Jump to content
Stephen Williams

I've been Banned from Reduser

Recommended Posts

The charts came out after RED was called out as a 1K camera by Phil (then he changed his story to 2K).

 

No, I didn't.

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that it was mostly shot on the F23.

 

Incorrect. The F23 was used only for the scenes inside the hospital room. The rest of the picture was primarily shot on the Viper, combined with a small amount shot on 35mm film (primarily for overcranks). All of the digital footage was recorded on S.two DFR's as DPX files, there was no use of videotape in production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What resolution was Avatar for example shot on? It looked so much better than any other digital movie that I've seen. I guess they did the post right. They were Sonys I think, not 4K, definitely not even 2K. I enjoyed the quality much more than for example "Knowing", "Antichrist", "District 9" (although District 9 was technically ok, but I didn't like the grading)

 

There wasn't much live action production in "Avatar," but what little there was was shot primarily on Sony 950 variants and recorded, I believe, on SRW1 recorders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There wasn't much live action production in "Avatar," but what little there was was shot primarily on Sony 950 variants and recorded, I believe, on SRW1 recorders.

 

Thanks for reminding me of that, so do you maybe know what resolution the VFX work has been done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've seen footage shot at ISO 2000 projected in 4K on a 40' screen and you would have to look very hard to see noise...oh yeah, no noise reduction was done to that shot either.

 

No additional noise reduction perhaps.

 

The RED One uses a minimum compression rate of about 9:1, far higher than any other professional format. It is not possible to obtain a non-compressed full-resolution output from the camera.

 

The basis of all compression systems is to first all find predictable and repetitive patterns in the pixels that make up an image, and then replace the raw image data with a string of numbers, which, when "plugged into" a series of complex mathematical functions stored in the decoder software, spits out an approximate re-creation of the original series of pixel values.

The longer the string of "seed" numbers, the more closely the re-created set of pixels approximates the original set of pixels. However that of course results in "less compression"

 

Noise, by its very nature, has no repetitive structure, and cannot be meaningfully compressed. (While it is theoretically possible to completely encode a frame of video containing noise, to do so with DCT based compression would require nearly four times the data required to simply transmit the original pixel data directly!) As a result, low-level noise is routinely discarded by compression systems. It is not so much a matter of filtering out noise, as simply not encoding it in the first place. (Yes I know the RED uses Wavelet compression, but the same principle applies).

 

Discarding the noise in itself would not be a problem, except for the fact that generally, it is almost impossible for an automated system to distinguish noise from low-level fine detail. Hence the low-level fine detail tends to get discarded with the noise, the classic "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" scenario.

 

The "clean, noise-free" video pictures that people get so excited about (not just with the RED either) are mostly noisy video that has been "cored". Whether the noise coring is done deliberately in the video processing circuitry or as a fortuitous by-product of the compression process is irrelevant: Not all the pixels are making it to the screen, and people notice this.They may not be able to explain what is wrong, but that does not make their views invalid.

 

"Well I've seen footage shot at ISO 2000 projected in 4K on a 40' screen"

 

 

In 1999 a certain small-but-perfectly-formed producer shot an entire episode of an Iconic SciFi Movie series in 1440 x 812 resolution video and claimed that that was "indistinguishable from film". If we don't believe someone of his stature (professionally speaking, not physically :rolleyes: ), I don't know what hope you think you have of being taken seriously.

 

 

So here you go... lots of new reasons to keep this thread going.

That's the spirit!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------

So I met woman on train. She says:

"Oh! I took holiday trip to Russia once.

Food was terrible! Nothing but this horrible soup all the time,

made out of beetroots!"

"Borscht?" I said.

"Is true!!" she screamed

 

 

 

Ho ho ... I have million of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I didn't.

 

P

 

Phil, you argued with Graeme at IBC 2006 that RED was a 1K camera... then posted this on Nov. 1, 2006:

 

- It isn't a 4K camera. It's a 2K camera. It's a Bayer sensor. Calling it a 4K camera is like calling a DSR-570 HD. This is also lying. -

 

Turns out it is a 4K bayer camera that has a measured resolution of greater than 3.2K (80%). Since there are no 1080P cameras that measure clean resolution greater than 80-85% of 1080P (that we can find)... it seems fairly consistent with what the industry deems acceptable as a ratio or file size to measured resolution. Additionally, ASA 100 35mm film measures 3.2K from a 4K scan (same ratio). The more widely used ASA 500 35mm film stock measures 2.8K from a 4K scan.

