Jump to content

RED frame grabs...


Jim Jannard

Recommended Posts

Wow, one would think that by your unwavering loyalty to RED, a camera that hasnt even been released yet, that you are on Jims payroll. Seriously though, I think that what has bothered me more than anything about this RED business is just the amount of arrogance put forth by the RED organization. The bloody camera hasnt even hit market yet and people have film declared dead and even have Panavision going out of business and DALSA cameras sinking and all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. You men sure do get excited at some women lighting cigars and blowing bubbles.

 

I believe this other member already answered to your post:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=129249

 

Thank you Jan.

 

And I believe that you Matthew wouldn't say that he's on my payroll... :P This point about Jim Jannard as business man it shows a lot of your fuss, that's for sure man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And if I produce a list that is numerically superior of guys that use 35mm for features, what does that prove to you?

 

R,

 

you don´t need to prove anything, mr. boddington, i am not in denial.

 

i never denied that one can make marvellous movies with 35mm, and i have nothing against 35, the opposite is true. It was the technology i grew up with and i earned me a nice living and created fine images for me.

 

What you miss to realize as of yet, is that the times have changed and technolgy proceeded. Nothing is standing still.

 

As a matter of fact, digitally made movies are higly successful, outstanding creatives all over their world use it day by day, it is functional, and brilliant movies are shot as well digital as on film. When you think that your films look more bigger than life than superman or are rougher than miami vice, then congratulations, but i don´t know which story we would like to tell would _require_ film. the look is meanwhile a process which is not only taking place at the set. It is no longer a photographic, but a painterly medium. D.I. is a creative liberation and the possibilities of manipulation of moving images allows for many new styles, no matter if shot photochemical or digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by pocket film camera? You mean a stills camera that shoots film, a SLR camera? {There isn't really any such thing as a pocket film camera for cinema use.}

 

I do have one of course a Canon AE1.

 

Now you understand that a pocket film camera for stills and a Canon GL1 are two different beasts? I think you're thinking that a Canon GL1 is a digital stills camera, it is not, it's a video camera.

 

 

Ok then, let me re-phrase Jim's question then. That's from a guy who have owned a GL1 and know what a piece of s... it is even compared to a 1/2" DV camera, let alone a 35 sized chip camera capable of 4k.

Anyways, if you love film so much and are such a huge film bigot, what are you doing with a Digital camera in the first place? Why do you have a GL1 instead of a Super8 camera or even a 16mm one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the frame grab from my GL1 SD 720X480 DV video camera to show that it's not far off from the stills I see from your HD system.

 

Yep. It?s really not far off from the 4K Red image posted. The only difference is that your frame grab is like 1?x1? on the screen and the 4K from RED is a full screen one. For somebody that criticized Jim for no being a production guy and for so being forgiven for a minor mistake, you seem to know even less about Digital production. That?s the only explanation I can find for somebody posting a 1?x1? image from a ¼? low-end consumer camera and saying it?s not far off from a full screen 4K frame grab.

 

When you talk in your posts about continuing to pay for processing, film stock, transfers, etc, since you're a billionaire I know you know the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for."

When people buy Red they will get a $17,500.00 image. When people shoot film, they can spend a little bit of money, and get a multi million dollar image

 

Dude, you can choose to miss the point as much as you want, but please, don?t make a fool of yourself in a public forum. If you think the Red makes a $17,500 image because it costs $17,500, do you think a F900 makes a $130,000 image then?

I know an Arri 535 is not a multi-million dollar camera so your point that you get what you pay for holds no water for starters.

Besides that, the point is Red is $17,500 and if the moving images do any justice to that 4K frame posted it?s obvious it will burn a F900 or a F950 and they cost over $100,000. Are you sure you are getting what you?re paying for with Red?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you can choose to miss the point as much as you want, but please, don?t make a fool of yourself in a public forum. If you think the Red makes a $17,500 image because it costs $17,500, do you think a F900 makes a $130,000 image then?

I know an Arri 535 is not a multi-million dollar camera so your point that you get what you pay for holds no water for starters.

Besides that, the point is Red is $17,500 and if the moving images do any justice to that 4K frame posted it?s obvious it will burn a F900 or a F950 and they cost over $100,000. Are you sure you are getting what you?re paying for with Red?

 

you are right - another point worth mentioning is, that the camera body itself is just a part of the cost of your shooting gear. also, cinealta/hdcams are more expensive than many of the 35mm cams out there, and that doesn´t make them better cameras.

 

add light, lenses, support, sound... it can be 1.000?, 10.000?, 100.000?... 1.000.000?, and none of this will guarantee you better or even perfect images at all.

