John Michael Corey

David, Seeing that you considered the Canon 550D T2i for sneaking in an action shot or two in a 1080P project, have you considered testing the Panasonic Lumix GH1 as well? Thanks.

Star Wars: Episodes II & III, shot with the Sony 900's.

Well, my belief is that Star Wars would have looked even better on RED.

My 2-cents... Mark Collins... lousy attempt at trying to get this long-winded thread closed. What i find entertaining is all the "film is organic" and "film is natural" and "oh, the grain, the grain" and "35mm this" and "35mm that" etc... But, how many of the guys spouting this rhetoric have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen with their own eyes? The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please tell me where's all "the grain" - oh, the holy grain? The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please complain about all the increased (and stunning) resolution (which looks nothing like 35mm) that just isn't "natural." It must be those damn silver halides! LOL! All this is like someone touting 16mm film as "supreme" while ignoring 35mm film entirely. What's really interesting is hearing the comments from those who have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen, and have also seen the 4k RED imagery. Most compare the 4k RED imagery to 65mm or 70mm film, excepting there's zero hint of grain and the resolution may be a tad finer. I have some sharp criticisms for some of the Crossing the Line footage (which was shot in... how many days? ...which therein lies most of the problem...) Yeah, there were some shots that looked "cheap" - like when the measly explosions were going off. The resolution magnified the unrealistic/unimpressive bomb bursts to the point that each burst was laughable. I think people learned that if you're shooting in 4k, then you better have heavy pyrotechnics because cheap/wimpy explosions won't be hidden in a soft cloud of blur. Bad lighting in 4k looks way, way worse than in 35mm too. There was some close-up of something (i forget what exactly) that got dirt thrown onto it. It was a quick run & gun shot - AND IT SHOWED. For huge budget/blockbuster type movies, more money will need to be spent on lighting, pyrotechnics, effects, period wardrobe, set decorations, etc. in order to appease the audience's elevated level of scrutiny. RED may or may not equal or surpass 65mm or 70mm film in all image areas (yet), but the closest comparison to the red footage seems to be the current "gold standard" - 65mm or 70mm film. And, then you look at the various cost savings...

Maybe Jannard will leave this forum because his time & energy would be better spent elsewhere. If that becomes the case, then it would seem to be a mature decision. What would be the difference if RED were to contact 50, 100, or 200 of the world's most renown/respected cinematographers and ask them to participate in a user-manufacturer camera/lens/etc... development feedback forum? And, what if RED and the aforesaid cinematographer group agreed to have all their forum correspondence posted for anyone to read/follow? And, what if cinematography.com was asked if they'd like to host/post this "elite" discussion/developmental thread? Then, please, tell me what the difference would be? Sounds like sharing or disclosing the inner dynamics of what is usually an arcane & guarded process, rather than censorship. Personally, i'd enjoy a front row seat to that dialogue. Additionally, you (or any forum member) would still be free to start your own thread(s) on what RED should or should not do or however you feel about whatever it is that you have to say. Your voice would not be gagged. How is it that this would be censorship? Having the most discerning critics discussing the good, the bad, and the ugly openly & bluntly with a manufacturer for all to see is hardly "accommodating" them. It's actually putting the company (RED) on the spot. The experts would give honest & tough criticism/feedback on where the camera/lenses/etc... are lacking or in what area(s) they my excel, what ergonomics suggestions they have, work-flow dilemmas & solutions, etc... I don't think the site should have people making personal attacks on one another. Do you think the moderators would fail to be diligent in taking appropriate action if a company attempted to undermine the integrity of this website? As i stated previously, any other company may follow the same manufacturer-user feedback model, if they'd like to. So, it would not be a "special privilege" just for RED. But, how many camera or camera-related companies are there that openly & continually discuss their product(s) with their users in an attempt to improve their product(s)? That is one trait that makes RED "more special than other DigiCine companies or film camera manufacturers." If "connecting companies with their users" is a by-product of advancing cinematographers' tools, then so be it. It seems like that is happening. However, pot-shots, name calling, arguing for arguing's sake, spouting gobbledygook, and other non-constructive things don't seem to be "relevant issues in the subject[sic] of cinematography and film-making." Stephen Williams & Jim Jannard may like my suggestion, hate it, find it laughable, politely discard it, or simply be indifferent to it.