 

I do agree that the numbers are not as important as the image... however we do feel the need to clarify the facts when misinformation is posted.

 

It did seem too quiet here for the longest time...

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you argued with Graeme at IBC 2006 that RED was a 1K camera

 

No, I really didn't.

 

And no, I'm not going to spend time responding with even the faintest eloquence to such pathetically transparent attempts to smear. Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me.

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, if you guys don't believe me about the noiseless footage that Fincher shot on the new M-X sensor RED One. Then talk with Jim about coming over to RED studios at seeing the footage up on their 4K projector. I'm sure he would be more than happy to prove you wrong...of course if he has the time (and of course I'm not speaking for Jim just trying to find a way to show you guys what I'm talking about). Why didn't the RED haters go to the RED Day event at RED Studios to see if they could pick apart the RED footage on the 4K projector. I know you guys are a little scared of getting proven wrong in front of everyone and having to eat your words. You could also ask any of the people that were there that day and they will tell you the same thing. Proof is in the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stevie wara
Why is everybody so obsessed by '35mm DOF'?...

From my (more or less) outsider perspective, I would say that too often "everybody" just wants to emulate what "everybody" sees. For the moment at least, "everybody" seems wanting to emulate low f-stop 35mm depth of field.

 

"everybody" also too often wants a 2.40 aspect ratio, whether it fits or not, but that would be an argument for another thread...

 

Rarely do you see a contemporary film that employs deep focus. In fact, "everybody" avoids it like the plague. Films such as Citizen Kane, Birdman of Alcatraz, and Paper Moon, cannot be viewed as second-tier cinema because they employed deep focus.

 

Film holds qualities that far exceed notions of 35mm depth of field.

 

Just a point of view.

Edited by stevie wara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I really didn't.

 

And no, I'm not going to spend time responding with even the faintest eloquence to such pathetically transparent attempts to smear. Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me.

 

P

 

Phil... that is the actual quote from you. With date. I can understand you not wanting to have said that.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by the quote, for all the reasons I've told you again and again.

 

What I didn't at any time do was state the unqualified opinion that you had a 1K camera. I've said many times you might have had a pretty good 2K camera. What you still don't have is a 4K camera. Clear yet?

 

I'm really not going to be drawn into a misquoting fight with a sunglasses salesman, you can try all you like.

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand by the quote, for all the reasons I've told you again and again.

 

What I didn't at any time do was state the unqualified opinion that you had a 1K camera. I've said many times you might have had a pretty good 2K camera. What you still don't have is a 4K camera. Clear yet?

 

I'm really not going to be drawn into a misquoting fight with a sunglasses salesman, you can try all you like.

 

P

 

Actually we do. The M-X sensor RED ONE at 4.5K measures 4K resolution. That is clear.

 

"Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me." I am getting back to you. I copied and pasted from your original quote. Hard to mis-quote this way.

 

As usual... this has turned downstream. But at least the mis-information is cleared up.

 

Back to your regular program.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT Tom it looks like there will not be many films shot on Epic 'The Ultimate Film Slayer' any time soon, so yor bet looks dodgy. Shame I did not take up Jim's offer LOL

 

Lol, you could have pocketed a couple million and retired Stephen... :lol: but hey, there is still almost a year to go! I knew the risk of delays. Maybe MX and new workflow tools will help my side of the bet in the meantime.

 

Alexa from Arri will also help Epic to slay film. Maybe I will be proven to be off by a year, for example. But that's hardly being off by much. The tide is changing VERY quickly. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really not going to be drawn into a misquoting fight with a sunglasses salesman, you can try all you like.

 

Name calling? Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really not going to be drawn into a misquoting fight with a sunglasses salesman, you can try all you like.

 

P

 

 

How old are you? I know its hard to admit you are wrong but guess what, you are very wrong. Besides Jim doesn't sell sun glasses anymore. He sells Digital Cinema Cameras, leads the digital revolution and is a studio head. Might want to get your facts right.

 

The RED One measured resolution at 4K 16x9 on the new M-X sensor is 3.5K and it 4.5K is true 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, why can there only be extremes?

 

If there were more opinions like Mathews... then we could actually learn something.

Edited by XiaoSu Han

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I really didn't.

 

And no, I'm not going to spend time responding with even the faintest eloquence to such pathetically transparent attempts to smear. Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me.

