Evan Winter

Hey Jamie, This is just one example, so take it with a large grain of salt, but my mom saw Miami Vice in theaters and when I asked her if she liked it she said, "Well, it was pretty good. But it looked different from most movies". Not saying she preferred the look or anything but in this day and age I believe the average moviegoer can sense something 'different' when watching digitally originated films. Evan W

Here's a link to about 10 seconds of a music video shot on the Red Camera: http://web.mac.com/fini1/iWeb/Site%20135/4...d%20Camera.html 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. Okay, enough pseudo-psychobabble for one night. :) Besides, only so much can be deduced from 10 seconds of footage. I'm still looking forwards to seeing more from Red and can't wait to get my own grubby lil' hands on one. Evan W. edit: perhaps many of my issues are stemming from the fact that the focus in the shot is placed squarely on the mic when really it should be following the singer's face....

Hey Adam, Beautiful frame grabs. I love the film one of my favorites. Would you be able to find frame grabs from several other film scenes lit solely by candles? There must be tonnes since it's been more than 30 years since 1974... My point? One example does not a case make. Besides, I wasn't lauding the Red One for being able to shoot in candlelight. I was simply pointing it out for those interested in checking out the footage. Additionally, I'm a director/dp and all my work (minus two short films) have been shot on either 35mm or 16mm. I've seen what film can do. I love film. But I consider myself open-minded enough to see and understand that digital technology can and will advance faster than film technology and that at some point (in the not too distant future) the superior capture format will be a digital one. Many of the labels/artists I work with ask about digital capture for their projects and I always tell them that if they can afford to shoot film (which is the only thing I currently shoot on) that they should shoot film. I'm looking forward to seeing more from the Red One and I plan to take it out and test it thoroughly and if it lives up to my expectations, needs, and artistic desires (from a capture format) I will rent it out and shoot some projects on it. I want to be open-minded and I want to judge according to my aesthetic, my opinions, and using my reasoning powers - all of which tell me that in my lifetime the majority of commercials, music videos, TV shows, and films will be shot digitally. Only time will tell but I'd be willing to wager a decent amount on my prediction (the bet would only be valid if I lived a decent lifespan though ;) ). Evan W.

I can't help but think that when our children are grown up they'll look at our favorite movies and ask us why they look so fuzzy with all those tiny moving specks that are especially noticeable in the dark parts and the bright parts of the image. I have little doubt that the next generation (or maybe two) will view our grain-composed film images with the same degree of regard and interest with which the average cinema goer regards the odd herky-jerky movement of 18fps black & white film.

p.s. - two more links to Red One footage: 1. http://brainspasm.com/red/UpInSmoke.mov Red Settings: ASA 1000, Shutter 1/48. Red Zoom: 50mm, T3 The shot opens lit solely by the flame of a match. 2. http://brainspasm.com/red/KillerRedFish.mov Red Settings: ASA 1000, Shutter 1/48. Red Zoom: 50mm, T3

'deadstacked'? pardon my ignorance, what exactly is that? :huh:

Hey R, don't know much about 14th century french poetry :) but here is a large quicktime (viewable through the link) of uncorrected and naturally lit footage shot with the Red One: http://brainspasm.com/red/MiniRedGuy.mov (the link was posted at www.reduser.net). I like what I see so far and I'm looking forward to the right opportunity to take the Red camera out for a test spin on a music video (hopefully before the year is out). If I get the chance I'll report back on the experience (with notes, stills, thoughts, workflow, etc). Evan

I didn't want to do it but after reading 11 pages of this I feel compelled to add my 2 cents. :) First a question - what are we using these cameras for? Are we, as cinematographers, shooting with them so we can get a better understanding of demosaicing, debayering, 4k'ing, and RGB HDSI RAW outputting?? Or are we trying to capture an image that will communicate something to its viewer? Arising from this somewhat rhetorical question come two key points: 1.) The artist needs to be able to accurately predict/previsualize what type of image they will get out of the camera (creative control through consistent camera performance). 2.) The image the artist ends up with should please the artist as its creator. I believe someone concerned with cinematography and mastering the art and craft of the field would do the following if they were interested in the Red camera. a.) Test the camera - do you, from an artistic perspective, have control over the results? can you learn to consistently predict what the camera will give you and thus gain mastery of this tool. b.) Look at the footage - do you like it??? If you can create what you desired to create and if you like the resulting visual quality/texture/vibe of the footage then you have found your new tool. The rest of it, while on occasion interesting, is for engineers to argue over. Any cinematographer can follow 'a' and 'b' above and fully satisfy the needs of their art from a creator standpoint. Anyone, in our specialized and small field, not rigorous enough to follow 'a' and 'b' may well deserve to fall prey to marketing hype.

