Adam Thompson

Hey guys. Just relayed the comments via phone (he's shooting a short for someone that may end up at Cinelab again). Said this particular shot had only the sun coming in that window, no mixed or other lights, though there were mixed lights in other shots of this test. Also it was perfectly exposed as the progress of this shot shows though this still may not illustrate that well, but what would any of that have to do with the blue anyway? Some other shots in the test were purposely underexposed and some purposely had flares, etc.. Rob, were you reffering to these others shots when you said "....it's tungsten stock under mixed lighting and some of it is underexposed."? Just wanted to clear that up. The stock was 200T Kodak (7217) and this particular shot had an 85 on it, the one or two before it did not. He waited till about 6pm to do this shot as the sun starts coming into the apartment through some buildings and a tree or two outside. It fills the room to about a 2.8 via bounce from the bright walls. This was a best light transfer. If it would have been scene to scene corrected, would this issue still come up do you think? Cinelab did a transfer for me on a short a couple years ago and it was fine so I'm not trying to make anyone look bad, we just want to clear up how to avoid this issue in the future. And correcting it for the blue at this point would also change the color of the girl's denem skirt, and other things, wouldn't it? I'm not into CC work that much but was wondering how, in FCP, would be the best way to do it. The G5 has Final Cut Studio and Magic Bullet on it, if that helps. I'll try to get a well exposed still from another shot in the same room if you guys want. It's cool that a frame can be posted here and the guy that did the transfer would end up responding to it! Thanks Rob.

Ok I got a .jpg showing the extreme of the example. The back of the girl and the dark part of the bookcase on the left is where it really shows. Though on my laptop right now I can't really see it. CRT it's very clear. Also on this PC it looks a little underexposed further into the room but on the Mac it looks a stop or two brighter. ? He said there was only the sunlight coming into the room through the window you see, no other lights. There is a little motion blur as the camera was moving right behind her, both going toward the light.

John, Maybe I shouldn't have said noise, sorry about that. It's more of a blue cast over/in the blacks. And like I said, it's hard to see on the Mac's cine LCD screen. The CRT mon. and another test to DVD on a well tuned 31" TV showed the same problem. No, it was sent off so we weren't there. This was also a best light but that shouldn't matter. Cinelab did it I believe. I'd have to ask his permission to upload a grab as I didn't shoot it. Still makes me mad though, you'd think that would be a very basic thing to catch before taking someone's money.

You guys, please don't answer this kid anymore. Looks like someone that is trying to get you into a post war. I've seen this guy, or at least his twin, before. "Joey", in the case you are real- you need a few 100 hours of reading (and classes if you can afford it) and practical experience on shorts and no budget indie sets before you'll understand why you are getting the reactions you are. You'll also have to adjust your attitude before getting into a project that involves other people. Personally, I'd not so much as let you fetch my tea. I learned the hard way, like most, and am still learning everyday after about 7 years. Everyday I read one of a few cine magazines I get, this forum, industry news, go to NAB shows when they come, shoot projects, expose film whenever I can, shoot 24p projects for food and gas sometimes, etc, etc. Coming from photography really doesn't help you with what you are asking- this field is 1000 times more complex and involving. Start with understanding the basics of post production and the media used in the areas you want to show in, and work backwards to get your answer. dvxuser.com or maybe reduser.com is your place to play this one. Did I just answer him too?! Someone please close this thread, quick! :blink:

Why would we do that? I'm confused. The point of using the hard drive was to bypass the crazy costs of Digi deck rental and trouble. Working straight from drives seems to be the way things are going now. The file was 10bit uncompressed in quicktime for direct placement into our timeline on Final Cut studio. How would a tape be any better? Also, why would a tape not have the blueish cast over the blacks and the drive would?

Coworker got some 16mm tele'd to Hard drive, 10bit uncmp. SD and I noticed the blacks or shadows looked like they had a layer of blue noise over them. I doubt our film recorded that so I'm wondering how we could address this with the lab. Was this maybe an adjustment issue on their machine or could it be some other issue? We saw it on his LCD in the time line where it wasn't really noticable (as usual on LCD) but when it went out to a bigger CRT monitor, you could really see it then. Made the fresh S16mm shots look a little old and unprofessional. Any ideas? Also curious about experience with quality differences via an S16 to HD transfer and having that sent out as 10bit SD. I haven't had the chance to do this yet but was reading where someone went this route and noticed huge improvements.

Hey I'm with you on the 16mm angle. And I think the red is a hec of a toll as well, just not right for current feature projects I'm attached to right now. If you have anything in the works, let me know! Have Aaton, with primes, will travel! :P

IMO I dont see any reason there would be a problem. I've seen plenty of interviews done on nice SD cams that cut well with anything else around it. The biggest reason for this is the fact that interviews are basically close ups that don't really move and that are highly controlled. And why on earth anyone would want to shoot an interview in UHD or 2 or 3.whatever K the red is, is beyond me. Anyone who has done it with 35mm or even S16 is usually adding diffusion somehow to lower the effect high res. images can have on a person in a still frame interview, even more so if its a female. As long as you arent blowing out their skin with some harsh spotlight, no one would ever know or care for that matter.

Wrong Freya, the DVX100 isn't capable, but the DVX-100A and newer B model does indeed shoot anamorphic video for 16:9. No need to use the adapter as its really a waste of time in the long run (trust me on that too). Just remember to use "thin line detail" when in anamorphic mode to maximize the resolution.

Couple packs of these should last you forever. http://www.filmtools.com/wc-597-5.html

28 Weeks Later used a lot of handheld and it was S16. The scenes with Brad Pitt in Babel were S16 and I think were handheld a lot of the time too.