Jim Jannard & Stephen Williams, I feel exasperated reading many of the replies. I'd like to see a focused discussion group of actual RED-users (whether owners, reservation holders, renters and/or borrowers) whose sole purpose is the evolution of the RED camera as a cinematography tool. Just the nuts & bolts. How about starting a single thread or "sticky" that is specifically dedicated to RED feedback/improvements/suggestions that is open for anyone to read, but only for those approved by the moderator? In no way am i advocating censorship. Sure, some may be left out initially, but they will eventually find their way into the fold. And, initially, some may very well be included who don't belong. I, for one, as it stands right now, realize that i do not belong in such a thread. It'd be a shame to have Jim Jannard & RED leave this forum after having attempted time & time again to establish constructive discussions on what & how to improve the RED camera as a cinematography tool. Stephen, please streamline the dialogue between manufacturer & users. Please weed out all the potshots, deconstructiveness, & gobbledygook. In no way am i advocating a change for the overall board. Hobbyists, indie's, and amateurs benefit enormously from being able to participate within this board. It'd also be constructive to have similar such exclusive threads for other manufacturers that are conducting camera development as well. Users are scattered all over the globe, and are constantly on the move. It'd be nice to have a place (this site) where all can come together and give field reports and suggestions 24-7 while on the job or out at play. That seems to be the most streamlined approach for manufacturers to make better tools for cinematographers to use & enjoy. Seems like a win-win situation to me. Let's stop spinning our wheels & smoking our tires, and instead, let's get this race under way.

I understand that RED is busy delivering "basic" RED ONE cameras right now, but i'm not going to underestimate their productivity, imagination, or resolve. Who knows? Maybe one of the email "gifts" will be cpu instructions that enable the current imaging-chip set to be recalibrated for different extremes: highlights & toe. RED did say there would be surprises... The RED ONE will go through many evolutions before there's a RED TWO, which i'm guessing will be an 8k or greater camera. Just my guess.

In an article on the American Cinematographer website (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/Apr...odiac/page1.php), Harris Savides, ASC had this to say after using the VIPER to film Zodiac, Does anyone know if Jim Jannard & RED have plans to manufacture different RED camera bodies with specialized imaging-chip sets?

I don't know what happened with my original post with all that blank space. I'd edit it out if i could... Great info, Maarten! Please post your thoughts (and any imagery, if possible) after your visit with VIPER. I'm definitely impressed with much of the footage VIPER captured in Zodiac. Thanks.

Does anyone know if VIPER will be updating its camera so that it may become a 4k+ camera?

How has VIPER compared to 35mm film in independent testing? In what image quality areas has VIPER equaled 35mm film? In what image quality areas has VIPER surpassed 35mm film? And, in what image quality areas has VIPER fallen short of 35mm film? Does RED promise to bridge any gaps/issues that may exist between VIPER and 35mm film? Are there potential image quality areas/issues that remain a stiff challenge for RED? Is it ever likely that traditional film cameras will be able to capture low light shots and distant night time skyline shots and such with the clarity of digital cameras? Is some new breakthrough in celluloid needed in order to capture such low light shots?

On paper, are the RED and VIPER equals as far as the amount of raw information (pixels or whatever) they are supposed to be able to capture? For the VIPER in Zodiac, it seems to me like much of the footage blends well together. Very little seems to stick out as having a decidedly video look. For me (a layman), in Collateral there are many more shots that are "jarring" in that they look like VIDEO shots spliced in alongside film shots. For all i know, the "video" shots in Collateral are the F900 shots and the "film" shots are the VIPER shots... In Akeelah and the Bee, the lone HD Digital shot of the sunset stuck out like a sore thumb. It did not blend well with the footage before it or after it. To me (a layman) the shot looked like video. It broke the spell the movie was weaving - it was distracting. So far in Zodiac, the movie has been pretty cohesive. The added clarity in the skyline shots and in the night time shots in Zodiac don't scream VIDEO to me (a layman) just because they are clearer than what i've seen in movies before. They are absorbing - they suck me more into the movie; they cast a deeper spell on me. It wasn't until the 43-minute mark that a shot broke my spell because of its VIDEO-ISHNESS.

