John Brawley

The pixels are constant, colorised ( red blue green) on large areas such as dark blue pull-over , hair, wooden table:

on my monitor (astro) i was on log c and nothing was under 25-30 % !! and the high light were 65-70 %

i know that more and more people around the world shoot commercials, features...with this camera but all the colorist i've been working with in france have also noticed that problem.

i'll try to sent a picture.

 

thanks. reynald.

Is it possible you're just seeing the noise floor of the sensor itself ? Why are you lifting the blacks up as high as 30% ? If you're lifting them as high as that I would expect you'd start seeing noise in the blacks....

jb

Okay, this is a newbie-ish question, which I asked on the RED board, but got no response.

 

How many of you DPs actually do the tech and physical maintenance on the cameras you use. Are you interested in the inner mechanism of whatever it is you're using to shoot your stuff, or are you strictly a "the camera is my tool" kind of guy?

 

I'm just kind of curious.

My first job was working in a camera rental company and I was exposed to a lot of the service and repair side of the gear.

I always rent gear and if it breaks I ring the rental company and say "bring me another one....this one's broken"

I know enough to detect and test for faults in the field...and I leave the fixing to the guys that own the gear and have the workshop to do it...

jb

Hi.

Tonight on ABC 1 @ 9PM. Lowdown is a comedy series I shot late last year (aside from tonights pilot), and is set in the world of celebrity tabloid journalism. Lowdown shines a spotlight on the life of a man whose job it is to feed the publics insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip...something it seems we just cant get enough of.

With a very recognisable list of Australian cast, Lowdown is narrated by none other than Geoffrey Rush and also stars Kim Gyngell as the Sunday Sun editor, Paul Denny as Bob the Sunday Sun photographer and Alex's (played by wilfreds Adam Zwar) best mate and Beth Buchanan as Rita, Alexs on-again-off-again girlfriend. Alexs inept GP Dr James played by Dailan Evans fuels his cyber-chondria while Julia Zemiro plays Hope van der Boom, the gutsy publicist to the stars.

The pilot, which airs tonight was actually shot waaaaaaay back in late 2008. Once the series was picked up we shot the rest of it at the end of 2009. It was amazing even grading the different footage from RED a year apart.

It's a low budget production (hey it's the ABC) and we shot single camera over about 40 production days....pretty fast.

Most of the show is handheld too...I had the Cooke 15-40 T2 on most of the time....not exactly lightweight !!!

Those of you overseas can watch it here after it goes to air tonight ( i think)

And there's a

jb

Shooting someone seated in a chair at his desk, can we use the light coming from a window behinf him as a backlight (partly framed) and using an other window (in fact an artificial light with CTB) as a key light ? Is it too tricky or confusing ?

 

I'm asking because for many reasons, I can't set the shot differently, I can't move the desk nor the camera.

Your biggest issue with this situation will be balancing the exposure level. If you're suing it as a backlight, there's a fair chance that you'll be looking at or out the window yes ?

In that case, the bigger issue is reducing the glow you'll get from a hot window. It can overwhelm your subject. Instead of backlight you'll get a silhouette.

You can try to balance this out by lifting the key level (and therefore your base exposure) but this generally requires more firepower than your "student" c.com status and use of CTB indicating tungsten lights only indicates you can access.

The other option is to reduce the level coming in. Common techniques for a seemless result include using ND lighting gel cut out and stuck to the window, using ND perspex on the window or large nets or even shade cloth if you're not looking too closely at it.

You can create a key from a non existent window. You have to use your own judgement about weather this looks true and even if you care that it looks true.

I often will not match the CT of the key to a window source either. You might consider 1/2 CTB for better separation and less light lost through your presumably tungsten source. Remember though, that colour saturation decreases as you head towards brighter exposure. Your backlight will tend to look more white than any colour because it will be so bright.

jb

I wonder when somebody will decide that PL mount lenses no longer need to be designed with clearance for mirror shutters.

-- J.S.

Isn't that what lenses like the Optimo rouge lenses are all about ?

jb

I know several Freelancers in the industry who have incorporated. They claim that there are financial benefits for doing so.

 

I'm considering it for myself.

 

Does anyone have any personal experience with pros and cons? Thanks!

In Australia, the main advantages to incorporation are reducing the tax bracket you sit in. Corporate tax is 30% across the board in Australia. If you're in the highest personal income tax bracket it's .45c for every dollar earned.

