouncing all around the set to finally put a hint of its lumens on the model's face. The Xenon also 3/4-backlights the model's hair?very hot. Burning hot. Two-stops kinda hot. And splashes the camera-left side of her cheek, and nape of her neck with light just as hot. Then, a super-soft key on say, the camera-right side of the model's face, so that the light goes from say, a 1/3 to 1/2-stop "overexposure," and falls off to the camera-left side of her face, to a level as dark as the stray light on the set will allow. In the background, have lots of colored glass elements. Lens this at a medium focal length, at about 4.0. Production design motif is perhaps a highly stylized, modern nightclub look. Actually, this could be either a high-key or low-key scene. As long as there's lots of saturated color and a lot of lighting contrast. This is what I can't wait to light for a RED demo. Ralph Oshiro

Not to be too off-topic here, but I just happened to talk to a friend today, who's providing some [non-RED] 4:4:4 workflow services to [insert major Hollywood studio here]. I mumbled something about RED to him. He said something about 4:4:4. I said, something about ProRes 4:2:2 proxies. He said something about . . . I don't remember, but it was something like, "I don't think RED . . . " Anyway, I said, "Well [the RED footage] looks pretty damned good on a 4K projector." He said, "You saw RED footage from a 4K projector?" He had concerns regarding the RED footage holding up, but then again, he's never seen RED footage shown on a 4K projector. I also heard what's going on at the major Hollywood rental houses (you know which ones). I was impressed!

Great post! However, you forgot to also mention the oft-quoted, "Fowler-Nordheim tunneling principle," another key theory required to fully understand the true capabilities (or incapabilities, depending on how you see things) of the RED digital cinema camera. Anyone who's ever worked with digital audio, or virtually any modern media technology, who HASN'T heard of the Nyquist theorem needs to, um . . . read your post!

Great job, Jim!

Great post, Phil! Interesting stuff! Are you a cinematographer or an EE? I thought CMOS had the potential to have greater dynamic range than CCDs? Also, since CMOS sensors are immune to vertical smear (a clear advantage over CCDs), I thought this benefit also made them more "capable" in other areas as well. Perhaps you could elaborate. Also, could you explain what visual compromise there is due to CMOS' "greater susceptibility to parasitic sensitivity?"

Oh. I only just read that last post on this topic. Interesting stuff, Jim!

Yup. There's still a difference in perceived motion characteristics between video and film, even when both are shooting at 24fps at a 180-degree shutter, IMO. Given the same frame rate, I just assume it's due to the differences between the way a spinning mirror exposes an area of film, as opposed to the way a digital sensor is exposed and read-out? Perhaps also adding slightly to the difference, may be the in-camera, 2:3:3:2 pull-down cadence often used in video acquisition (as opposed to PsF)? Perhaps someone more expert can elaborate.

No, the EC-35 was the Ikegami product. You're probably referring to the Panavision "Panacam" which was co-developed with the now defunct video equipment manufacturer, "CEI." And yeah, it was a pretty crappy camera.

Anyone remember this? This standard-definition, tube camera, the Ikegami EC35 [1983], was one of the industry's first "electronic cinematography" cameras.

No, but it's been a huge limiting factor for filmmakers like me who are just trying make pretty images on a budget (who have been using video as an economical means of acquisition). My first video shorts, shot on "Beta I" and "Video8," looked awful technically. My first 16mm short, shot on a beat up old Eclair NPR, and cut on a Moviola upright, looked awesome. Film has always been "better" than video for making "pretty." Now, finally we have a camera that eclipses an F900, and attains a much "prettier" picture. No, it's not film, but it's miles ahead of what we've had to work with in the past.

Eric: I just wanted to comment on how really slick and beautiful your website is! P.S. Yes, the post house definitely f----d up. By the way, I own a Sony DSR450 DVCAM camcorder. I always shoot it in DVCAM mode. To my surprise, my stupid ole' VX2000 plays back DVCAM-recorded tape! Now I did have my VX2000's transport replaced by Sony a while back--maybe they put a DVCAM transport in instead? Or do all VX2000s play back DVCAM? Anyway, the VX2000 works just fine as a DVCAM ingest deck for my NLE!

Was talking to some engineers over at a major network's HD facility today, and I finally figured out what they do to support Fox and ABC's 720p programming requirements (networks often use other networks' facilities for their own shows, much like when one studio rents a stage on another studio's lot). They shoot video-originated shows using Sony HDC1500 1080p60 cameras. According to the engineers, when designing the facility, Fox wouldn't accept a 720p cross-convert from 1080i, so Sony came out with the 60p HDC1500 cameras. From a menu in the CCU, engineers tell the camera to "pull" a 720p signal from the 1080p camera. This is done completely in-camera. The camera is still "acquiring" 1080p60, but outputting a 720p signal from its HD-SDI output. They record this 720p signal to DVCPRO100 HD VTRs (and also to D5 as a source for ancillary SD distribution, e.g. internet).

My standard line is, "Michele Rodriguez is interested."

So true. Even with a smaller pulley and more boost, there's simply no substitute for cubic inches. Forget RED vs. film . . . let's get to the real fight . . . Ford vs. Chevy!

Hey! What's the deal with THAT! Hey! I forgot, I'm a photographer, too! I have an Elle Magazine photo credit that I shot of Miss Bora Bora with my D70 and a 180mm f/2.8. Also, Time Magazine ran a video frame grab from an SDX900 shoot that I lit and operated! (Does that count?) Woo hoo!

None of the currently broadcasted HD formats are "incompatible" with LCD or plasma displays, they just may not be the same as the display's "native" resolution. All LCD and plasma flat panel displays take in whatever (720p, 1080i, etc.), and convert it to its native resolution (e.g., 720p for most plasmas; 1080p for newer, high-end LCDs). The quality of built-in scalers do vary, and, as I understand it, re-scaling video typically does result in a lesser-quality picture.