Red Footage: How Do You Watch This Stuff?

[Victor Khong]

I think this thread *is* useful to indicate the total cost of implementing a RED workflow. That is not to say that RED is not cost effective or a viable alternative to more traditional workflows - it merely reveals what one must be prepared to do to work with RED.

 

Having said that, the issues are no more perplexing that if one was taking in 4K files from a telecine and trying to edit on a lesser based system. The system will either crash or not deliver real time results.

[Guest will griffith]

However with the poop I am getting from REDuser and workflow issues I really can't be bothered wasting any more time at this point.

I have no idea why Red footage has to be so irritatingly difficult. We have the appropriate tools and only in November

did it become "easy" and cost effective when they released the new FCP/Color plugin.

 

Before that... pain and angst.

 

That being said we still were able to get beautiful images in a timely fashion. One just has to understand that it is a beast!

 

Weird thing is that it keeps getting easier and there are more and more options each month for the footage we

already shot. Just point to the old raw files and process it differently.

 

My first post was more of shock that anyone would expect to post Red footage without changing their setup, not to say

that Red is easy as cake.

 

For us it works well NOW, without excessive rendering using FCP 6.0.5 and Color 1.03 on a Intel MacPro, and that's about all I can say.

[Tenolian Bell]

You have a Mac that uses the older Power PC processor. Power PC and Intel x86 use two completely different processing architectures. What Apple did to smooth the conversion from Power PC to Intel is develop a universal binary method. That allowed one application to be used on both Power PC and Intel. But to do this add complexity, instability, and size to a program.

 

Now its getting to a point where Intel is outnumbering Power PC. Many new programs are becoming Intel only. Developing only for Intel only allows stabilization and optimization of the application for the Intel architecture. Apple's next operating system update will be finre tuned for Intel only.

 

 

 

 

I see that is says for "Intel Macs", I do not have an Intel Mac even though the message said it installed fine. I have a Mac Mac, is there a codec for Red footage for non-Intel Macs?

 

Or do I need to buy an Intel Mac?

[Guest]

Apple's next operating system update will be finre tuned for Intel only.

 

Wow a computer maker that is finding a way to force people to buy new machines, what a new and novel concept! This must be the first time in history the idea has been tried, incredible forward thinking amazing.

 

I can't wait to spend my money where do I line up?

 

R,

[John Brawley]

I can't wait to spend my money where do I line up?

 

R,

 

go here

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7kr6e_ma...he-simpsons_fun

[Adrian Sierkowski]

 

Apple. . . do they even make "Macintosh" anymore?

[Tenolian Bell]

I suppose that is one way to look at it.

 

The reality is that the computer market is extremely competitive. The laws of Darwin, innovate or die. No one's survival is assured. Their are several computer companies who were around 10 years ago and who are not here today.

 

Part of the reason you are able to enjoy the functionality of your current system is because Apple abandoned previous technology that became old and antiquated in place of newer and more functional technology.

 

The purpose of the next version of OS X is intended to improve its use of Intel processors and newer graphics cards. To improve stability and optimization for Intel means getting rid of the older code that runs Power PC processors. This will also cut the size of OS X on the hard drive in half.

 

If IBM were willing to invest the multiple billions in its Power PC processors that Intel invests in its x86 processors. Apple may have never left Power PC. But unfortunately Power PC is a small percentage of IBM's business and for them not really worth investing the money needed to compete directly against Intel.

 

 

Wow a computer maker that is finding a way to force people to buy new machines, what a new and novel concept! This must be the first time in history the idea has been tried, incredible forward thinking amazing.

 

I can't wait to spend my money where do I line up?

 

R,

[Jamie Metzger]

You can always playback the footage on the camera :)

 

 

Just kidding. I mean you can, but I know that you have this footage on a HDD. You can crunch the footage down to 480P with prores sq if you want to just "look" at it. It's going to need quite some time to render though.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yes in fact reported in its last quarter, Apple sold 2.6 million Macintosh computers for 5.6 billion in revenue. Its the most computers they've ever sold in one quarter.

 

The iPod and iPhone actually help Apple sell more computers.

 

 

 

 

Apple. . . do they even make "Macintosh" anymore?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Hey Guys,

 

I recently flew down to Miami to colorize a film I DP'd with the Red camera back in August. It was a film shot mostly in the wilderness, using natural sunlight, underexposed, and I used some bounce cards whenever possible. I have to say, as much as I was impressed with how well the footage held up under some very brutal color correction work, the whole post work flow freaking SUCKS. I'm sorry, but it's true. We were "prescribed" a certain work flow that was regarded as being solid. I won't get into all the nitty gritty details, but essentially when I arrived, what I found was a disaster that ended up forcing me to stay in Florida an extra week to get the job done (not that staying in Miami is "bad" lol....). Why? Let's just say the game plan sorta failed in multiple ways.