It's more expensive to set up and report, but if you're in a higher income bracket, it's generally worthwhile doing.

jb

I certainly 100% agree with all of that John, and of course without Gert, you'd loose a god deal of the film-- if not all of it-- and while I do really like it, It just really never squared with me. Dunno why, I suppose it's almost like standing in a shadow. I've seen 2001 so many times that I can't look at Moon without immediately associating it-- and you know, perhaps that is the point, just one of those things that I get whishy washy on, for lack of a better term.

Really ? Why do you link it so strongly with 2001 ? I'd say it's closer to films like Silent Running or even Metropolis. I guess it is about interacting with allien species to humans. In moon, you just didn't know that it's telling it from the aliens' side and he doesn't know he's not really considered a human or of the same rights. The computer too is an alien I spose.

jb

Very nice film.. though dunno how I feel 'bout the "homage" to HAL. I liked it, just unsure how I ought feel 'bout it.

WATCH FOR SPOILERS NOW>>>>>

Well I thought it played well in the film. I was expecting the GERTY character to be more malicious, but in fact was the opposite. I kept waiting for it to go wrong (a la HAL) In fact, to me that's what the film was about. Both Sam and GERTY are striving for humanity, for recognition of their own humanity. Neither of them are full citizens of the world. They are outsiders straining for acceptance. GERTY commits the ultimate act of grace and empathy in the end. What else is that other than human ? The question the film really asks is what is it that defines humanity itself and are we worthy of the notions that go with that.

jb

Helium 3, the long promised nuclear fuel that is clean green and radiation free and will solve the problem of global warming. The only problem is that you have to go to the Moon or Saturn to get this modern version of gold. So David Bowies son makes a movie about helium 3 mining on the moon and I wonder if anyone has seen it ?

ONe of the best films of 2009 in my opinion, and from a first time director. Who says you can't do low budget (this was something like 5 Million) and sci-fi well. Should have had more oscar glory. Especially for Sam Rockwell's amazing performance. He literally carried the film.

jb

Yes.

 

Right now I've rented about 16 space lights (6x800w each) and 10 Cycloids of 5Kw each.

The room is 10m high, 13 width, 16 long.

 

Would this do it?

 

We're shooting on the Phantom HD Gold too, at 1000 fps. Without greenkey, on black background with 24Kw as a backlight and 16 Kw Jumbo light as a fill. Is this overkill?

 

Thanks,

Mx

1000FPS is getting up there.

I haven't done much in the way of ultra high speed, but I also am pretty sure there can be issues with flicker on tungsten sources lower than 2K at higher frame rates. There may be others who can comment more knowledgeably on this.

Spacelights are great but you don't get heaps of level from them considering the wattage burning. And I wonder if there's enough for 1000FPS. Do you have any photometric data for the spacelights ? I'd be looking that up (or for an equivalent) and trying to work out if you have enough fc. My instincts point to that maybe not being enough in terms of level.

jb

Hi all,

 

Will be shooting S16 in a relatively humid environment, the west edmonton world waterpark, next friday. Just curious if there is anything special I need to know about working with film in humid environments.

 

Thanks!

Evan

I've found SR3's and in particular the HS SR3's to be prone to being a little unreliable in precipitation. Many years ago I was on a 9 camera shoot in the rain at the Melbourne Cup. They all got a little wet. Only one of the 9 cameras stopped working and it was the Arri SR3 HS.

If it's humid there can be issues with acclimatising the lenses and the viewfinder too. I gather it's an indoor water park ? If that's the case you may want to take everything inside some hours before the actual shoot to give the gear a chance to acclimatise to the humidity or you'll have issues with fogging. The longer it's int hat environment, the better. Open all your cases and try to prop the lenses up. (supervised) Make sure you've got a heated viewfinder cable too, but I've never found them that great on the Arri's either.

jb

H I'm assuming this is fairly archaic considering the SR3 has timecode recording. But I dont really understand the entire procedure for that. I understand that the process involves 'jamming' the timecode between both the SR3 and the external recorder through the use of some sort of external device? This is what worries/frustrates me because I dont understand how to go about doing that, and secondly, how the post house goes about syncing the audio, or if i should do it, etc etc. I really just need more real world information.

Evan, arricode is a joke. It's meant to make things easier, but the implementation was half-arsed and not really thought through response to the success of Aatoncode. I could tell you all the reasons why, but just take my word for it. It's junk.

I've yet to meet a single person that's been able to make it work successfully without some kind of ongoing drama. I do know that the best chance you'll have of making it work it to go to a telecine facility with a keylink as they are the best readers of arricode (which are funnily enough made by Aaton).

So either use a Timecode slate as discussed or a regular dumb slate and you'll enjoy the unique tribal ritual of bashing two bits of wood together for film that's been with us for nearly a century...

jb

Do you need to see the floor ?

jb

I'm looking for a filter, if it exists, that can soften blemishes in a face, but not give the whole image a low contrast, diffused look. I don't want the viewer to know the shots have been filtered.

