Maarten Treurniet

Here is the confusion -- that somehow the goal of imagemaking is to "imitate life"... if that were the case, then is film really that good at it? A hyper-sharp, super-high frame rate grainless digital format may ultimately reproduce human vision more effectively. What we love about the look of film isn't necessarily how realistic it is.

---Very true but then we can also give up in terms of exploring new techniques and stick with film. In my opinion it is always good to find new ways of telling a story be it with higher frame rates or more resolution or for that matter 3d. All the major companies like Thompson, Sony, Phillips are busy exploring 3d. Does this mean the image is less organic when shooting 3d digitally than on film? No. It is just another way of telling your story. I would love to see heavy drama in 3d and then judge whether I am emotionaly involved or not. Is that too much of an effect to drag me into the storty or is it just something we have to get used to?

"Organic look" is a nice artistic metaphor that we all sort of know what it means, but it is not a practical way of thinking about a technique to alter the inherent look of a process or medium. You have to be much more specific about what you mean -- is it the way that highlights roll off into overexposure? Is it how shadows fall into black? You have to take the time to breakdown the visual qualities you want to achieve in a very dry and technical manner, in terms of things that can be adjusted photographically, optically, or through post manipulation. Because no two people are going to define "organic" the same way.

---Helas, I think that "organic" is what you got used to over the years. I think it will always be a matter of taste. But I thought the whole discussion was about what the next step would be. That it will be digital is no surprise to anybody but the real next step? 3d 100 Hz? Have you seen 100 Hz films? because there is a real difference there, no more obturation, no more motionblur and still controlable depth of field, no more headaches. And of course the Americans can go to 120 Hz. There has to be a difference

It would probably be more sane and practical to not fight too hard against the nature of the process or format but use its essential qualities to your creative advantage.

---Exactly my point.

Maarten

Director

 

So, I'm asking. Will someone step up to the plate and start a dialogue on how the Red may be used by itself or in conjunction with XXX to enable a more organic look to the images it produces? Regardless of the medium, content is king. However, art is most effective in the cinematic world if it imitates life, especially in how the images are presented, captured, etc. So, again, how can the Red's potential be more effectively used to circumvent this byproduct of digital capture?

 

Can the Red Team, distinguished members of this forum, guests, or just anyone with an idea or potential solution weigh-in?

 

---Lets end the discussion about resolution right here and lets get rid of motion-blur. The only way to really have a better picture in the cinema is not by raising resolution from 2k to 4k (you'll only benefit from this when you are seated in the first 3 rows of most theaters anyway) but by by raising the speed of the images. Let's go to 100Hz. It'll be like looking out of the window.

 

Maarten

You can download a .txt lut that will do the anti-log from 10 bits to 12-bits linear on the thomson site. Then again what do you do with 12-bits linear since there is for example no Quicktime codec that does 12 bit RGB 4:4:4... see the attached pdf.

Maarten

FilmStream_reverse_LUT.pdf

We own a Viper Filmstream Camera and we are invited to talk about the 4k Viper in the factory here in Breda in Holland in the next two weeks. So definitely they are upgrading to 4k. In two weeks time i'll know more...

Maarten