Red and Documentary Work

[John Sprung]

Unfortunately the Sony F900 does not support 60p.

 

Yeah, it's like twelve years old now. The F-23 is their current top of the line in 2/3".

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

The F-23 only goes up to 30 frames per second so it is unsuitable for 2K digital cinema which supports 48 frames per second as well as documentaries which may require 60 frames per second.

[David Mullen ASC]

The F-23 only goes up to 30 frames per second so it is unsuitable for 2K digital cinema which supports 48 frames per second as well as documentaries which may require 60 frames per second.

 

The F23 goes to 1 to 60 fps in 4:2:2 mode, 1 to 30 fps in 4:4:4 mode.

 

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct...tegory=HDseries

 

2K digital cinema may support 48 fps, but since no feature work is being done for 48 fps presentation and almost every feature is made for 24 fps presentation, a 24 fps camera is certainly "suitable" for 2K digital cinema work! There is practically NO momentum towards making features at 48 fps. You won't see a movie shot that way this year, or the next year, and probably not five years from now. It's a theoretical standard, not one currently being used. And you can't exactly sit on your hands for the next decade and refuse to make movies because they are all shot at 24 fps, as they have been for more than EIGHTY YEARS.

 

If or when a 48 fps standard is implemented, cameras like the F23 will have long been obsoleted anyway.

[Thomas James]

The director James Cameron has promised to shoot Avatar 2 at 48 frames per second.

[David Mullen ASC]

The director James Cameron has promised to shoot Avatar 2 at 48 frames per second.

 

OK... so in three years or so, one movie will be shot at 48 fps.

 

Look, I'm not opposed to newer framerates at all as an option, I'm just annoyed by this constant, constant, constant harping on action movies being a "blurry mess" when we've all been enjoying action films for all our lives shot at 24 fps. I suspect that when a 48 fps movie finally does comes out, some will love it, some will think it looks "video-ish", and the rest wouldn't have noticed either way.

 

Besides, for live action filmmaking, you'd have to double the light level or sensitivity to deal with the exposure loss of 48 fps. This will be one of the greatest objections, besides some people complaining that the look of the motion being "too smooth".

 

I look forward to seeing it tried out though, I just have doubts about it catching on. Personally, I think it may be cool for action movies to be shot and shown at 48 fps, but I don't think everyone will agree with me.

[Keith Walters]

DM: "OK... so in three years or so, one movie will be shot at 48 fps.

Look, I'm not opposed to newer framerates at all as an option, I'm just annoyed by this constant, constant, constant harping on action movies being a "blurry mess" when we've all been enjoying action films for all our lives shot at 24 fps."

"... And you can't exactly sit on your hands for the next decade and refuse to make movies because they are all shot at 24 fps, as they have been for more than EIGHTY YEARS."

 

Every time I read one of Thomas' posts I think of of "Poetman" in the Sci-Fi TV series Lexx. Poetman (played by Tim Curry in his usual flamboyant manner) is actually a pre-recorded hologram of someone who died thousands of years ago, so while he talks a lot, he never actually hears what anybody is saying. :lol:

 

 

Yes, 24 fps for over eighty years.

 

And, to bring up another subject so dear to our Armchair Expert's heart, Interlaced Scan TV, which the BBC started broadcasting on in 1936, more than seventy years ago! Their cousins in the USA had five years to realize the error of the Brits' awful interlacing ways, but no, the combined intellectual might of original 1941 National TV Standards Committee not only failed to notice the woeful inadequacies of interlaced scanning, but added new features such as vertical equalizing pulses, to enhance it!

 

And at least 15 years after that, the rest of the world still failed to noticed its deficiencies, and adopted interlaced scanning for their new systems as well. This was still well before the days of electronic standards conversion, practical video recording or satellite links, so compatibility with the US system was not an issue.

 

So, how many trillions of contented couch-potato-hours has interlaced scanning racked up since then, I wonder?

