New Red Camera - Raven

[Satsuki Murashige]

I wanna see that F65 set up in a parking lot with an exposure chart. Then shoot reflections off cars in the mid day sun.

 

I might be able to arrange that for you :)

[David Mullen ASC]

Curtis Clark ASC shot a short film in the desert outside of Las Vegas for Sony on the F65, with a car driving through, and the camera handled the desert light and the car reflections quite well. Personally the bright flat light of the desert is not as extreme a test of dynamic range as you'd think, there is only about three or four stops between sun and shadow... A forest or jungle with dappled sun is a much worse scenario, you can have some extreme changes from light to dark (of course even film negative can have trouble holding such extreme ranges in that case, plus it is a pretty uncontrolled environment for a test when suddenly you can have a 15 or 20-stop difference in tonal values.)

[Tyler Purcell]

Ohh absolutely agreed, it's just we don't know how much of those movies were manipulated in post. At least with film, we know over-exposed areas will have no detail, but they won't be harsh.

 

Satsuki, my thought was to put a 10 stop exposure chart in the parking lot. Set the cameras to their lowest ISO without filtration, get the right exposure set via the scopes and then shoot reflective objects. Look at histogram and waveform monitors, watch how the camera deals with clipping. It would be interesting to see the F65, F55, F5, FS7 AND Alexa back to back doing the same test. It would also be interesting to see if you put the cameras down at their native ISO and used heavy filtration, how it resolves some of these issues.

 

Wish I had more rental house connections to do this test myself, but I lost them when I left Boston. :(

[Bill DiPietra]

Curtis Clark ASC shot a short film in the desert outside of Las Vegas for Sony on the F65, with a car driving through, and the camera handled the desert light and the car reflections quite well.

 

I saw that when I was at the ASC and it gave Kodak 50D a real run for its money.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Personally the bright flat light of the desert is not as extreme a test of dynamic range as you'd think, there is only about three or four stops between sun and shadow...

Well yes, unless the car being shot was white or silver and reflecting the sun. Then you're back to the 14+ stop range. :)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Satsuki, my thought was to put a 10 stop exposure chart in the parking lot. Set the cameras to their lowest ISO without filtration, get the right exposure set via the scopes and then shoot reflective objects. Look at histogram and waveform monitors, watch how the camera deals with clipping. It would be interesting to see the F65, F55, F5, FS7 AND Alexa back to back doing the same test. It would also be interesting to see if you put the cameras down at their native ISO and used heavy filtration, how it resolves some of these issues.

 

Well, that's a bit more work than I had anticipated! Remember that each camera also has various raw and/or compressed shooting modes, different gamma curves and color spaces that can be baked in, etc. You'd need to narrow down the testing perameters quite a bit or you'll be there for three days. You could take a look at Geoff Boyle's cameras tests on CML for starters, I believe he has posted tests of 35mm, Alexa, and F65 back to back.

 

Shooting the cameras at their lowest ISO will exaggerate the clipping issues. That's like taking 500T film and saying let's start testing exposure at 50ASA. They are not intended to be used that way and no one shoots like that so it's not a good representation of real world conditions. I would suggest starting the test at the recommended ISOs as a baseline, then adjusting from there.

 

I think if you are interested in testing how the different cameras clip, shooting hot backlit cars in the parking lot would be a good test. Put a properly exposed person in front with a grey card/color chart, meter the background with a spot meter, then start shooting exposure wedges. You'll then see how each camera clips differently, how the color channels saturate and react to over/under-exposure, and how much detail remains in the shadows. Then in post grade each step wedge back to normal using the grey card to see how much detail can be pulled back.

[Tyler Purcell]

I like it, start with the F65 vs Alexa, just as a comparison.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I figure F65 in 4K Raw SR, 23.98, 800 ISO, 180 mechanical shutter vs Alexa XT 3.2K Arriraw 16:9, 23.98, 800 ISO, 180 electronic shutter would be a good start. Master Prime 40mm. Mitomo True ND 4x5.65 filters, no internal ND for F65. Bracket exposures in 1/2 stop increments. Add ND and then cut the shutter to lower exposure, pull ND to increase exposure. Sound about right? Any other ideas, let me know. I could also shoot bracketed macro shots of a sunlit silver ball.

