Jump to content

RED ONE footage


Emanuel A Guedes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 463
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
From DVD? You are happy with MPEG2 at ~ 7 mbit/s and 480p quality? Or are you talking HD?

 

These movies look so good on measly 8 bit 'video' because of digital technology removing tons of film artifacts and avoiding long analogue processing chains all eating away at image quality, in addition to the 35mm negative quality. Now imagine what happens if you start not with such a negative but clean 4K data full of information to begin with!

 

Hey Mikey, stop posting. We've heard enough. It's clear you are one of the frustrated fans that make these threads go on and on and have no idea, and I mean no idea, what you are talking about. Your statement above, for example, is really making you look uneducated man. And please stop making multiple posts to every question. When they make no point, it's even worse. When you get to use the all mighty red, post your stuff here and teach us something. Theory is getting so old and so boring. Sorry to post again but when I see people that have no idea what production relaties are really like, I tend to want to call them on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not, just an observation in general.

 

Stephen

Or me? ;-)

 

Actually, Seung and I took our conversation off the boards and resolved the issue privately and amicably. He was very gentlemanly about the situation and we see each other's point of view, which is the great thing about discussion forums. I do think it's important to note that RED footage is video footage just like any other electronic camera which has preceded it - it's just evolved and matured technology. And no doubt another camera will eventually replace it (perhaps also made by the RED company) someday in the future. But for now, it is exciting to have a good, solid choice for shooting that arguably gives us many of the visual aesthetics we enjoy with film while affording us a fantastic digital workflow at the same time. This will not be the answer for everyone, but from the reception the camera has clearly gotten over the past year it is an extremely attractive choice for many.

 

Cheers,

 

Häakon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For quite a few productions "clean" goes against the story. For example "Star Wars" was intended to be a worn world with battered, used equipment on your everyday death star.

The data is clean (aka free of technical artifacts from the recording process (not yet the case with Red, there are compression and demosaicing goblins if you go hunting for them, there can be clipping...)), not necessarily the sets you are shooting. What was done with Star Wars 1-3 is digital temporal filtering on a farm of Macs (or PCs) to get rid of random dirt etc. and some grain as well, some regrading etc. to make it look like clean data with controlled amount of noise/grain and color and contrast as intended. If you start with clean data you can skip the noise filtering step. Adding noise is simple compared to removing it, if you want more noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to post again but when I see people that have no idea what production relaties are really like, I tend to want to call them on it.

Why don't you not just want but actually do? I have not heard a single argument from you that holds up to closer scrutiny. Instead I get buzz words like 'production reality' or insults like 'angry child'. Lame. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this makes me smile.

 

When will people realize that we don't need to compare Digital to Film. We should find a special aesthetic in Digital that is very unique and just because it doesn't look like film, doesn't make it bad. It is just different and people who will continue to try to make digital exactly as film will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
All of this makes me smile.

 

When will people realize that we don't need to compare Digital to Film. We should find a special aesthetic in Digital that is very unique and just because it doesn't look like film, doesn't make it bad. It is just different and people who will continue to try to make digital exactly as film will fail.

 

Hi,

 

Some people may not be aware that different film stocks have different looks, non standard processing & exposure can also be used to change 'the film look'.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you not just want but actually do? I have not heard a single argument from you that holds up to closer scrutiny. Instead I get buzz words like 'production reality' or insults like 'angry child'. Lame. <_<

 

NOT LAME. Production Reality is real.

 

You get started on location at 4:30 start preparing for the day and your first cup of coffee is cold.

 

Get talking to the cinematographer on the way to lunch and become so distracted, all the guacamole is gone by the time you get there (walk a mole ly for you gringos, won't even try inflections).

 

Craft services runs out of Earl Grey for my afternoon tea.

 

When I get back to the production office to review the dailies, and . . . "someone's been sipping on my Jose Cuervo Black Medallion"

 

That's "production reality"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data is clean (aka free of technical artifacts from the recording process (not yet the case with Red, there are compression and demosaicing goblins if you go hunting for them, there can be clipping...)), not necessarily the sets you are shooting. What was done with Star Wars 1-3 is digital temporal filtering on a farm of Macs (or PCs) to get rid of random dirt etc. and some grain as well, some regrading etc. to make it look like clean data with controlled amount of noise/grain and color and contrast as intended. If you start with clean data you can skip the noise filtering step. Adding noise is simple compared to removing it, if you want more noise.

 

 

Unfortunately, the older films still look better than the two recent Star wars films. Regardless of method, the information is there and that's what counts. Modern film stocks have less grain than the stock used on the early Star Wars films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the older films still look better than the two recent Star wars films. Regardless of method, the information is there and that's what counts. Modern film stocks have less grain than the stock used on the early Star Wars films.