Very very sad news. John Pytlak was a kind, caring, intelligent, always helpful individual who helped me to both learn about and love film a little more. Thank you John. I will miss you. Evan

Anthony, one of my best friends and a frequent collaborator of mine (he's produced two of my short films) commented on 'The Quiet' two days ago. He asked me if I'd heard of it and then proceeded to ask me if I knew it was shot digitally. I told him that I did. He asked me if I could tell by looking at it. He said that he didn't realize it was shot digitally until he did some research into the film. It didn't ever occur to him, while watching it on DVD, that he wasn't watching 'film'. Now, I'm tempted to call Anthony a film-lover but perhaps he'd be better classified as merely disliking the 'lower quality look' of digital acquisition. He's seen Superman Returns, Fincher's Zodiac, Mann's Miami Vice/Collateral, and Apocalypto (among others). In all cases he recognized that the films had been shot digitally and expressed that while they may have worked visually for him to varying degrees he still, generally speaking, preferred film. To make a long story short, David's 'The Quiet' was shot in a style that caused my film-literate friend to believe he was watching film. I thought this was interesting and thought I should post it. Especially since my friend's next question was, 'How did he do that?' Evan

This scene is one of the best in Children of Men. It's incredibly tense, the lack of editing makes you feel very in the moment, and the de facto POV (in the car shooting) provides a powerful 'I'm there' vibe. I'd say that the filmmakers accomplished something very incredible with their fancy schmancy rig - they made this part of their film come totally alive! The average 'punter' doesn't need to have any idea how it was accomplished. The audience isn't supposed to understand the magician's trick; they are meant to enjoy the magic.

David, I think you'll be very pleased with the results. I use a Sony Alpha and I am constantly surprised in transfer by the camera's accuracy in depicting the scene. I'm a firm firm believer in the DSLR-as-previs-tool. Michael, there was a decent discussion about DSLRs as previs not too long ago. You can probably bring it up through the search and there was some pretty good info on different cameras etc. Although I have the Sony Alpha and I'm pleased with the purchase I believe that Nikon's similar level models (40x being one of them) are superior. I believe this based on specs rather than use so take that with a grain of salt. All the best, Evan

Intriguing individual with a fascinating philosophy of light. Thank you very much for the link David.

If you have the option then come to L.A. See Brad's reasons above. All true.

Hey Leo, I don't know if you're 'quoting' me when you say, 'the t-stop won't be faster than the f-stop' but if so I may not have communicated my thoughts clearly enough. I'll try again: If light transmitted to the film plane is increased by reducing the amount of light lost to reflections then this would result in lenses with the ability to open up to faster t-stops than is currently possible. T-stops (being an indication of the actual light that hits the film plane vs. the f-stop being a measure of the amount of light that a metering tool indicates should hit the film plane) are slower than 'corresponding' f-stops on a lens. e.g., if a lens showed both f-stops and t-stops for each position it would likely look something like: note: For illustrative purposes I'm imagining that lenses lose 1 stop of light from front element to film plane, whereas, modern lenses more typically lose only 1/3 of a stop or less largely because of advancements in film coating technology. 1. f4.0(amount of light hitting front element) = t5.6(f-stop amount of light hitting the film) less light hits the film than hits the front element of the lens 2. f2.0(amount light hitting front element) = t2.8(f-stop amount of light hitting the film). less light hits the film than hits the front element of the lens So, if my ambient meter tells me I need an f4.0 to properly expose a scene and I'm happy, creatively, with this assessment then I set the t-stop on my lens barrel to t4.0. This will transmit f4.0 to my film. Although, it is likely that the amount of light entering the front element is closer to f5.6. (if my lens only had f-stops and I set my lens to f4.0 then I would be underexposed - because less than f4.0 worth of light would make it all the way through the lens to my film) F-stops, on lenses, represent the amount of light entering the front element. T-stops (transmission stops) represent the amount of light that actually makes it through all the elements to the actual film itself. At the end of the day, let's imagine most lenses we have now can open up to T2.0. If this new coating technology reduces the loss of transmitted light to the film plane then we'll have lenses that are effectively faster because they will be able to open up more with no loss in image quality. i.e., t1.4. Hopefully this post makes my intent more clear. And wow, that got wordy fast. I may have even confused myself. :) :) :) Evan