 

*Forgot to add, I'll add in 35mm shot on my Moviecam if you send me a 1000' roll of 5219 and pay for the processing and scanning. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep, great test! Wish I had a dime or I'd do the 35mm test! Maybe if I get into production on my next film I'll have some left over stock. :)

[Robin R Probyn]

Hi Tyler

 

Sorry for hissy fit.. your right.. not called for.. apologies for that..

[bill h. hendrickson]

don't be sorry Robin. Tyler has lost his mind. For one he started off saying he's hasn't shot much with the red and does post. and its obvious . . I shoot with both alexa and red so I'm not too partial to either . but for him to even say that about the blackmagic camera and how good it is? he's even saying how good the black magic thats unreleased is he's just looking at specs on a computer screen theres more too it then that the sensor could be 12bits or what ever but look horrible . Ive used the current balck magic thats on release and there is no comparison . He also stated he's more of an ENG guy. thats obvious too he does not understand current digital cameras at all. I mean he gave it away after what he said about the f65. I mean please no one let this guy near a camera if he has never used a red camera before is this the guy you want running the test? the F65 is more complicated I think he won't know what to do with it. he also commented 128bg hold small amount of r3d footage of 3:1 on the card. Hello I guess you never shot with a arri shooting RAW its much worse. Or an F65 do yo know how much space they take up. its crazy because every point you make about other cameras can be said about every camera including the alexa and including film. Also he states to put the camera to the lowest ISO, just goes to show he really does not understand digital cameras or how they are rated. The sensors are like film depending what camera you use the rated ISO will be the best performance not the lowest.

I mean people are bing nice and don't want to speak up but with every passing post he writes he really does make a fool of himself. I really think that if your going to have an good discussion lets limit his posts or not take them to seriously since you have not shot with the red much but you really speak a lot about it . really docent seem like you’ve shot with any thing new.

and again sorry but every camera you use needs accessories to work even a film camera. TYLER obviously has no idea about buying cameras new ones / cinema ones . The ALEXA evf which is an "ACCESSORY"costs near 7k more expensive then red so why would he say that . ..what about batts? mounts ? rails? evf cables, on board monitors ?? does tyler consider those accessories ? i hope .. because you need those too to work 98 percent of cameras including his lovely Alexa. which I love and imnot saying anything bad about it just that tylers comerisons don’t amok sense. Lets hoope he brings an assistant for these F65 test he might think he just needs the F65 body and the image will suddenly appear out of thin air , because i guess RED cameras are the ones that need these "ACCESSORIES" all other cameras just work , no batts, no monitors, matte boxes, audio,.

I have done plenty of perfect keys with red and may cameras even balk magic . I suggest you find new VFX guys. Im sure the HOBBIT which spent close to a billion dollars with all three films and did test would have chose another camera if it would be bad for VFX. So because you had a bad experience with green screen it means the cameras bad and all green screen will be bad. What about my green screen experience ? mine was perfect so what your right and every one is wrong. The film makers actually out there spinning millions and millions and can pick any camera they are wrong and you sitting at your post computer is the guy that know.

please guys I’m not a red lover or hater but lets be realistic with this Tyler guy I beg.

sorry for the grammar I wrote this fast and on a phone .

[bill h. hendrickson]

oh one more thing try not to insult other film makers movies because they shot on a camera. Tyler said he commented to his fellow peers after seeing am ovie and know it was shot on red and how bad it looked. your pretty much also insulting DAVID MULLEN because he some times chooses red. Im pretty sure what ever film tylerr saw the film makers are laughing at tyler because he's worried about the camera and they having fun maing huge million dollar movies with millions of people enjoying them . have some respect just because your not as successful as them don't bash them for the camera they use. Is tyler saying everything Ive shot on a red is horrible and the alexa stuff is the only good stuff. There goes some of that beautiful david mullen work .

[David Mullen ASC]

Tyler is passionate about images and I will cut him some slack if his criticism is driven from love rather than a nasty attitude...

 

But at some point, you have to look at the flaws of any system, film or digital, honestly and objectively, and file that in the back of your head, because movies are not about showing off a technology, they are about telling stories with mood and atmosphere under the constrictions of time and budget, and in collaboration with other artists like the director, actors, editor, etc.

