Evan Owen

What makes you think that camera is more complex than any other?

 

It doesn't even do onboard demosaic; it's really quite a lot simpler that many others.

 

Phil

I don't see how it's any more complex either. It's just very different. What makes it more difficult (IMHO) is the size of the team and the short development cycle they've attempted.

It does do onboard demosaic (for the LCD and HD-SDI/HDMI preview). It just doesn't record the demosaiced data, thankfully.

It looks like HVX200 footage to me. Way too noisy.

I think they mean "uprez" by the fact that it does not have 1920 x 1080 pixel CCD's. The sensors are not even 1280 x 720.

That's right. Panasonic has been able to get a pretty good 1280 x 720 image by pixel shifting the HVX200's 960 x 540 sensor, but I have trouble calling it a 1080p camera.

Well Red wasnt around then was it ? so they would have looked better if they had been shot on 35mm anamorphic film just like the previous ones , i really cant wait to see Red projected via a DI film print so i can no where we are .

I don't think anyone would argue with that... :)

Yes I think Video has its uses for HD TV etc. Also Film can be archived for a hundred years.

But why use video even for HDTV? Yes it may be a bit cheaper, but with digital cinema cameras like RED becoming available at lower price-points, video isn't looking as attractive anymore.

It may just be starting, but I think eventually video will be on its way out as well... even the most expensive HD video cameras just don't compare.

Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example.

I have to agree.

I don't know why HVX was bought up other than a filmic look for the price. My response was that the JVCs were regarded by many to be the most filmic looking in that price bracket.

 

It's nothing to do with how RED looks.

OK, got it.

I was responding to this:

There are digital solutions that achieve a more filmic looking image then most generic video cameras but if you want the look of film shoot with film.

...

My personal favorite of these solutions is the HVX. There are people on this board who will disagree with me (e.g. Adam Thompson) but there is no argument that for the money the HVX produces the most filmic looking video images you can get. If money is no option I would look into the Phantom series of cameras. They look very promising in this regard. Also, keep your eye on RED. I estimate within a year we will start seeing some very "filmic" looking images from that camera.

.. but I guess I missed "for the money", and I'm still not sure I agree with that anyway...

That's the wrong link, you have to go to the Products - Downloads section.

Max, that's a very interesting article. Thanks for the info.

I have to wonder though (since this is the RED forum) how much a comparison of the F900 versus 35mm will tell us about how RED will perform under similar scrutiny.

While the vast majority of the problems with 24p footage that the article was citing were rather subjective, it was quite obvious from the blow-ups that the F900 footage was soft, flat and noisy. These problems are quite common with modern digital cinema cameras. Yes, in the past digital hasn't stood up to film very well in any way except MAYBE workflow. However, what I've seen so far from RED tells me they've overcome most of the remaining limitations.

I'd love to see a side-by-side of 35mm and RED.

Not much difference cost wise between a HVX 200 and the JVC cameras (except the HD 250), especially once you add the P2 cards.

And these are more 'filmic' than what we're seeing from RED?

I guess I need to reevaluate what I consider to be a film look...

The film's "organic" look IS preserved with DI because it originated on film. If it originates on film it will always look like film.

Great point Robin. I expected someone to bring this up eventually, and it proves a very good point. If the film look IS preserved through a DI, then the look is most definitely an addition made by the film process and isn't somehow just a more lifelike representation of reality. If a digital scan can accurately preserve the look of film, there's no reason a digital sensor can't accurately preserve the 'look' of reality when focused through a camera lens.

Logically then, as long as the 'look' of film can be accurately added in post, there isn't any disadvantage to shooting digitally in the first place.

[EDIT] Sorry, that's exactly what you and Michel were saying. Missed that.

Nah two people wanted that thread shut down... but the fans said keep it open we want to know about the troubles...

Different thread about a different camera with problems. But yeah, the sticky was created soon after the first bugs started popping up.

The way RED is handling development makes alot of sense to me. They're treating the camera more like a piece of software in beta, with regular updates coming every week. It's definitely a break from the way cameras have been built in the past, but breaking tradition seems to be what they're good at.

By the way, from what I understand, the early adopters were warned that the camera was still in development and could have serious issues. They all decided to take the cameras anyway, and ride through the bumps and glitches with the team. If anyone had issues with these first 50, it shouldn't have come as a surprise...