I feel like i'm in a doctor's office looking at an x-ray. I probably will spot a broken bone, maybe even a hairline fracture, but i likely may not be able to discern all the other nuances the x-ray has to offer. Especially if the x-ray were taken to scrutinize soft tissues. I'm seeking professional knowledge. I want to learn. I want to understand better. Max, when you say, "...the skintones looked very unnatural..." do you mean: in all the interior office scenes, the night scenes, the day time scenes, or always? Could it be from make-up? From lighting? From the colorist and/or color timing? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Or, is there something inherently different about the way digital captures/replicates color? As far as the image sharpness, it would definitely matter what size screen you were viewing the movie on, right? On my old 19" square TV Zodiac looks pretty good... but, theater screen sizes vary widely. I imagine a huge blow-up may reveal the "not very sharp" image you describe. Is the maximum resolution of the VIPER less than what is capable of being extracted from 35mm film? If the answer is yes, then that may explain the softness of the image on the big screen.

I'm confused... Does the RED camera promise "better" image quality than the VIPER? If not, then is all the hoopla surrounding RED mostly because of it's price point? I have to say i'm profoundly impressed by the imagery the VIPER produced in much of Zodiac. Currently, i'm watching it on DVD (at the 50-minute mark - and, yes, i already saw the movie in the theater). So, far there's only been one segment that struck me as VIDEO: 43:05 to 43:20 - the first shot being the most evident. It's at this 43-minute mark that i jumped up to check the filming specs on IMDb.com. Judging by the all the other Zodiac footage i've seen to this point, it seems to me that if that one particular segment was approached differently, then it probably could have been accomplished and felt congruous with the surrounding material/shots (i.e., not have screamed of VIDEO). I say this ignorantly, and as a layman, because much of the imagery in Zodiac appears to be film not video (to the untrained eye). Yes, yes, yes, I am somewhat aware of film cameras' limitations such as low light shooting and night time clarity for the skyline/background/distant lighting. And, I understand that to professionals/experts the Zodiac footage stands out like a sore thumb, simply because they/you know that traditional film cameras are incapable of such shots. But, for all a layman (such as myself) or movie audience knows, the night time clarity in such a film as Zodiac may be the result of better lenses, new lighting techniques, or improved "traditional" camera technology of some sort. To the audience, night time clarity in and of itself does not reek of "video." If a traditional film camera were to have some "technological breakthrough" where the same clarity as digital became possible in these type of shooting situations (and they were to use those cameras to film Zodiac instead of VIPER), then would one really be able to tell the difference while sitting in a movie theater watching? I feel like the daytime shots and interior shots in Zodiac have not appeared to be VIDEO. Am i crazy? I know some people are tone deaf, well, am i "image blind?"

Picked the numbers randomly out of the air. Trying to make the point that for film to compete with HD in the future, the film negative would have to be substantially increased in size. However, that would make traditional cameras even more cumbersome and (considering the costs for developing and scanning the footage), realistically, obsolete. For instance, what if in 10 years movie theatres digitally project films at 8K? And in 60fps?! Yeah, now consider the larger size filmstock cost, the almost tripling in required film, and the increased developing & scanning costs, let alone the costs to purchase cameras designed to use the larger negative filmstock... Hello, digital! Audiences may then look down on 35mm features, because the image quality (movie-going experience) would be less than what has become "expected." Hope that makes some kind of sense. Michael Nash, I did see Northfork which i believe the still is from. However, i butchered the joke about 3 shipwrecked men. Something like a priest, a thief, and a lawyer. I can't recall...