 

I always read that the Black Diffusion Filter did just this, but when I finally found an example, it looked low contrast and diffused, with halated highlights. Is there any filter that can do it?

You can't go past Schneider classic softs. They are great for diffusion that doesn't look like diffusion. Depending on the strength you will get halation on point source highlights.

Just keep those hot highlights out and you can't tell.

jb

Band Pro have these on their site:

 

http://www.bandpro.com/309/index.php?page=...1&Itemid=27

I bet they'll make masterprimes seem cheap

jb

I'm worried because after an easy day of test shoots, my shoulder is killing me. At one point I even got dizzy because the camera was weighing down too much toward the inside of my neck. I have very narrow, thin and bony shoulders so I bought a shoulder pad, but I'm wondering if that made it worse falling in toward my neck and putting weight on on places.

Dan you could look at an easyrig for endurance...but not for looks ;-)

jb

Thank you for this information. Was the first dream sequence where he holds his wife while she's dying shot on 65mm as well? Or was this S35?

There's a story in AC about them TRYING to use 65mm, but the Panaflex and the Arri 765 both broke down in the cold on the first day of shooting. They intended to use it for all his flashback material. They reverted to 35mm and they cooked up a recipe in the DI for a reversal sort of look.

jb

I also read that piece,perhaps a little premature in sounding the death bells for film.

I know it has largely happened in stills,particularly with commercial work.

The problem for me is that anyone who says "film is dead" is just buying into a ridiculous gear pissing match over numbers and statistics.

Even in stills, film is actually not dead. Sure, not many people choose to use it, but there are plenty who still do. And critically perhaps in this analogy, it's fine artists rather than commercial photographers.

It's like saying LP's are dead. Well they are not are they ? Diehards still use them. Yes they make up a small minority of the total music market.

I'm realistic and would say most of my recent work hasn't been shot on film.

This ridiculous clamouring to pronounce film being dead speaks volumes about the person making such pronouncements. It says they care more about specs than using their eyes. It says that they care more about the emotional choice to NOT shoot film and desperately want the reassurance that their chosen alternative is as good as film.

Meanwhile, good DP's who care about telling stories visually will simply choose the best tool for the job, based on the script, directors intent and available budget.

jb

http://hdusermagazine.com/wordpress/?p=24

They lost me when they said film is dead....but then again...it is a story by HDusermagazine.

I guess they shouldn't even be looking at RED either seeing as it's anything but HD.....

jb

Backing up not on set, but within walking distance, is sort of like what we always had with film -- getting it out of the camera mags and into metal cans.

Not really backing up though is it ? You've just moving it to another container for transport. A step that does have a small degree of risk. But you still only have one instance of your content until it hits the lab and is processed to a more stable and safe state. Even then though there's still only the one instance of the content, but at least it's in a safe, stable location where conditions are more controlled.

I, too, have seen on-set color correction not work worth a damn over and over again. Trying to make a look that way is a fool's errand. But going to tape, having a DIT to make sure what you get is within range for final timing is somewhere between a real good idea and a necessity. It's one of those temporary things that should be going away now, as the technology improves -- like the Technicolor consultants of old.

I agree. I've had the best results simply taking a still and using lightroom. I'll email some notes to the colourist. Nothing else is worth the effort and seldom gives a better result.

As Phil says, the key to success is verifying the transfer. Which in the case of oft chaotic on-set circumstances is easier said than done, unfortunately.

Oh yeah. That's why I hate backing up on set. I'd much rather treat it like film and send the rushes offsite to be backed up in more controlled conditions.

I've always been sceptical of on set backups. The chance of interrupted power, accidental hard drive knocks, constant moving of the set, constant moving of the DIT trolly. It just screams painful. I'm even more sceptical of onset colour correction, a la DIT.

On a recent TV series, we simply shot to RED DRIVES instead of card. Every couple of hours of set time we swapped out the drive and sent them off to the lab (in this case Deluxe) with a runner at lunch and the end of the day.

Deluxe would do visual and tech checks of every print take, two sets of backups to editorial drives, backed it up to their networked storage and this was then also backed up on their LTO tape system.

The main chance of failure with this approach is then the camera drive itself. I feel like it's minimised by swapping it out religiously every couple of hours. Even if the drive fails, there's often a chance of recovery of most of the drive if a particular sector / take goes down.