I must admit, in this case, I'm not a fan. The image looks like the edges are too sharp and the lead singer has that weird 'I'm-standing-in-front-of-green-screened-footage' look that sometimes happens in video-land. The colors also seem to stand apart from one another too distinctly, whereas, in film they seem to bleed together in a more visually appealing manner. The depth of field (admittedly this is a composition thing and has nothing to do with Red) is not shallow enough for the shot nor deep enough - the drummer is distractingly there but annoyingly out of focus. What's more, the elements that are out of focus, for whatever reason, feel like photoshopped lens blur as opposed to the in-lens OOF feel. Finally, there is something that I can't quite put my finger on but that something seems to take away from the 'romantic' look that film tends to have. I know that's a virtually uselessly abstract statement so I'll try to make it more concrete:

 

Uhm... As sad as this is to say (and it's counter to a previous argument of mine), the elements that are in full focus (e.g., the microphone) seem to be too much in focus...they feel too sharp in a way that nothing is in film. This should, in theory, be a good thing but it reduces the world that was captured into a less attractive place; everything stands out in too much relief from everything else. It feels like the image doesn't exist as one.

I've been thinking about this whole "film vs. video" thing, because I know what you mean. Even with RED footage, as nice as it is, there's a definite difference (some would say lack) compared with film. I think your description pretty much nails it on the head. At the same time, I'm not sure it's such a bad thing. Hear me out.

At this point, the main quantifiable difference between RED footage and film is grain. There are other differences, but not as obvious. If you think about it, film grain has a tendency to pull a scene together. Grain is visible whether the image is in focus or not, so it's the only element that's always present in the image no matter the content of the shot. It smooths the edges between the in-focus elements of the image and the out-of-focus elements. When there's no grain, there's no common denominator to pull the image together in the same way. If it's out of focus, it's completely out of focus with no detail at all, grain or otherwise, hence your feeling that it looked photoshopped. The borders between in focus portions and out-of-focus portions will be just as sharp and defined as they are in real-life (ie. the light coming into the lens), with no grain to soften the edges.

I don't think there's anything else "inherent" to an image captured on film that's exclusive to the film realm. For instance, by the time a digital scan has been made, it's already been divided up into square pixels, so the "infinitely variable" argument is gone.

It seems to me it's the grain that people are missing in all these digital images. While I can definitely see and understand the positive affect grain can have on an image, I DON'T see why starting with a clean image is a problem. Grain is a subtle element, and one that CAN be effectively introduced in post, if that's what you want. It's being done all the time, and no one has been noticing or complaining. A clean image just gives the artist more room to work, and in my opinion, that's never a bad thing.

That is the opinion of one poster and not the attitude of reduser. Other cameras have not even public boards where the developers participate.

In fact, if you read the rest of that thread, it's quite clear that the general tone is one of wanting openness and honesty about the few bugs that may crop up early on. Jim even replied acknowledging RED knows about them and is about to release a firmware fix soon.

Remember, the camera's only really existed for a few months, in development for only a year and a half. It takes time to work everything out.

Sometimes Sweet & Low works and sometimes real sugar is needed.

Agreed. But Sweet & Low is starting to become palatable, finally.

Judging from the RED footage I have seen so far I really cant see any comparison with 35mm Just a very sharp perhaps harsh video look that seems to pick out blemishs and highlight them even adding to them? Not to sure if I was an actor that I would want to have my blemishes highlighted in this manner. The blurred background looked too neat almost like a picture background had been added. The edges of the baby seemed so sharp that it looked seperate to the picture it just didnt look right to me? Also the film look seems to have been lost?

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain.

Here's an example of some of the best footage from RED so far. Whether or not it looks like film, it sure doesn't look like ANY video I've ever seen:

Music Video - "Solo El Principio"

[EDIT] Oh yeah, this is mostly flat, ungraded footage. The graded version will be coming along soon I think.

Hi Evan,

 

That does happen here sometimes, I don't see it's a big issue myself.

 

Stephen

It makes it a bit harder for those trying to find specific information, but I see your point.

I suppose the original topic has been covered well enough already anyway.

It's amazing how far this topic has wandered... and back... and away again.

John, I feel you. That's what it's all about for me too.

 

However, this has really turned into a rather fair and courteous discussion. Cheers all around!

Wow, yeah. Actually, that's quite surprising to me.

Here's to even more constructive dialog. B)

Actually that -is- something that I'd suggest. Ensure that any software produced to go with this camera makes maximum possible use of pixel shaders (or, unified shaders, now) afforded by modern graphics cards. It's something of a moving compatibility target, but the're immensely powerful and very suitable for that sort of work, and could take a huge load off the processor.

 

Traditionally it isn't much done, but it could be, and even more so now with the popularity of the PCIe bus.

 

Phil

I believe Rob Lohman and Graeme have been saying for some time now that REDCine is GPU dependent, so I imagine they're making heavy use of pixel shaders. It'll be interesting to see what kind of performance it'll have with modern GPUs. Real-time 4K (sorry Phil) decompression and demosaicing isn't far off I don't imagine...

I would actually love to see test charts from demosaiced REDCODE RAW footage and from a Northlight scan of 50 ASA film shot Super 35. You may say 50 ASA is not a fair comparison, but if we are saying the Red has more resolution than 4K S35, let's see if that holds true under a best case scenario.