 

Shots which have set up for month with muti-million sets haven´t been shot correctly. I will never forget the story from shooting "SHOGUN" in the (?) 04/2005 american cinematographer. long story short - a miscommunication doomed a shot prepared for months. (nightshot, on water, whole ships built as set, thousands of actors in costumes, pyrotechniques...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Rodriguez over on CML posted about seeing column to column variations in the Blacks. Which, he says, are a artifact sometimes produced by CMOS sensors.

 

That's all a little too technical for me, but perhaps someone here can elaborate?

Stuart,

 

Yes that is what I was talking about.

 

Stephen

 

Stephen,

 

Don't try to make a FUD here.

 

Jason Rodriguez is one of the Silicon Imaging camera guys and there's an interest there. Where will they be when Red will deliver its 4k digital cinema camcorder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, digitally made movies are higly successful, outstanding creatives all over their world use it day by day, it is functional, and brilliant movies are shot as well digital as on film. When you think that your films look more bigger than life than superman or are rougher than miami vice, then congratulations,
That's where is coming the content and the other skills of the crew.

 

but i don´t know which story we would like to tell would _require_ film. the look is meanwhile a process which is not only taking place at the set. It is no longer a photographic, but a painterly medium. D.I. is a creative liberation and the possibilities of manipulation of moving images allows for many new styles, no matter if shot photochemical or digital.
I fully agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Stuart,

 

Yes that is what I was talking about.

 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

Don't try to make a FUD here.

 

Jason Rodriguez is one of the Silicon Imaging camera guys and there's an interest there. Where will they be when Red will deliver its 4k digital cinema camcorder?

 

Hi,

 

I saw the banding when viewed on my laptop before I knew about the post on CML. Does anybody here know what it is? (Jim for your information I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Red sensor just curious!)

 

AFAIK the Silicon Imaging camera is in use today. In the first quarter of next year I am sure Silicon imaging will still be with us! However "Red makes no promises or representation as to the delivery date of the camera"

 

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of moronic question is that?

Images look fantastic by the way!

Maybe because it is NOT 35mm? Would that explain why the images don't look like 35mm? I guess that's a quite reasonable explanation actually. What do you think?

 

Have you ever heard of having a sense of humour? The reason I point out how far the red stills are from 35mm is because JJ keeps insisting that is the holy grail they are trying to attain. I am pointing out that they have a long way to go with regards to the "rich" feel of film.

 

 

Ok then, let me re-phrase Jim's question then. That's from a guy who have owned a GL1 and know what a piece of s... it is even compared to a 1/2" DV camera, let alone a 35 sized chip camera capable of 4k.

Anyways, if you love film so much and are such a huge film bigot, what are you doing with a Digital camera in the first place? Why do you have a GL1 instead of a Super8 camera or even a 16mm one?

 

Maybe you have difficulty with reading comprehension or the English language in general? I said I have a GL1 for home movies and video assist work, did you not read that? The GL1 is fine for these applications.

 

And I own both Super 8 and 16mm along with 35mm thank you very much.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to make a FUD here.

 

Jason Rodriguez is one of the Silicon Imaging camera guys and there's an interest there. Where will they be when Red will deliver its 4k digital cinema camcorder?

 

Perhaps I should have included Jason's comments about how impressed he was with the image, and how he was not criticising, but commenting on what he saw....

 

Jason has an interest, but it certainly sounds like you do, too. This endless backbiting is getting REALLY tedious. When RED, Silicon Imaging or any other manufacturer deliver on their promises, THEN we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise it's just speculation and BS.

 

And WTF is a FUD???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart,

 

Yes that is what I was talking about.

 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

Don't try to make a FUD here.

 

Jason Rodriguez is one of the Silicon Imaging camera guys and there's an interest there. Where will they be when Red will deliver its 4k digital cinema camcorder?

 

I suspect they're working on the basis that most people won't need 4k, whilst others may require a lighter package than shooting with a full 35mm lens kit. Their Mini camera head is a lot smaller than RED's sensor module, which will have advantages on some productions.

 

I understand they're announcing their production camera design in November, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

They also seem to have a price advantage for a complete camera, which is important for lower budget indie producers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banding is sensor noise. All sensors have some kind of inherent noise like this. Normally, this gets calibrated out from the data that surrounds the frame in the black pixels. We will be doing this in camera, but we're not currently doing it in software prototype. What you're seeing is a raw, totally uncorrected image, converted to RGB.