 

Back in the days of film, I remember talking about how much I loved David Watkin's work, and someone said to me, "but then why does he shoot on that crappy Agfa stock?" I was as aware of the pros and cons of Agfa as anyone, and I'm sure Watkin was too, and clearly he made a decision that the Agfa stock fit his sensibilities and style and he worked around the limitations (mainly by overexposing the stock, which he naturally did anyway). I only bring this up because on a purely technical level, you could argue that Kodak color negative stocks at the time were technically superior in terms of accuracy of reproduction and consistency in quality, but artists have more priorities beyond the merely technical, and they also see images in an idiosyncratic way.

 

I've seen plenty of good-looking movies shot on Red cameras, with lovely skin tones, to know that it is possible to shoot a good-looking movie on those cameras and there are a number of cinematographers that I respect that use Red cameras regularly. But I am also aware of the image characteristics of that camera and its operational strength and weaknesses, because that's part of my job. And sometimes you pick a camera for more reasons than simply the image, you have to factor in size and weight, robustness, ease of use, crew comfortability, producer confidence, post house capabilities, BUDGET, etc. and each project has its own challenges, and its unknowns.

[Oron Cohen]

I understand where Bill is coming from and also really respect Mr Mullen reply.

 

I would just ask, if possible, even though Tyler is super passionate and all, it will be nice to go back to this thread subject, which is, this great compact camera, that does a lot for a (very) reasonable price!

 

I shot on Dragon 4K before and it looks great, and if it's same sensor I don't see a reason why this won't look great.

I personally have decided not to own equipment, so I'm not going to buy it for now, I think it's better and more professional to rent per a project, especially that what really worries me before every shoot are the lenses, and a good set of lenses cost like 5-10 Ravens anyway, which leads me to my next point..:

 

it'll be really good if they'll offer this camera with a PL mount as well, that will be great for many people.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'd like them to make an MFT version so then you can throw any mount you want on it (basically). But, I almost think it'll just be EoS

[Satsuki Murashige]

Yep, great test! Wish I had a dime or I'd do the 35mm test! Maybe if I get into production on my next film I'll have some left over stock. :)

F65 test put on hold, the one rental house that owned one up here has no plans currently to replace its stolen package. Could do F55 instead I guess...

[Tyler Purcell]

F65 test put on hold, the one rental house that owned one up here has no plans currently to replace its stolen package. Could do F55 instead I guess...

Maybe? I mean if you have the time and are there, you could just shoot the test. :shrug:

[Tyler Purcell]

he's even saying how good the black magic thats unreleased is he's just looking at specs on a computer screen theres more too it then that the sensor could be 12bits or what ever but look horrible.

Blackmagic makes a complete package; 4.6k S35mm sensor, PL mount, OLED viewfinder, shoulder harness/handle and uses standard V-Mount batteries and storage cards. It has standard XLR inputs, built-in mic's (4 channel audio recording) shoots universal non-proprietary 12 bit Adobe Tiff CinemaDNG format OR 12 bit Pro Res 4444, which allows native integration with DaVinci, Premiere, Avid and Final Cut Pro. All of this for around $8000 USD, including a decent amount of storage.

 

If the RAVEN used universal storage, universal batteries, universal I/O built-in and reasonably priced (cheap) accessory package, I can see some comparisons. Yes, Blackmagic could also screw the pooch on their new 4.6k imager, it could be utter crap like their so-so 4k imager. However, I know that won't be the case because they've made leaps and bounds in quality since their first cameras and have finally come up with a decent package. The only question is how close it will be to the Alexa, because unlike RED who are doing their own thing, Blackmagic seems to be focused on making their cameras look like Alexa's.

 

Also he states to put the camera to the lowest ISO, just goes to show he really does not understand digital cameras or how they are rated. The sensors are like film depending what camera you use the rated ISO will be the best performance not the lowest.

Sometimes you don't want the grain of 800 ISO and can't run 10 stops of ND filters to compensate because you go between indoors and outdoors in a single shot.

 

and again sorry but every camera you use needs accessories to work even a film camera.

When I use to shoot on film, I had a camera body, magazine, battery and lens with screw on filters and a mattebox. Sometimes a sound guy would show up, other times I'd shoot MOS. Directors trusted me to get the right shot. It was so freeing to just grab the camera, throw on a mag and go shoot, no cables, no accessories, not even a follow focus or rails. People shot like this for decades before the industry came up with specialized accessories which are for some reason "must have" or you can't shoot anything.