 

I'll be more clear, the OFFLINE editing of Red files in FCP seems to be fairly decent, its the online editing that is the major pain, and also where most of the issues seem to lie.

 

In a nutshell, we had to render out 1080 10 bit uncompressed 4:2:2 quicktime files, that were quite large, which is to be expected, but what slayed me was the reason. I couldn't get the 10 bit HQ ProRes files (the quicktime codec that everyone seems to swear by) that were rendered to work in After Effects at the proper bit depth (I suppose I now have beef with Apple?). Why? I have no clue. Same with RedCine basically going AWAL on us, so I had no way whatsoever to utilize the white balancing tools in Red Cine, which I think are decent enough, and far better than trying to white balance via curves (I personally hate doing that).

 

If it weren't for Red Line, and a homemade FCP to After Effects EDL script available online that *actually works* we would have been dead in the water. So in other words, Red made a camera that can put out a mean image (when you are mindful of certain things like using IR cut filters, etc...), but they kinda leave you dead in the water if you wanna actually see and work with that image at its full quality level, as opposed to the crappy proxies that apparently use redspace. I don't wanna sound like I'm totally ragging on the Red One, I think the camera can do some great stuff, I just hated the post work flow. THIS is the reason why they persuaded Adobe to support the Red camera line up, in my opinion.

 

Yeah its kind of a rant, but can you blame me? I guess the silver lining is that I got to spend an extra week in Miami...

 

Oh, and by the way, I highly recommend getting a MacPro station that is pretty loaded if you want to do some serious work on Red footage. It just comes with the territory man.

[Guest]

but they kinda leave you dead in the water if you wanna actually see and work with that image at its full quality level,

 

This thread is doing a great job of scaring me to death.

 

I was reading over the threads at reduser.net and I found at least 20 different post work flows mentioned, many of which had been "Frankensteined" together by Red camera owners to get around this that or the other "thing."

 

When you combine this with all the stories of Red overheating, dropping frames, or not booting up, it really is a plunge into the unknown isn't it?

 

I'm meeting with a post house next week about a possible post work flow that would be viable for me if I where to use Red.

 

It may simply end up that the money saved on set by not shooting film is gobbled up in a much more complex and expensive post process. And my end result is NOT 35mm.

 

Hmmmmm, really this needs a lot of thought.

 

The film post process is so much simpler by comparison that one would really need to decide to shoot Red mainly because they like the look of Red better than 35mm.

 

R,

[Dan Goulder]

This thread is doing a great job of scaring me to death.

 

I was reading over the threads at reduser.net and I found at least 20 different post work flows mentioned, many of which had been "Frankensteined" together by Red camera owners to get around this that or the other "thing."

 

When you combine this with all the stories of Red overheating, dropping frames, or not booting up, it really is a plunge into the unknown isn't it?

 

I'm meeting with a post house next week about a possible post work flow that would be viable for me if I where to use Red.

 

It may simply end up that the money saved on set by not shooting film is gobbled up in a much more complex and expensive post process. And my end result is NOT 35mm.

 

Hmmmmm, really this needs a lot of thought.

 

The film post process is so much simpler by comparison that one would really need to decide to shoot Red mainly because they like the look of Red better than 35mm.

 

R,

How many frames did your 30-year-old BL2 drop during your last feature? How many times did it overheat? (My guess the answer to both questions is zero.) As I recall, the screen grabs also beat out anything I've seen from the RED. Other than that...

[John Brawley]

THIS is the reason why they persuaded Adobe to support the Red camera line up, in my opinion.

 

Yeah its kind of a rant, but can you blame me? I guess the silver lining is that I got to spend an extra week in Miami...

 

 

To be fair, i think we're talking about different things. Richard originally asked about viewing red footage on his older mac.

 

Now what red has done in effect is make it easier to bypass the lab and telecine process.

 

Now Richard would have the same problems trying to view 4K DPX files on your system as well. The difference is that with a fully blown MAC you can get CLOSE to be able to do this RATHER than having to sit in a post facility and do it with scans off film.

 

That's where the cost differences lie, not so much in production. I've always argued that the only thing cheap about RED is the body itself. Everything else costs the same. Lenses are the same. Lighting grips, crew etc. And post (if it's done well)

 

Now if Richard took his footage to a *lab* and had your R3D's *processed* then you could happily edit DV quicktimes in the same way he does with DV quicktimes from 35mm on his current system. It's just that your lab can now be anyone who has a fast enough mac, rather than the post house and processing lab you used to use.

 

I recently shot a RED feature. Instead of a DIT (a role i think is largely unnecessary) i had the DIT processing footage instead. You can do this for relatively low cost. You have someone *processing* your rushes while you shoot into a form you can edit with (and view dailes from) that's EXACTLY the same as the QT's you use with 35mm orginated material, and it's still for less than you pay for 35mm processing and telecine.