Trust me on this one, you'd be many times happier with the DVX100A or B than with a Canon 1s for what you are doing. And you can find a DVX100A for $2000 or less easily. (The A and B models can shoot anamorphic where the 100 can not.) The DVX has a certain look to it that is closest to film than any other low-end camera out there. Give someone that knows what they are doing a DVX and some post time with a program like magic bullet, and the footage can fool some pros on a TV screen.

Ok guys, I'm sorry. Let me respond like I'm suppose to ...and I promise, I'll quickly get rid of the Prod so I can join too. WOW! There is just so much information in the RED footage that it is never a bad shot. The need for good makeup artist just went through the roof. Now THIS is my favourite! Man, when I thought it couldn't get any better. I had to change my underwear. Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. Thanks for posting these. Holy crap... That's awesome! Now that's BETTER than film! Great job champs. There is absolutely NO NOISE in the picture. It is so incredibly clean! Holy crap! I even had to change my socks! This next year is going to be amazing! I can't wait to begin rolling with this sucker! it seems that you can not messup a shoot save for bad focus and under\over exposure [iris], dirt on lens etc -Am i reading this correctly? If the image is properly lit\exposed red's software can develop it to wonderful results? "The force is strong with this one..." IN RED I TRUST RED ONE (and only one) # 00000001 RED LENS (covers everything and is better than any cinema lens... or maybe Ill just use a $300 Nikon and show them!) # 00000002 RED Scriptwriter (makes me somebody) # 0000003 RED EgoStroker with KungFu Grip # 000069

I'm bashing someone? No, just bringing up interesting points that others think about but don't say. I think that has some value to it. If it derails the thread its because you are letting it. Obviously no one cared about the post so my reply will at least help it get seen now. ;) The still isn't overly impressive to me and looks like a decent DSLR pic so I guess I'm missing the point in the first place. If you want to post something, shoot a short movie/test, "correct it", downrez it and post the moving images via a .mov file or whatever. Yes it will degrade the quality severely but other things will be seen and is more valuable than endless stills alone.

Its interesting how little people, besides fans, seem to care about red footage now that its out. Maybe it was more fun to argue about what was possible within the given price range than what was possible in the end. When I see all these clips and stills all I personally think is... Ok, so its another tool. Big deal. That seriously is all I feel about it, and I could buy one if I wanted to. Im curious about why you guys put your red reservation numbers and lens numbers on your posts? Im also curious when the first red camera fan will sell their cam on ebay after it doesnt make them a famous movie maker. I bet you could get close to double your price from another fan if you act fast enough. Or maybe wait till one of the fan kings (and kings of trendy filmmaking styles like Soderberg) make a movie with one.

Strong side to front light (late afternoon maybe) shot on reversal film with a softFX and a Pola to blue up the sky?

Watching Casino, shot by R. Richardson, I was wondering if anyone knows what he uses to do his trademark blow outs with? I assume he's lighting about 5 stops over on the spots and using a net or soft fx filter of some kind in addition? Also does anyone have an opinion about this type of effect using S16mm? I'm always worried about reducing the resolution too much with 16mm and filters.

If you can't afford to pay someone for using a S16mm camera, which requires lots of very expensive support and investment on their part not to mention their time, then shoot on something else. If you really care about the film then you will find the money it takes to do it right. Get about $60,000 raised then start looking. It can be done for this much if you are very careful and have someone experienced helping to run the show. Or you could wait a while and get one of the 100's of RED fans that will own those things. They may not know what they are doing, but at least you will have film-ish looking video in the end.

Hey looks like you posted when I was writing my new post, sorry about that. So something was weird then... cool. You should mention to him about the IMDB tech posting though. This explains all the artifacts I saw. Still a great movie though! ...dont get me wrong!

I forgot to add that at least some of shots had to be some sort of lower end HD. The night stuff just dropped out too bad and some lights and things were blown out too much for film. Also even many of the lit shots had a very deep DOF pretty much all the time. If they didn't have a lighting package at all you'd think they would have been more wide open. If it was S16 then the lenses weren't too great and they must have been shooting at high Tstops and on 500 asa film pushed or something. Well now I'm starting to doubt the whole film thing altogether. With all the DI manipulation going on, it's hard to tell sometimes if something was purposely made to look more "gritty" or not. I know the last one I saw, 28 Weeks Later, looked 10 times as good and was S16mm. If once was S16 then the DI people was trying for a video look much of the time. Whatever the case, it was not 35mm film and I'd bet my camera on that. Who fills out that IMDB crap anyway?

Saw the new indie film "Once". I really liked it. IMDB says 35mm but someone lied. Does anyone know the facts? Any articles out there? It looks like 500 speed 16mm with an HD DI. There were DI credits and strangely enough you can see a few digital artifacts in some of the shots where they were maybe trying to push a little. It looks like they didn't bother lighting even one shot in this film. Somehow for this material it worked well overall. It was all about the music.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473334/

I have to ask what the use would be to begin with? I had always thought of them as a way to keep out strong flares like when looking into a hair/back light or something like that. What other reasons are they employed other than that? I recall seeing the making of on the film "Traffic" and the Mexican desert shots all had mattes on the 35mm cameras (which someone said was shot on 16mm somewhere but those cams were def. not 16's).

$500 a day? You'd be lucky to get that on an Indie film if you were a DP! I worked on a $800k film where the AC got about $150 a day. I know that for regular commercial work this varies a lot since they can budget for it but if you are working for a month straight on something small, $500 a day for an AC seems really, really high.

Just Like the Son (2006) was S16 and released 2.35. Shot by Yaron Orbach. You can read an article in Kodak's In Camera magazine- Not sure what month. I think they said how pleased they were with the image and were excited about the outcome in the end.