 

Worst of all, camera manufacturers have gotten into the habit of advertising lower prices and forcing users to spend thousands on specialized accessories to make their products work. They just expect people to except this trend, but in my eyes it's unacceptable. It's one of the reasons I bought the pocket cameras instead of something else. They're as "standard" as it comes for everything but the viewfinder adaptor, which they don't make, which was 99 euro's, which is not really a break-the-bank financial decision like most of RED's mandatory accessories.

 

Plus, we're not talking about a $20K+ camera, we're talking about a sub $10k camera and likewise, it's designed for people who can't afford a $20k+ camera. So why should the sub $10k camera's which are designed to save money, follow the same crazy accessorizing patterns as their vastly more expensive brothers? It's just absolutely ridiculous!

 

The film makers actually out there spinning millions and millions and can pick any camera they are wrong and you sitting at your post computer is the guy that know.

I'm depressed with the quality of today's digital movies. Most of them look like television, like an experiment in one way or another. Out of calibration projectors, over use of computer special effects, over-kill during finishing (color), pushing technology past it's actual potential to prove a point, it's hard to tell what is going on in a lot of films. They've turned into eye candy for the most part. It seems that most filmmakers shoot with digital as a way to experiment. Intermixed with the crap, are some amazing films shot on digital. "Skyfall" is one that stands out, Roger Deakins pretends his Alexa is a film camera and guess what, it pays off. So digital cinema CAN look good, but it actually requires less experiment and more "standard" filmmaking practices. Very few people are willing to do this and that's why I love film so much. Film has pre-determined boundaries due to camera size, sensitivity ratings and sharpness. It can easily mask poor filmmaking by roughing up an image. Even poorly shot movies, can look somewhat decent on film.

 

All of that to say... I care a lot about these things. I spent the last decade working in the field of digital cinema/broadcast technology. I've been to the SMPTE meetings, been to the television academy meetings, I've been to the DGA/ASC meetings. I've worked with the designers/developers of many pieces of technology, so I could integrate it into the products I developed. So yea, when I say some something ludicrous, there is some reasoning behind it.

[bill h. hendrickson]

this post refers to post #68

 

 

 

all your statements are wrong buddy.

 

lets start with the first

BM is not complete all this things you said... EVF, batts , things like that are those "accessory " things you keep talking about and are sold separate by BM or third party like every other camera manufacture and film camera..

RED does an does not use proprietary Batts. you can use standard Vmount or gold mounts with it . obviously you have no idea what your talking about as you did not even know you could use V mounts with a red.

so your first statement proven wrong again you don't know what your talking about.

 

Second

again you know not what you talk about .. sensors now are like film and the ISO is what they are rated at shooting 800 will not give you grain with proper lighting . If you reduce the ISO in 99 percent of cameras your losing things like DR and quality. so agin your speaking out of term . please no more of that Again you don't use reds so how can you comment on grain . I use them every week Im 100 percent more qualified to speak of the grain if you use the ISO to 250 you image will look worse.. Like rating film below or above its noted ASA

 

 

third

red has no mandatory accessories . the only one would be media . you can run the rest of the camera with cheap third party accessories like monitors batteries a phone to change all the setting. Again your making arguments and making your mind up with out knowing a lot and your confusing new comers like your self about digital cinematography. Ill say it again there are no mandatory red accessories.. only media .. you can have the camera woking with thousands of third party accessories.

 

come to think about it you can use a recorder with red.. so actually you could just buy the brain and thats it from red and everything else to run the camera you could buy separately. you don't know this of but you still make comments about it why? take a step back and realize you don't know a thing about the camera .

 

and please don't be mad you can't afford red things thats does not mean you have to bash it ... they are no different then other camera companies in terms of pricing that are in their league.. check out sony's media cards how much they cost...F65 I'm talking. check out how much simple cables and EVF from arri cost.

 

Oh yes lets talk about your film days .. looks like you technique of no follow focus , no monitor for clients, directors .did you well because now your on forum giving bad information and sitting at a desk in post . see what happens is in life people grow up and figure out how to do things better. Like a follow focus so that when you focus the lens you don't sake the whole lens and have a shaky image. or its also useful so your AC can pull your focus and you can concentrate on the important things like framing and movement. see if you would have progressed you would figure out that those "must have" things are actually useful and will make better images. or cables so clients and directors cans look at monitors and see the crap your shooting, its not about trust, film making is a team effort and directors , producers, make up artist , VFX people like to be able to give input and not let people do what ever. so please don't refer to them as useless there a good reason for rails and cables

 

i mean come on people does any one want to jump in here this guy is saying cables are useless.!! any one

 

heres the best line "People shot like this for decades before the industry came up with specialized accessories which are for some reason "must have" or you can't shoot anything." - Tyler

 

they also had kids working 15 hour days , no pay , they treated animals like poop, at one point they only had "whites" making movies or doing things on set. should we bring all that back to or do you think we should grow and figure out how to do things better.