 

The problem is that RED has created this myth about how low cost it is. You still need, by and large the same infrastructure as shooting on film. It's just *some* of the costs are reduced. But the mythology is that you can shoot red for .99c and view the rushes on your iphone. It's just not true.

 

I think that the cost difference between shooting RED and say 2 perf 35mm isn't as great as some would think. If you think about it the DI costs are the same, there's only stock, processing and telecine that are extra. The camera package is about the same.

 

It *is* possible with homebrew grading and post setups to make it cost even less, but that's only if you REALLY know what you're doing and you're happy to accept everything that goes with that. Uncalibrated monitors. Grading in the wrong environments and most likly number 1 issue, grading with someone that's an editor or general all round post guy rather than a specialist colourist.

 

The most visually breathtaking film I saw this year was a little known film called silent light. Shot on old movicam's (i think) using 40 year old cheap Russian anamorphic lenses and finished using non DI traditional post. It was so beautiful I was nearly crying in the cinema. I bet the budget wasn't far off a properly done RED shoot.

 

 

jb

 

edit

 

Just looked it up. The budget is estimated to be close to 1 million euro's. Not bad for a 35mm anamorphic film. George Washington was something similar.

[Guest]

How many frames did your 30-year-old BL2 drop during your last feature? How many times did it overheat? (My guess the answer to both questions is zero.) As I recall, the screen grabs also beat out anything I've seen from the RED. Other than that...

 

Wow good memory on my gear ;)

 

And yes the BL2 was 100% flawless in operation.

 

Well I have lot's of time to decide the direction I will take. There are even other digital acquisition formats out there to consider.

 

R,

[Chris Nuzzaco]

To be fair, i think we're talking about different things. Richard originally asked about viewing red footage on his older mac.

 

 

Kinda, but not really. He wants to see what the Red can really do, that means going beyond the lame quicktime proxies and looking at the .r3d files in a superior format, which means some kind of conversion. It's the conversion process that killed me partly, the other aspects certainly didn't help me either (the whole conform in Red Cine just not working, period, for example). I don't see much use, for example, in watching underexposed footage that I can't somehow tweek and examine, etc.

 

I would love to play back the files at full quality, right away, but I know thats hard, and comes with certain technical complexities, but it isn't "impossible". My Andromeda DVX100 system, while lower res (1K), actually pumps out the same amount of data per second as the red (it's fully uncompressed 10 bit data, the storage is about 2GB a minute, just like Red), which means it should be equally tough for a computer to debayer and play back the file natively in quicktime, at full quality. The kicker is this, I can. A user made a quicktime component that does just that. The bigger issue though, how do you deal with gamma, sharpening or color balance? Right now this Andromeda component does nothing, its straight up linear gamma (dark looking image on a 2.2 gamma monitor), and the colors are locked off to whatever the camera captures, and totally unsharpened. It is a bit of a drawback, but, at least I can quickly work with the files at full quality, and in any good color correction program, I can get to work right away, no more use of the rendering program.

 

It would be great if red had this option, in addition to the lower res proxies. The proxies absolutely have their use's in the post work flow, I just want this other option to be available as well. It sounds like it will happen sometime in the future now that Adobe is on the scene, but realistically, how long will it be before they release their solution? Thats the million dollar question.

[Gunleik Groven]

att Richard B

 

ot to nitpick, but you'd have to scan the film into something for offline, andyou'd probably NOT have the equipment to do that.

To get offlines, you don't need a scanner but an Intel Mac/Win machine.

 

The first tests I did with RED footage was on MacBooks and MacMinis. RedCine won't wor with those, as they don't have GPUs, but you can use RedLine/RedRushes to pump out offlines.

 

The problem with that route, is that you cannot really evaluate the format from proxies. But you knew that already : )

 

Again, not defending the decissions, just pointing at the solutions.

[Stephen Williams]

Wow good memory on my gear ;)

 

And yes the BL2 was 100% flawless in operation.

 

R,

 

Hi Richard,

 

IIRC you saved money by not having any dalies, you just trusted that the fillm would be 100% OK which it was! I don't think I would want to shoot a feature on RED without seeing any takes back.

 

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

The problem with that route, is that you cannot really evaluate the format from proxies. But you knew that already : )

 

Hi Gunleik,

 

The only reason I want to see the footage on my laptop is to evaluate the footage myself. The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website! ;)

 

Stephen

[John Brawley]

Kinda, but not really. He wants to see what the Red can really do,

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree Chris but exactly *how* is this any different to viewing any other footage originated on film or whatever at 4k ?? To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

 

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years. The data rate of your DVX modded camera belies the fact that it's operating at 1/4 of the effective resolution of RED. (just temporarily ignoring the fact that its's effective res is 3.2 K spread across 4 k of pixels)

 

You'll struggle to view 4K real time in almost any high end post house.