 

What we're showing is the raw quality we're starting with BEFORE all these pixel corrections are done. Nobody normally shows you this as, quite frankly, most sensors look really crap before they've been corrected.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these people that criticize high definition and they don't even own a high definition video camera. And by the way the Canon GL-1 is not good enough for home movies because it is not high definition and it does not resolve fine detail so why would anyone want to preserve their family memories and limit themselves to standard definition when affordable high definition exists? Family memories should be cherished and high definition does a great job. Even Walmart shoppers deserve high definition and that is why the Sanyo is the official high definition video camera of Walmart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these people that criticize high definition and they don't even own a high definition video camera. And by the way the Canon GL-1 is not good enough for home movies because it is not high definition and it does not resolve fine detail so why would anyone want to preserve their family memories and limit themselves to standard definition when affordable high definition exists? Family memories should be cherished and high definition does a great job. Even Walmart shoppers deserve high definition and that is why the Sanyo is the official high definition video camera of Walmart.

 

The Canon GL1 is not good enough for home movies?

 

Geez some one should tell all the Fortune 500 companies that use the GL1 to make corporate videos that it isn't even good enough for home movies. We should also inform all of the reality cable TV shows that use the GL1 that they are using a camera not even good enough for home movies.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I produce a list that is numerically superior of guys that use 35mm for features, what does that prove to you?

 

R,

It proves to me that the system which has been in place for shooting movies on 35mm film has been established and is "comfortable" for many people in the industry and it's not going to change overnight. However, given the number of prominent, well-regarded cinematographers and directors who are making the choice to shoot digitally regardless of the "standard" should definitely speak volumes to you. Like it or not, change is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It proves to me that the system which has been in place for shooting movies on 35mm film has been established and is "comfortable" for many people in the industry and it's not going to change overnight. However, given the number of prominent, well-regarded cinematographers and directors who are making the choice to shoot digitally regardless of the "standard" should definitely speak volumes to you. Like it or not, change is coming.

 

Let it come, why would that affect my ability to shoot film?

 

FYI, people choose film for far more important reasons than the fact that it has been around a long time. As has been pointed out already, you can shoot nice looking features in HD right now, change isn't just coming it's here.

 

I think one of the real issues is video people who are resentful that they can not shoot on film because of the perceived high costs and additional years of training and experience required.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> I think one of the real issues is video people who are resentful that they can not shoot on film because of the

> perceived high costs and additional years of training and experience required.

 

It is not a perceived high cost, it is a very actual high cost.

 

It doesn't require years of training to do badly, just like video doesn't require years of training to do badly. It's probably easier to light, in fact, and much easier to fix horrible mistakes in post.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it come, why would that affect my ability to shoot film?

No one is talking about your ability to shoot film. As long as it's around, you can shoot film all you like. RED (or any digital camera, for that matter) is simply an alternative to that choice. It also happens to be an alternative that a growing number of respected filmmakers are choosing, especially as technology advances and quality continues to improve.

 

FYI, people choose film for far more important reasons than the fact that it has been around a long time.

It's all a matter of relativity. If a studio is the one making the choice, they're likely to go with what they know makes good business sense. The cost of film over digital is far less impactful on a big budget feature, so good business sense in this case is often a proven workflow that they're comfortable with. So, yes, the fact that film is a part of the established system (and has been for decades) has a whole lot to do with it.

 

On the other hand, if your situation is a position on an independent production where your role allows you the all-encompassing power to make all of the decisions on how and what to shoot, then you're right - it doesn't matter how long film has been around. I was talking about the industry, however, not one of your GL1 shoots.

 

I think one of the real issues is video people who are resentful that they can not shoot on film because of the perceived high costs and additional years of training and experience required.

I think one of the real issues is that people who shoot film are resentful beacause their craft is slowly being eclipsed by more efficient, cost-effective solutions which will ultimately render their years of training and experience with film cameras worth far less on a production which doesn't use them at all.

Edited by Häakon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the real issues is video people who are resentful that they can not shoot on film because of the perceived high costs and additional years of training and experience required.

Additional years of training and experience required - that is complety wrong.

 

shooting in HD or higher requires all the skills film teached us, light, focus, dynamics, panspeed etc. here and there the light is measured a new way (vector/wave etc). so you have better your knowledge, be it HD, 4K or 35mm.

 

the manual work (reelchange, gatecheck etc) is reduced, but the creative challenges or at least the given amount of creative possibilties inside the cameras are quite a bit higher. last time i checked, things like variable black/white/mid gamma+contrast+gain, secondary colorcorrection/multimatrix etc. weren´t available inside of a 35mil cam. a digital cinemacamera has lots of parameters more to master. i know several cameraman who know their arris by heart, but few who can tell me _all_ of the menus inside a 900/750... even very experienced 35mm shooters often call for basic questions.

 

speaking of perceived cost. i won´t explain to much, but:

- try to take 35 hours of empty footage material with one assistant to the deserts in arabia. 35 hours of footage (&development if you want so) btw cost ~1000-1500$, if youre in cinealtaland.

- try to shoot aerial or underwater and reload every 10 minutes.