Good idea.

Several RED reservees are holding quite an extensive test in LA sometime this fall (October / November, I believe?). I'm sure they'll be shooting quite a few test charts, so at least we'll have something properly shot that can be examined closely and objectively. I doubt they'll be shooting side-by-side with film, but someone else might be able to supply the scan for comparison.

Personally I feel that at some point a line in the sand has to be drawn on this sort of thing. Either you are interested in upholding technical standards, or you're willing to forego them for convenience, but either way don't lie about it. I stand for cutting the crap, but other people may feel differently. But fine, okay, nobody's interested. Dismiss it as noise. I'm clearly fighting a losing battle here; Red is being discussed on the 2K-444 list of CML, a place known for the rigidity of its rules, even though the compressed output is neither 2K nor 444 nor anything like.

 

This is the beginning of a slippery slope down which producers would just love us to slide, towards a point where manufacturers can sell their products to us as anything they like, with or without reference to reality, and where the balance between cost and technical standards is hopelessly upset. This balance has been jealously guarded by generations of scientists and engineers, and it's an insult to every one of them that we are so eager to roll over for a guy who's trying to sell us a 2K camera as 4K the same way he used to persuade us that ten-dollar sunglasses are worth a hundred. I'm dismayed that Mr. Nattress, a man who I'd previously have esteemed as among those keepers of technical excellence, is willing to be involved.

 

All I can say is stand by for a plummeting of standards elsewhere, too. The precedent set here is lethally dangerous. This is an immensely sad moment; it makes me feel as if the principles I've always worked for are being dismissed out of hand.

 

Phil

You know Phil, I've been watching this board for awhile, and I had previously been somewhat understanding of your viewpoint and have even agreed with many points you've brought up. But with this most recent post of yours, I have absolutely no way to express the incredulity I'm feeling right now. I have exactly the OPPOSITE perspective regarding this camera and the standards it's bringing to the industry, and I'm not alone. If it was only myself and the fanboys at reduser.net, I wouldn't fault you for dismissing it. The reality is that the ones getting REALLY excited are those that are actually USING the camera. And I'm not talking about guys coming over from the HVX200. These are veteran 35mm guys being blown away by the image quality and workflow. So far, I haven't heard any complaints from them about it being advertised as 4K. Are you really worried that the industry as a whole is really so ignorant as to be 'duped' into buying a camera that's really only 1/2 or 1/3 what it's being advertised as?

At least it costs 1/10 what the nearest competitor costs... it'd be worth it even if it only shot 1080p. How is this a case of 10-dollar sunglasses being sold for 100 dollars? I don't see it.

Actually, in the Red workflow the compression comes before the demosaicing, that is all that is done to your data before it is recorded, you can then decompress and demosaic to 4:4:4 uncompressed if you like.

 

Cheers,

Damien

It's true that the RAW data is compressed first, but even decompressed and demosaiced footage isn't true 4:4:4 since it comes from a bayer sensor and you can't get detail back that's already been lost in compression.

Although I'll argue that it's more than 4:2:2. The layout of the photosites and the way every pixel responds at least a little bit to every color means that an efficient algorithm can pull quite a bit of resolution out of bayered data.

...

I just consider it to be a point of order that we shouldn't let people bandy these impossible claims about. It raises all sorts of ugly possibilities: what else aren't they being straight about? If we let this go, what will someone try next?

 

Phil

Is this sort of advertising any different than Panasonic passing the HVX200 off as a 1080p camera? Or what about Canon calling their new 1Ds Mark III a 21 megapixel camera? I mean, we all know it's a bayer sensor, so really it's only 7 megapixel, right?

I have to post this because I have a feeling there's something wrong with the grabs from Crossing the Line. This 100% crop is from a shoot that fxguide.com did when they first got their camera more than a week ago. Most of what's referred to as 'debayering' artifacts aren't apparent at all. I think the Crossing the Line footage had other problems of some sort. Also, it's looks to me like there's more than 2k of resolution here... maybe not true 4k, but obviously more than 2k.

Do any of the first 25 recipients actually post here? That's what I've found odd: there hasn't been a single post on REDuser from anybody who has been contacted by RED to arrange delivery of their camera. So who are these people? ...

Well, Mark Pederson from OffHollywood is picking up his two cameras in about an hour.

From reduser.net this morning:

Jim - a whole lot of us want to THANK YOU for letting us ride along on your DREAM so we can chase our own ...

 

You are an inspiration. Period.

 

See you in 1.5 hours -

 

BRAVO!!!

__________________

Mark L. Pederson - www.OffhollywoodStudios.com

As for those who can't pickup in person, I'm not sure. I'm sure shipping is being arranged.