 

jb

 

*edit. Sorry not to be snipey, but i think it's great that RED can even do what it can do now (although not exactly well or painlessly).

 

But I'm also a realist as well. You can't knock them for not being able to play on a 4 year old MAC.....

Edited December 2, 2008 by John Brawley

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website! ;)

 

 

You know, this is something that was mentioned to me during my "Miami Mayhem Color Correction" (LOL). I was told most people have just color corrected in FCP via the proxies and then mastered from that. That notion kinda blew me away, I don't know how true it is, but man, kinda sucks if people have to resort to that.

 

As for just viewing the footage myself to check it, I have a big hangup with the whole Redspace thing being the default for proxies. I want to view the footage in a flat looking, "raw" view. The Redspace will apparently blow out highlights that still have detail in them. I understand why they made it that way (kinda creates this "illusion" that red has "overhead"), but to an experienced raw shooter like myself, it's kind of silly. Yes, its good for a client to see a "nicer" image, but the DP's gotta see what they need to see too. I'm still awaiting the day I can edit and load in my own custom viewing LUT's. I don't recall this feature being implemented yet (but it IS available on my Andromeda mod :P).

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Sorry to disagree Chris but exactly *how* is this any different to viewing any other footage originated on film or whatever at 4k ?? To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

 

Some people actually do just that. Not everyone has the money though, so it can be very unrealistic, and it would be of more interest to a DP than a director. If thats the case, I would request some stuff thats been shot and already polished in post to view. The issue with viewing Red proxies is that they haven't been corrected, and they have a generic viewing LUT (redspace) that most likely doesn't show the look the DP intends the footage to have. You see where I'm going here? If you get handed .r3d files, your entering a very strange forest at the moment if you want to see the quality they can have. I highly suggest requesting a 1080p demo of finished red footage to view if you just wanna watch it and see if your impressed by it.

 

 

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years. The data rate of your DVX modded camera belies the fact that it's operating at 1/4 of the effective resolution of RED. (just temporarily ignoring the fact that its's effective res is 3.2 K spread across 4 k of pixels)

 

You'll struggle to view 4K real time in almost any high end post house.

 

I understand it's 1/4 the resolution of Red, but it is the same amount of data to deal with, which is my point. The files actually take a few seconds to load, so no, I don't expect it to work like greased lightning at 4K. You can actually view the .r3d files in RedCine, so apparently there is a way to work natively with them, I guess I just wish that was available more readily in other applications people use when dealing with the Red. Again, this is just a temporary hangup, I know the support is coming. I just can't believe how "super beta" the work flow was when they released the camera.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Chris Nuzzaco

[Gunleik Groven]

Hi Gunleik,

 

The only reason I want to see the footage on my laptop is to evaluate the footage myself. The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website! ;)

 

Stephen

 

Yup, there could be a connection... :)

[Paul Bruening]

Adobe sounds like the best solution for this quagmire. The filters are the same and translate with the data so filters and color correction look pretty much the same from proxies in Premiere to full-res in AE. That's assuming that Adobe designs the RED sub-systems like all the rest that they do. I guess that might inflame the FCP users.

[Will Earl]

To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

 

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years.

 

Not true. I can work with digital film scans just as well from my laptop as I can from my workstation (neither of which is a high-end grading suite), it's also possible to work with cineon/dpx files on even older machines. Funny that even in the digital world, technology centred around film just happens to work.

 

You can't knock them for not being able to play on a 4 year old MAC.....

 

Well no of course you can't fault them for that. :)

[Guest]

Hi Richard,

 

IIRC you saved money by not having any dalies, you just trusted that the fillm would be 100% OK which it was! I don't think I would want to shoot a feature on RED without seeing any takes back.

 

Stephen

 

Oh yes I will need to see shots back with Red for sure, mainly because this frame dropping has me worried. You can fix a lot of things in post, dropped frames isn't one of them.

 

For those members telling me that I need more high end gear to view Red footage and that is the same as having a post house do film processing and telecine, two things I can't do myself now. Yes you have a point, I do have those steps involved when shooting 35mm.

 

However my view is that if I still need steps that are financially equivalent to those two steps when shooting with Red then I might as well shoot on 35mm. I want to SAVE money, I don't want to spend the SAME amount of money only to end up with a movie on Red and not 35mm.

 

As has been pointed out in this thread, and dozens before it, whether it's Red or 35mm all the other film production costs stay the same, i.e. talent fees, crew costs, hotels, food, location fees, etc etc etc.

 

So in order to "sacrifice" the beauty of 35mm and go with Red, the over all savings for me need to be substantial, I'm not sure that they are as of this writing. And this is not "anti-Red" at all, I am looking at dollars and cents here, & cost vs what I end up with.

 

R,