 

But now, everybody must revert to 720p, which would ONLY benefit the slack handful of CRT-based HDTVs out there. (Flat panels have no equivalent to Interlace, because they are not "scanned", at least not like a CRT)

 

And because 1,280 x 720 apparently equals 1,920 x 1080. That is 900,000 = 2,000,000 (approximately)

 

"I look forward to seeing it tried out though, I just have doubts about it catching on. Personally, I think it may be cool for action movies to be shot and shown at 48 fps, but I don't think everyone will agree with me."

 

I think what's more likely to happen is that selected scenes might be shot at higher frame rates, but with a view to converting to 24fps for distribution. The real skill-set requirements in the future are likley not so much being able to shoot entire features on video, but being able to seamlessly integrate film footage with short video segments, in the cases where video has clear advantages. In other words, an extention of the "hybrid" techniques already in place, such as Digital Intermediate.

 

But then again, there's nothing to stop people from shooting short segments of film at 48fps either....

[Peter Moretti]

The F-23 only goes up to 30 frames per second so it is unsuitable for 2K digital cinema which supports 48 frames per second as well as documentaries which may require 60 frames per second.

 

2K digital projection at 48 frames is an essentially unused option that is part of the DCI standard.

 

I think most of the documentaries shot at 60i were done so b/c of the lack of cheap 24P cameras and stabilization. This has changed. Also, if you actually wanted the interalced look for some reason, I imagine you could convert 30P to 60i pretty easily.

 

The last five documentaries I've seen were all shot at 24P. And we all know that a pulldown will allow 24P to be delivered in a 60i stream.

 

Now if you mean 60P, you'd still have to convert that to a playback-able framerate.

[Peter Moretti]

...

I think what's more likely to happen is that selected scenes might be shot at higher frame rates, but with a view to converting to 24fps for distribution. ...

 

I'm not sure how this could give you much more than what shooting at 24P or shooting at 24P with a 90 degree shutter would give. Not saying it won't be done or tried.

[Will Earl]

I think shooting and presenting in 48fps is likely to help stereo3D material, but in saying that I've yet to see it in action. It's only based on seeing stereo3d using shuttered glasses where any sort of pan or horizontal movement tends to strobe and stutter on screen. I think it'll also help with polarized glasses as well.

[Thomas James]

Of course it will be a hybrid implementation with the drama shot at 24 frames per second and the action shot at 48 frames per second. That way the movie will retain the 24p cinematic look and the action scenes which are shot at 48p will maintain the high definition. Of course the motion blur of 24p can be reduced with a higher shutter speed but this introduces jerky motion.

[K Borowski]

Once again: What has your 48 fps preaching anything to do with this thread?

 

You need to stop hijacking threads. Start your own if this is such a big deal to you.

 

I'm not against 48 fps either, but 24, 25, and 30 fps are in use and will continue to be in use, whether you like it or not.

 

 

I think the only reason 48p is supported by the DCI standard (and I assume 30p too?) is perhaps to help the potential of new live, big-screen, HD broadcasts of things such as concerts and shows. I've noticed those were really played up at theatres with the new 2K projectors. Don't know if they are still being used this way.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Thomas James]

I'm not hijacking the thread but merely suggesting that documentaries need not be limited to 24 fps unless one is going to go film out. In the past documentaries were filmed in 60i. Also I have no bias towards 48 fps unless one intends to go with 2K digital projection which is also easily convertable to 24 fps 35mm film out.

For broadcast and Blu-Ray distribution one can go with 24 fps 1080p, 30 fps 720p or even 60 fps 720p . However if one is after that coveted 30fps Todd AO look which was featured in the movie Oklahoma and Around the World in 80 days one should consider the 720p format because Blu-Ray does not support 30 fps in the 1080p format. 30 fps is very beautiful and very cinematic and holds the resolution better than 24 fps for the action shots.

[Peter Moretti]

...