The most you loose is a couple of hours of set time if the drive totally fails. More than likely you'd also know on set if that happens to the drive because the camera will report a fault as you shoot. Not a bad trade off. And i can have one less person on set. Just a loader instead of a DIT and loader.

jb

Wavelet artefacts look like soft focus and/or a sort of micro-fine version of the distortion used in shower door glass. People tend to be less aware of and less bothered by that than by the little squares we all see so clearly when the wheels come off of DCT compression. So, wavelets fail in a more "viewer friendly" way.

The only time I've seen this kind of artefact is when the blacks are highly lifted and you have flat fields of a lower shadow tone, near black or just above. I had always assumed it was more to do with fixed noise of the sensor. Mind you, if that's the worst it can do, then I've only seen it appear in the most drastic of situations. I still think I prefer it to DCT.

Is that really equal to 3.2K worth of co-located three color samples? It's apples and oranges, very subjective.

I was just making a point that one has to arrive at your own *position* with regard to how you view the numbers and filter through the marketing talk to the real world outcomes. I think we do it with all cameras, not just RED.

jb

Wavelet is not a panacea. I think the reason people aren't using it is for cost of the silicon and power consumption, but in any case, the idea that it's even twice as good as DCT (bearing in mind we don't accept raw SNR figures as definitive), is sheer fantasy. It's one of several fantasies that I think Red rely on rather heavily.

Phil I'm not an engineer, and only barely keep up with an understanding of the underlying technology platforms.

I am inherently sceptical of compression, and have certainly seen the shortcomings of other formats, but I'd put it way down the list of issues holding back RED image and picture fidelity. I've done a film and a TV series with RED, and I'm amazed out how good the compression is. It's certainly not getting in the way of pushing the picture around as much as other sensor limitations are.

I'm sure you'll tell me that the compression artefacts are there, but I can't seem to see them in my everyday work. I can't say the same about almost any other camera / format.

I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, but when you sledge RED for using this kind of compression when its clear (well in my experience) that it's far above anything else doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm genuinely trying to take on your point of view, but I really don't understand what your issue actually is because I just don't see it playing out in my own real world experience. Can you be any more definitive about what makes it some kind of subterfuge ? How would it play out in terms of end image result and what production conditions would reveal the fundamental problems of wavelet based compression.

I can understand your sensitivity over the constant use of the term 4K if numbers are important to you. Long ago in my mind I accepted that RED creates a 4K (pixel) file out of a 3.2K(at best) image of the sensor. Most imaging professionals probably think the same way. Anyone who has half a clue about RED knows that the camera doesn't record 4K.

It's interesting though because I don't think anyone else actually bothered to measure the shooting resolution of other digital formats. I was involved in some tests that were done by a local rental company. We couldn't even get 3.2K out of RED, but we also couldn't get anywhere near 1920 out of most HD cameras either. Red seemed to come closest to it's stated resolution.

I also long ago realised that most manufacturers fib about their products. Or at best, tweak their results to the most favourable possible light. Battery performance for example. Lens apertures not being what's written on the barrel. "no ramping" is a favourite. In my mind, Sony are the worst offender.

I've never been a fan of pointing cameras or lenses at charts though, cause they make for very boring subjects. Are they really so different to other manufactures wanting their products to be seen in the best possible way ? Is it that they are more successful than most ? Is it that their lower cost of entry as meant a flood of inexperienced imaging *experts* that think the best way to be a DP is to hitch your horse to one camera ?

jb

Hi.

Lake mungo is now available for download from iTunes.

Now i feel like I've really made it...... :-)

jb

I'm just wondering what opinions there are regarding the above.

If the output is going to be HD (1920x1080), is there really an advantage of having a true 2K scan compared to a true HD scan? I'm not talking about a spirit transfer to HD, but a scan.

In my world of graphics and animation, I've always tried to avoid the re-sampling of pixels at all costs. So if the 2K scan will be scaled down slightly (and re-sampled) to be output to HD, is it worth it? Do you really gain any picture quality is such a scenario? OR perhaps people are just cropping?

 

Thank in advance,

Tom

Hi Tom.

I went through this about 2 years ago and did some test for a film, and it's a bit different for me i guess because we wanted a 35mm film finish.

I couldn't really pick much of a difference in resolution between HD and 2k Scans from super 16 using an arri scanner.

Where I did pick differences was in workflow AFTER the scan. You want to make sure you can get the most out of your bit depth and colourspace. So HDCAM instead of HDCAM SR will for example will affect your results. Even on SR then can be big differences between 709 colourspace and LOG as well.

When I was doing it, it was a lot cheaper to scan HD rather than 2k. And it meant I could scan and grade from uncompressed data BEFORE outputting to HDCAM SR which is what we did for the video masters. The film finish was struck from the uncompressed HD data files with it's own film LUT.

jb