We all know that film originated material can look superb. And digitally shot material as well. What happens later is far more important than the source as long as the source is of good technical quality. The enemy of image quality are long processing chains where each step eats away at what we got. And here indeed production reality is relevant and decides what we see at the end of the chain. The Star Wars films shot on HD need to be seen from the HD master directly for best effect. They will actually look better in the future than now when higher contrast digital projectors for cinemas become available. And many films will look better in the future than now as well, when we get access to digital versions made from the best film elements. Prints from camera negatives are a luxury few people ever see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT LAME. Production Reality is real.

Of course. Lame is to drop the word 'production reality' in a discussion about the limits/look/quality... of film based analogue and sensor based digital film acquisition and leave it at that.

The main point I'm arguing is that the distinction between film and (traditional) video as opposite poles around which everything is organised becomes quickly irrelevant in a world of digital data as both are simply special cases in a toolbox of looks as soon as the resolution of the digital data is sufficiently high and the data can be processed efficiently and economically enough. We are in the middle of this paradigm change right now.

Edited by Michel Hafner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet further than «Crossing the Line» or beyond milkgirls, here's one of the best RED footage samples, IMHO:

 

clips.jpg

 

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engag....clips.h264.mov

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engagement/2b.mov

 

Courtesy by macgregor, originally posted on reduser.net

Edited by Emanuel A Guedes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet further than «Crossing the Line» or beyond milkgirls, here's one of the best RED footage samples, IMHO:

 

clips.jpg

 

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engag....clips.h264.mov

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engagement/2b.mov

 

Courtesy by macgregor, originally posted on reduser.net

 

 

 

I must admit, this footage looks really, really good.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • Premium Member
Phil, you told me it was 1k last year at IBC, so you've improved the camera 250% in the last year. Thanks for your help!

 

Graeme

 

Hi Graeme,

 

I notice Phil actually posted during IBC 2006, he probably told you the same:-

 

Hi,

 

If you want true, full whack, no holds barred 4:4:4, Red is a 1K camera!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusing.

 

If someone with a certain lack of technical understanding calls the RED one a ~1K camera, he should also mention that the arri discontinued ARRI D20 and the now available ARRI D21 then would be ~0.6K cameras.

 

Some other guys however have a different judgement.

?If you shoot at 4K, but want a ?film look?, then you finish at 2K and add some grain. It?s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish and screen at 4K, the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old epics used to do. It?s pretty exciting, and will have a major impact.? Peter Jackson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Some other guys however have a different judgement.

?If you shoot at 4K, but want a ?film look?, then you finish at 2K and add some grain. It?s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish and screen at 4K, the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old epics used to do. It?s pretty exciting, and will have a major impact.? Peter Jackson.

 

So Peter Jackson is your new god? Do you believe everything he says because he says it? That sounds like Appeal to Authority to me. I like Peter Jackson's work in LOTR, but let's face it, he is no more authoratative than anyone else...even less than a qualified DP, since that isn't his main focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting RED footage on the net is a terrible way to show off the footage that the camera can shoot. It's the same for putting film on the net as well.

 

Seeing RED footage screened in 4k; that's a different story. 4K is where it matters, and people can argue the fact that 4K won't be standardized for quite some time. Even if that's the case, RED and FILM still look pretty damn good when converted to H.264.

 

I don't know about the people shooting the images, and the lighting and composition they employ; that could always be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4K is where it matters, and people can argue the fact that 4K won't be standardized for quite some time. Even if that's the case, RED and FILM still look pretty damn good when converted to H.264.

 

Don't know how do you standardize a number such as 4K. Additionally, standards such as H.264, MPEG-4, MPEG2, etc., define the decoder and not the encoder. Encoder is not specified as such by these compression standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how do you standardize a number such as 4K. Additionally, standards such as H.264, MPEG-4, MPEG2, etc., define the decoder and not the encoder. Encoder is not specified as such by these compression standards.

 

Thanks for pointing out one flaw in my post. Does it make you feel like you stand out?

I was referring to 4k projection; pretty obvious since I was just talking about it in the previous sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I've read so many posts on red and all the stills that I have seen from this post and others (with the down rezzing taken into account) seem nice. "Manure" and "The Gladiators" being the ones that stand out the most.

 

Some ppl in here are quite cynical about the posts from the red team, I value everyone's input but its really hard to get a bearing on who to listen to.

It seems to me that it blows most HD cameras out of water for the exception of the F23(latitude and highlights) and the Genesis (Workflow and Latitude). Some say that it shoots 4K, others say it doesn't. Also it seems to have re-booting issues......can someone please put me out of my misery as directly as possible.

I'm not the most technically minded cinematographer in here, I go with the approach that "if it produces what I'm looking for then I'm going for it".

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter Jackson is your new god? Do you believe everything he says because he says it?

No. I have seen Red footage with 4K projection and my eyes tell me if this was footage with 1K effective resolution (16mm or worse) or rather excellent 35mm resolution if not 70mm like.

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

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...