 

P

 

Here is the quote:

 

Sep 9 2006, 08:07 AM

Post #13

 

Hi,

 

You have to be careful about comparisons with Viper because of the way it handles pixel binning; you're averaging either three or four pixels vertically depending on the mode you're in. But then you do get true, no compromises, 4:4:4 HD.

 

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

 

Try keying at 4K with it and see how well you do!

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the quote:

 

Thanks... I couldn't find that one. Now I feel better about being a sunglass salesman. :-)

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like some words need to be eaten after that quote.

 

Funny thing is, I still like Phil and I don't like you. Phil has helped a great many folks with information, here. He's a valued contributor. What are you? You're a crossover from a forum where you may well be liked and respected. Yet, I don't feel comfortable with you hopping over and talking down to fellow members. Your adoration of Mr. Jannard as though he is a religious, cult leader is the creepiest part of you and the RED fanboys. Otherwise, his cameras seem to be finding appropriate use throughout the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the quote:

 

Phil Rhodes:

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

 

 

 

So, what's wrong with that? Three out of every four pixels are an estimation by a computer, not an actual measurement. And that's decoded from an already heavily compressed and then de-compressed Bayer data stream. Only an idiot would try to pretend otherwise. (As it hppens, I'm working on another pinned thread about this very subject)

 

Phil is referring an extreme case; not everybody needs "full whack, no holds barred 4:4:4" and since as far as I know, no commercial RED-shot production has ever actually been Posted in 4k, I don't see how it matters anyway.

 

The main complaint, as always, is being quoted out of context.

 

Perhaps we need another pinned thread, consisting entirely of direct links to commonly misquoted posts so half-quotes can be completed with minimal effort :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RED One measured resolution at 4K 16x9 on the new M-X sensor is 3.5K and it 4.5K is true 4K.

Apart from looking at some incomprehensible squiggles on a REDUSER thread - that seem to show the level is a useless 30dB down at 3.5K, and most of the rest doesn't look anything like any resolution chart waveform I've ever seen - you know this how?

 

Why can't they just show us an actual frame grab of the shot instead of that stupid faux Oscilloscope trace. You don't need the whole frame, just a narrow strip out of the centre would be adequate.

 

These questions will of course not be addressed because I'm too disrespectful :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like some words need to be eaten after that quote.

 

Not really, I suspect Jim just didn't entirely understand quite what the quote was saying or was in a hurry and read it fast and only saw certain bits of what was said. So yeah it seems like he did misquote phil but suggesting he needs to eat his words seems a little extreme.

 

Jim I think you need to try and not take everything so personally. There are clearly people who aren't so into the camera and other people who love it to bits. Personally I hate sprouts and coconut. Putting coconut in chocolate is truly an abomination and I feel should never have been allowed to happen but I've met people who actually like it. *shrug* It's okay because when I get a box of assorted chocs I can give all the cocunut ones to someone else and it's almost like I'm doing THEM a favour or something!

 

Why does it upset you so much that some people don't like it? Havn't you made a camera that is in use by many people all over the world for all kinds of projects? Would anybody deny that? Isn't that enough? Does EVERYBODY have to love it to bits?

 

Actually for a lot of people it's just not the right camera. Me included at the moment. However it clearly seems to be a match for a lot of peoples needs. I'm sure it depends on your budget and what you are doing. For myself shooting on an ex3 would actually be luxury! :)

 

I guess you have to go with what works for you!

 

love

 

Freya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny thing is, I still like Phil and I don't like you. Phil has helped a great many folks with information, here. He's a valued contributor. What are you? You're a crossover from a forum where you may well be liked and respected. Yet, I don't feel comfortable with you hopping over and talking down to fellow members. Your adoration of Mr. Jannard as though he is a religious, cult leader is the creepiest part of you and the RED fanboys. Otherwise, his cameras seem to be finding appropriate use throughout the industry.

 

I like Jim because every time I have met him he has been extremely nice to me and all the other people talking his ear off. He shows incredible patience for someone that deals with some of the people I have seen him deal with. If he wasn't that way I would be indifferent about him but I would still like RED because its better than anything else out there and within my reach financially. Getting a RED One has changed my life in a way I had always hoped for.

 

I really don't care if you like me. You have nothing I want so you might as well not even exist in my eyes. To me your just some name on a screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Ritter Battery



    Paralinx LLC



    Visual Products



    Just Cinema Gear



    CineLab



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    G-Force Grips



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Glidecam



    FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Wooden Camera



    Serious Gear



    Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    Tai Audio


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...