 

I think the only reason 48p is supported by the DCI standard (and I assume 30p too?) is perhaps to help the potential of new live, big-screen, HD broadcasts of things such as concerts and shows. ...

Actually DCI currently has three standards for projection: 2K 24 fps, 2K 48 fps and 4K 24 fps.

[Thomas James]

Yes and 2K 48 fps as well as 4K 24 fps will be like watching Showscan or IMAX which is something you can't get a home.

[Keith Walters]

Once again: What has your 48 fps preaching anything to do with this thread?

 

You need to stop hijacking threads. Start your own if this is such a big deal to you.

 

Actually, the original thread was started over four months ago, and was only active for a few days.

Then somebody suddenly started it up again a couple of weeks back for some reason.

 

It would be interesting to hear how Matt Irwin got on, four months down the track....

[Gus Sacks]

I'm not hijacking the thread but merely suggesting that documentaries need not be limited to 24 fps unless one is going to go film out. In the past documentaries were filmed in 60i. Also I have no bias towards 48 fps unless one intends to go with 2K digital projection which is also easily convertable to 24 fps 35mm film out.

 

You must be delusional. I've read countless threads where you go on and on about 48 fps projection. You've already had threads on it, and it's getting tiresome to hop around your inane contributions to threads that really don't have anything to do with your subject matter. Please stop. I think this healthy discussion was enough to last you a while, wasn't it?

[A. Whitehouse]

I suspect that when a 48 fps movie finally does comes out, some will love it, some will think it looks "video-ish", and the rest wouldn't have noticed either way.

 

I suspect most wouldn't notice. I have yet to go around to a friends place to watch a movie on their new TV where they haven't had the motion flow tech turned on (it seems to be on by default on all tvs) and even after Ive complained about it and turned it off they're still in the dark about whats changed in the image. They just cant see it, not one of them has ever complained about a lack of temporal resolution before either.

Id be interested to know how he got on with RED for documentary work as well now that this thread has risen from the grave.

[Thomas James]

For a narrative documentary most people would not notice temporal resolution so it makes sense to Shoot 4K Red at 24 frames per second. However for a fast action sports documentary people will indeed notice the difference and shooting 2K Red at 48 frames per second will produce the sharper footage. Motion is all relative so 48 fps will not look videoish as long as there is enough fast action to justify the higher shooting speed. The reason why an ESPN sports documentary looks like video is because higher frame rates are incorrectly used when the football players are standing around. For a trully cinematic look a cinematographer should shoot at 24 fps and wait until the ball snaps before he switches to full blown 48 fps.

[K Borowski]

But they're not making a sports documentary here.

 

Please leave this thread alone, please?

[Stephen Williams]

But they're not making a sports documentary here.

 

Please leave this thread alone, please?

 

Hi Karl,

 

I think Tim should make a special forum for Thomas to post in, it's getting really annoying his 48fps fetish.

 

Stephen

[Matt Irwin]

Id be interested to know how he got on with RED for documentary work as well now that this thread has risen from the grave.

Wow, talk about off on a tangent! ;)

 

So the job I originally posted about is long over, and ended well- all things considered. Like I mentioned above, the shoot was a mixture of 2nd unit shooting for a feature that was shot on Red, as well as a documentary tv-pilot about people who follow renaissance faires across the US. (The feature was set at a renaissance faire as well). This was on a very tight budget, and production could not afford to rent both the Red for 2nd unit and an ENG camera for the doc work- so my assistant and I got to make it work.

 

The feature was shot with S4's and an Optimo zoom, but I was not quite so lucky. I begged and pleaded for the Rouge compact zooms, but was denied due to budget constraints and was stuck with the two Red zooms. I went into the shoot scared sh*tless about having a T3 at best, but as it turned out 90% of the shoot was day exterior.