I've paraphrased the already short article and I've attached the link to the original article at the very bottom of my post: Researchers in New York have developed a new type of nanostructured coating that can virtually eliminate reflections, potentially leading to dramatic improvements in optical devices.The coating stops reflections from nearly all the colors of the visible spectrum, as well as some infrared light. As a result the total reflection is 10 times less than it is with current coatings (get on this Zeiss and Cooke!) LEDs, already one of the most efficient ways to produce light, could also become much more efficient. A remarkable 40 percent improvement could be seen in LEDs, where a large amount of light generated by a semiconductor is typically trapped inside the device by reflections. I wonder if this could lead to more powerful LEDs and thus increase their overall use in film lighting. It's also interesting to consider the possibility of film lenses that lose 10x less light due to reflection. Depending on how much light is lost to reflection in the current systems we could see high quality lenses that are significantly faster becoming the standard (T0.4 anyone?). :) http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/707/

I think the cinematography looks great. It's fun to see a contemporary film shot this way. Congrats on the good-looking work! :)

I've camera assisted on several high profile/monster budget car commercials and while they likley do some recomposition in post they also shoot the skid/turn several times. Several years ago I worked on the car commercial for the Hyundai Tiburon (the newest version's introductory commercial) and they shot in a white-out studio and did the skid about 5 - 7 times until the director was confident he had what he needed.

Good swing and tilt use always makes me feel claustrophobic. :) For an easy and quick look at some recent swing/tilt use (not necessarily for claustro feel) check out the opening speaking scenes in this JT vid: Swing et Tilt

Dear Yong Lee, All newer color negative film stocks: dynamic range: 10 stops+ underexposure until black: approx 3-4 stops under overexposure until white: approx 4-5 stops over typical practice: overexpose the film by 1/2 - 3/4 of a stop for a denser negative (can be manipulated more in post and will result in less grain) Hope this helps. Good luck with your shoot. evan

Here's an interesting development: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132289-c,hdtv/article.html Engineers in Japan have developed a system they call Super Hi-Vision which uses a resolution of 4,320 x 7,680. They even managed to build a prototype sensor to capture at such insane resos. Not bad but I can't wait for the next generation - Super Awesome Extreme Hi-Vision. Evan

IMHO (America-centric) - 1. Employers by the very nature of being employers take a greater risk financially (no one pays them bi-weekly) and so their pay-off should be greater. 2. It is a free country and no one is forced to work for anyone else. When a job is taken on (as long as the terms of the employment are disclosed up front) then the employee has clearly deemed the terms acceptable. If, while working, they change their minds they are always free to leave the job. 3. If there is a concern about undercutting, availability of free labor, etc., then this arises because others have deemed the terms of employment acceptable and in the case of free labor desirable (to the extent that by providing this free labor they have reasoned that they will later be rewarded - finally being hired, networking, etc). 4. If an employee is truly unhappy with the employment but wishes to remain within the industry they can always start up their own business and become 'the employer'. There a few places on this entire planet where starting up your own business is easier than in America. I say this as an individual who began his career in film by interning for free for 4 months (and taken myself well into debt to do so) and then P.Aing and then 2nd ACing and then 1st'ing and AD'ing and finally directing/dp'ing. Then, after becoming fed up with the old school prod. co. director rep system I started up my own production company and work with a manager who reps me. I am entirely my own boss. I control all the production funds that run through my company and I shoot more than I ever was when I relied solely on the director's reps at my old prod. co to get me jobs. I can put more money in front of the camera with my system than the old fashioned production companies can (they take 10% margin, plus other skims here and there) and I'm happier. Long story short, in a place like America, where the citizens have a relatively high degree of freedom there are options. End note: Given his side of the story I think that in all fairness the DP from March of the Penguins should have been better compensated or rewarded by a co-director credit. My post is more aimed at the replies from other posters about their dislike for the Capitalist structure of remuneration. I think it's important to remember that any one of those 'drill press workers' could start up their own business too and that no one forces them to work that drill. I will grant that the current form of Capitalism in America re-enforces class immobility and I personally find that distasteful and I will acknowledge that if you are not well off financially it is orders of magnitudes harder to do the things one needs to do to get ahead. It's true, the game is not fair but we must all still play it to the best of our ability.