- try to do a quick 25 min locationpreshoot for D.I. and VFX in one afternoon

- try to get the VFX guys to the set to check a key

- plenty of other situations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have included Jason's comments about how impressed he was with the image, and how he was not criticising, but commenting on what he saw....

 

Jason has an interest, but it certainly sounds like you do, too. This endless backbiting is getting REALLY tedious. When RED, Silicon Imaging or any other manufacturer deliver on their promises, THEN we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise it's just speculation and BS.

 

And WTF is a FUD???

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...;q=define%3afud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would anyone want to preserve their family memories and limit themselves to standard definition when affordable high definition exists?

 

Well, why would anyone want to preserve their family memories and limit themselves to high definition when affordable Super 8 and 16mm exist ? :P I know that's subjective but to me shooting home videos with these consumer digital cameras is so boring ... but, ok I'm not trying to polemicize here, as I said, that's just a very personal and subjective opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the real issues is that people who shoot film are resentful beacause their craft is slowly being eclipsed by more efficient, cost-effective solutions which will ultimately render their years of training and experience with film cameras worth far less on a production which doesn't use them at all.

 

Well I'll have to class this statement as the laugh of the day! Obviously you have not spent much time on the high end stuff, that's ok. If all this is true then I don't understand why 80-90% of the projects going through ILM are still 35mm originated. What are these guys missing that you understand?

 

If you mean experienced DOPs get irate over the hoards of kids who think they'll be shooting Lord Of The Rings just because they have an HD camcorder, then yes, you'd be correct.

 

We've been down this path before, and I still maintain one can learn to shoot video a lot faster than they can learn to shoot film. There is a lot more trial and error based experienced required for film than video for starters. And yes you video people can dog pile me on this issue all you like, but it' still a fact.

 

I don't see the craft of shooting film being eclipsed at all, maybe in the eyes of those who can't shoot film it is, but industry wide film is quite strong indeed. Young people who don't learn film are not going to go very far as DOPs on narrative projects.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If you mean experienced DOPs get irate over the hoards of kids who think they'll be shooting Lord Of The Rings just because they have an HD camcorder, then yes, you'd be correct.

 

I think the thing kids need to realize is that film is the benchmark, whether they like it or not. I know people try to bullcrap and act like not all video shooters are trying to be like film, but comeon man, lets get real. I have seen forum after forum and threads with these kids shooting on DV or HD and talking about techniques to get their footage to look like film. There even comes a time when the whole point about video being a value becomes moot. I mean, if you purchased the best video camera you can find and all the acessories and every extra that might help you look just a little more like film, you might as well have shot it on film to begin with. I actually have seen kids who will edit frame by frame on digital to tweak each frame to look like film. Do people consider their time important? If you are pro, that time you are wasting to tweak those frames is money and that all factors into the ill perceived "value" of video, at least for narrative.

 

When the time comes that video camera users, by and large, stop trying to make their medium look like film, maybe video will become an artform instead of a cheap imitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'll have to class this statement as the laugh of the day! Obviously you have not spent much time on the high end stuff, that's ok. If all this is true then I don't understand why 80-90% of the projects going through ILM are still 35mm originated. What are these guys missing that you understand?

 

If you mean experienced DOPs get irate over the hoards of kids who think they'll be shooting Lord Of The Rings just because they have an HD camcorder, then yes, you'd be correct.

 

We've been down this path before, and I still maintain one can learn to shoot video a lot faster than they can learn to shoot film. There is a lot more trial and error based experienced required for film than video for starters. And yes you video people can dog pile me on this issue all you like, but it' still a fact.

 

I don't see the craft of shooting film being eclipsed at all, maybe in the eyes of those who can't shoot film it is, but industry wide film is quite strong indeed. Young people who don't learn film are not going to go very far as DOPs on narrative projects.

 

R,

 

I don't have any personal biased point against the cinematography personnel. How might I? My godfather is a former focus puller before his career as director of photography for more than 40 years and the same number of features. Actually, he's the first to have this opinion. All it is changing with the "small japanese cameras", as Tonino Guerra (the screenwriter and one of his friends) is used to say. It's not my own quote. On narrative projects. Precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any personal biased point against the cinematography personnel. How might I? My godfather is a former focus puller before his career as director of photography for more than 40 years and the same number of features. Actually, he's the first to have this opinion. All it is changing with the "small japanese cameras", as Tonino Guerra (the screenwriter and one of his friends) is used to say. It's not my own quote. On narrative projects. Precisely.
Hey Patrizio,

 

Do you know Tonino Guerra?

 

I met him last year and I had a Master Class with him. A great character... and a genius too! My favorite storyteller. IMHO, the best scriptwriter of the last 50 years!

 

Besides RED, we have a friend in common. You're welcome!

 

Emanuel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...