 

Our package included:

The Red w/ 60mm studio bridgeplate, 18-50, 50-150, FF4, a lightweight mattebox, both eyepiece and monitor, a double battery mount, 1 drive, 8 cards, a Sacthler video 25 with carbon sticks (great setup btw! and very light), and a dovetail-handheld-frankenstein-thing with 535 handgrips from the rental house. My assistant, Chloe Weaver, packed everything into a large photo backpack along with a few flex-fills, and away we went.

 

I was luckily able to work off the tripod for a lot of the shoot, though I did have one full 12 hour day of handheld... including a walk-and-talk moving backwards with two people through the entire faire- over hills, through trees, almost running into that guy on stilts.. it was nuts. But the shot looked great!

That was the day I was truly happy to have those Red lenses-- they weigh literally nothing and with a battery & drive mounted low on the back of the camera, it balanced very well- similar in heft to an SR.

 

All in all, from this experience I'd say shooting a doc smoothly on Red is doable with two assistants - one with the camera and a backpack full o' glass and one downloading, better / faster compact zooms, a few fast primes, 10 SSD drives, and an instant boot-up time (I missed more than a few moments with the "computer" on my shoulder- ready and aimed, watching it load it's.... extensions?). I'm sure the new color science I keep hearing about would be very helpful as well.

 

Given the choice next time, I'll take any ENG camera without blinking. Camera, lens, batteries, go.

 

No offense to Red, but it's just not designed for verite. It's very workable in a dramatic setting, with a box of primes and a zoom on a 2575... but light and quick it is definitely not. If I want a compact fast zoom with range I need to window the chip to 2k or 1080 to use Super16 or 2/3" glass, so why would I stick with a camera whose primary advantage is 4k recording? I wouldn't. I'd use a 900R or a Varicam or Super16. But I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll shut up now.

 

(On a side note, I've been doing a bit of documentary work lately with EX1's and 3's- and I could not be happier. The image coming out of those cameras is incredible, and the rigs are so light and quick. With a proper set of picture profiles, I've been able to retain all the information I could ever need for flexibilty in grading... and it only weighs 6 lbs!)

 

Cheers,

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Matt, care to share some of those EX1 PPs? I have a few that I've been using of late, but I keep meaning to really dig into that whole set up.

[John Sprung]

..., and an instant boot-up time (I missed more than a few moments with the "computer" on my shoulder- ready and aimed, watching it load it's.... extensions?).

 

Perhaps use one of those "T" shaped hot swap adapters for two "V" lock batteries to avoid re-boots? Granted, that's a way of making the wrong tool do the job.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Nigel Smith]

Perhaps use one of those "T" shaped hot swap adapters for two "V" lock batteries to avoid re-boots? Granted, that's a way of making the wrong tool do the job.

-- J.S.

Isn't that what he called a "a double battery mount"?

I guess you still have to boot up at the start of the day/after lunch etc.

I can't really afford one of them for our red :(

[Ken Willinger]

Thanks for the update Matt. I'm about to start a doc using my Red and am a little concerned about the set up. I've done many docs in the past and have always used EFP set ups, 2/3 broadcast zooms etc. The Red set-up is a much heavier proposition and my glass I'm afraid may be too unwieldly for any fast verite action. My Angenieux 25-250 is not really meant for hand held. It says T3.2 on the iris ring but I'm guessing it's really 3.9. And the closest it focuses is about 3 1/2 feet. I've also just received the Red Pro Primes, they're fast at T1.8 but are big. And it also means putting on a big mattebox and a FF.

 

I've got a Fuji 13X4.5 HD zoom but then I'm at 2K and that sort of defeats the purpose. So I'm in the process of trying to rethink the whole thing. Maybe just do interviews and tripod beauty shots on Red and go with a different camera for hand-held b-roll (although I will have a Mantis and an Easy Rig). Plus I have to travel with this kit.

 

I've got the Sachtler 25 with carbon stix as well. It's a nice set up. Sure wish I had access to the Rouge zooms!