 

fourth:

they are not huge issues only to you and most your "huge issues" your clearly wrong about if you read my post. so if your wrong about all that I'm sure your wrong about your fourth statement . possibly you need glasses.. a face accessory .

 

do you not think Deakins uses a follow focus or cables? he uses wheels a lot on a JIB to work his camera .. i wonder how he'd see the image with out cables, or an "accessory" like a monitor.

 

jeez i wonder how the director will be able to judge performances with out looking at the close ups on the monitor , see the director need to see the monitor using a cable so that the movie turns out good . Id love to see these "movies" you shot with no AC and no director input I'm sure they were great.

 

 

any ways as every ones saying lets get back to the topic at hand I just proved you don't know why your tling about .. i mean I should have just stopped at red cameras can use STANDARD V MOUNTS but i had to go further.

 

I can guarantee what ever you write next as with all your posts will be wrong.

[bill h. hendrickson]

refers to post # 68

 

are you sure your an editor because red files can be edited natively in 98 percent of editing systems most notably every single system you listed

so your wrong about that .. you should stop telling people that . have fun importing tiff sequences in to final cut

[Satsuki Murashige]

Maybe? I mean if you have the time and are there, you could just shoot the test. :shrug:

No, I mean that there is no longer an F65 at the rental house. It was the only locally owned F65 that I knew of. I used it last year for a webseries but it was stolen a few months ago, and for awhile they had a sub-rented body in the shop so I was planning to use that one. But I just found out they have since sent it back. I've asked them to let me know if they get another one in soon.

[Robin R Probyn]

Passion in good.. but passion without knowledge is not..

 

Bill.. wasting your time.. Ive been through all this before with Tyler re Sony camera,s and XAVC/XDCAM.. Ive advised literature for him to get a grasp of at least the tech side of digital camera.s.. but it aint going to happen..

Edited October 15, 2015 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

No, I mean that there is no longer an F65 at the rental house.

My comment was in regards to doing the test with the F55. Might as well test what you have access to.

[Satsuki Murashige]

My comment was in regards to doing the test with the F55. Might as well test what you have access to.

Gotcha. Sure, I can do that.

[Tyler Purcell]

all your statements are wrong buddy.

I don't understand why you're here. There is no cinematographer with your name (or anything close to it) on google or IMDB. So based on your childish anger, I can only assume you're a RED devotee who is looking for redemption in all the wrong places.

 

I absolutely love this line:

 

jeez i wonder how the director will be able to judge performances with out looking at the close ups on the monitor , see the director need to see the monitor using a cable so that the movie turns out good . Id love to see these "movies" you shot with no AC and no director input I'm sure they were great.

Do you think David Lean carried around his B&W CRT monitor making 'Lawrence of Arabia'? nope

Do you think Stanley Kubrick was watching a monitor making 'Spartacus' or "Dr.Strangelove" nope

Do you think Orson Wells was watching a video replay during the making of 'Citizen Kane'? nope

Do you think Michael Curtiz was right off screen looking at his monitor making 'Casablanca'? nope

How about Hitchcock with "vertigo"? nope... How about Victor Fleming with 'Oz' and 'Gone With the Wind'? nope

 

See, you don't need a video monitor to make a good movie. In fact, the birth of the DIT and video village, marks the downward spiral of cinema. Sure, I understand using the resources that exist in order to insure you "got the shot". However, some of the best films ever made, never had a monitor or replay device on set. Yet, somehow those pre-historic filmmakers figured out how to bash rocks together in order to make a movie look good.

 

As a director, you wouldn't catch me even near a monitor when shooting. I'm focused on my actors, generally standing or sitting right out of frame, staring at their performance. It's the cinematographers job to capture that performance and if they say it's OK, I trust them and we can move onto the next shot. This is how movies have been made for decades and there is zero reason they can't be made the same way today.