i'm not talking about processing, i'm talking about exposing. you can use a spot meter reading to place, as appropriately as is possible, the primary elements in your scene on the toe/shoulder of the film. with spot meter readings you know exactly where eveything is that will be exposed and you can manipulate that knowledge to your benefit. with an ambient reading you know, 'if middle gray was where this white dome is now then it would look right'.

Hey Chris, You may very well be right in advising the original poster as you did and indeed that is the more standard way of going about post on a music vid. The way I took the initial poster's question was: How do I edit my footage uncompressed and output uncompressed w/out incurring too many more additional costs? The short answer being - you can't. I thought the poster was hoping that there was a way he could get the 10-bit in his system, cut it, and then get the 10-bit back out and ready for broadcast. Given his likely system specs this will be impossible unless he spends at least a grand. Even with your method (with is definitely cheaper than my 'you'll need a whole new rig to do what you want to do' version) he'll still need to online the footage which typically costs $800 - $1200 depending on f/x and other potential issues. Not to mention the $275 deck rental that you quoted. So really there is no cheap way to do what the original poster wishes to do. Money, and significant amounts of it will have to be spent. On the high-end the poster gets his rig set up so he can post all his future vids (at around $5K - $7K) or he one-offs this one and captures using a rented deck ($275), cuts using compressed dv footage, and then onlines at a post house ($800 - $1000). :( I wish there was a better answer and I'll admit that there still may be one out there...

As far as I know you'll still run into a major issue. Even if you can get the 10-bit uncompressed files onto your Mac you won't be able to edit or really use the files unless you have an external Raid (or possibly software Raid) or at least a firewire 800 Lacie drive on which to place the files. The issue is that regular harddrives aren't fast enough to read/write at a speed necessary to edit uncompressed 10-bit (I know someone responded that they used a firewire 800 and were working with BetaSP on their home system but I believe that Digibeta's uncompressed 10-bit files are a different story). You need speeds in excess of 80mb/s to work with 10-bit and Mac's top of the line HDs (same w/ PCs) read/write at around 30 - 40mb/s. This is why a lot of people end up doing offline editing (using mini-dv with burned in time code) and then get the 10-bit uncompressed footage matched up at a post-production facility that offers online services. Now, Mac offers hardware Raids (several Hard drives tied together in such a way that information is written/read to all of them simultaneously - effectively multiplying your read/write speeds) starting at around $5 - $6K USD. Alternatively, if you have a Mac Pro with at least 3 internal HDs then you can try using Disk Utility to create a software Raid with the 2 secondary HDs; although this is not typically recommended (software Raid can, in theory, read/write at speeds up to 100mb/s but it's quite possible that it won't run this fast in actuality and may even be too slow to effectively edit your material). Finally, even if you have the speed&power (typically need dual core 2ghz/2gb ram/256mb graphics card[e.g. nvidia geforce 7300]) to edit uncompressed 10-bit on your system you'll run into issues when you try to export the finished video. The only way to stay uncompressed is to output the final product back to Digibeta (which is what almost all music video stations and other broadcast stations use anyway) and to do this you'll need a AJA or Black Magic capture card (e.g. AJA Kona LHe); which will cost at least $1,500.00 and a Digibeta Deck day rental (typically $200 - $400). Hopefully this helps and good luck with the project.