Jump to content


Photo

Red - Neither "Video-like" or "Film-like"


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 September 2006 - 12:32 PM

Hi,
I was wondering what reasons could have caused the statement by some that Red, although it doesn't look like film, it doesn't look like video;

-I have never (knowingly) seen footage that has been shot at an aperture speed of 1/24, i.e. no shutter whatesoever; I believe Red was shot like this and maybe it causes the footage to look unusually smooth, although retain the 24fps associated with film.

Am I wrong about this? Is there another reason, or is it just the fact that Red is digital and is it true that it was shot with a shutter speed of 1/24?
Something to think over.
Anatole
  • 0

#2 Graeme Nattress

Graeme Nattress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 September 2006 - 12:37 PM

I think the shutter was at 1/48th.

Graeme
  • 0

#3 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 September 2006 - 12:52 PM

Cheers. I thought it was the same as a few weeks ago when you got the first proper image (windowed) from the camera.
Are there any other possible reasons for it?
Anatole
  • 0

#4 Mike Brennan

Mike Brennan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 16 September 2006 - 09:27 AM

Hi,
I was wondering what reasons could have caused the statement by some that Red, although it doesn't look like film, it doesn't look like video;

-I have never (knowingly) seen footage that has been shot at an aperture speed of 1/24, i.e. no shutter whatesoever; I believe Red was shot like this and maybe it causes the footage to look unusually smooth, although retain the 24fps associated with film.

Am I wrong about this? Is there another reason, or is it just the fact that Red is digital and is it true that it was shot with a shutter speed of 1/24?
Something to think over.
Anatole


Anatole,
Collateral was mostly shot with 1/24th or 1/33 shutter.
It gives motion portrayal a slighty blurred video quality.
The RED test demo was shot with a shutter higher than 1/33rd (probably 1/48th)

Any digital camera that exhibits a narrow depth of field becomes more associated with the look of film than video. Hence the popularity of the Pro 35kit that despite severely reducing resolution is still considered worthwhile trade off (for TV work at least).

Mike Brennan
  • 0

#5 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:23 AM

hm, i didn´t think that it looked like film - there was virtually no grain or noise. but it certainly had a very "cinematic" look.

DOF was 35mm, but this is not film. film can be 35, 65, also 16mm, this is then rather 2/3 DOF.

regarding the pro35, which mr. brennan mentioned - i don´t like this device to much. if possible just get more distance & light to the motive, open up widely. the pro 35 has many shortcomings, 1.5-2 stops less, sound, reduced image quality etc. for mini-dv & hdv its worth considering, but on 2/3 hds i would recommend other ways to get the preferred dof, when possible. expcetions are small sets, steady, minimal light, when you can get distance to the talent and not open the lense.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:06 AM

RED is a digital camera, not a film camera -- even if the images are high-quality, beautiful, sharp, etc., they are digital images. It's like comparing the image characteristics of something shot on a 35mm still camera to a high-end D-SLR camera -- you might prefer one over the other even though they might look similar, but there are characteristics unique to each process / format, just like oil paints are different from acrylic paints or watercolors.

I think we're getting to a point where people will start to judge digital images more for their own qualities rather than worry about them matching film exactly.
  • 0

#7 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:17 AM

RED is a digital camera, not a film camera -- even if the images are high-quality, beautiful, sharp, etc., they are digital images. It's like comparing the image characteristics of something shot on a 35mm still camera to a high-end D-SLR camera -- you might prefer one over the other even though they might look similar, but there are characteristics unique to each process / format, just like oil paints are different from acrylic paints or watercolors.

I think we're getting to a point where people will start to judge digital images more for their own qualities rather than worry about them matching film exactly.

Finally, an input from the other side (even if though all my background had come from the same border) with which I fully agree.
  • 0

#8 Patrick Casey

Patrick Casey
  • Sustaining Members
  • 24 posts
  • Producer

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:20 AM

I actually thought that the Red footage at IBC looked a lot like a still from a Canon 5D. If I can get footage similar to that of a 5D at 120 frames/sec then I'll be happy as can be.
  • 0

#9 Patrizio De Sica

Patrizio De Sica
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:49 AM

However, David and Emanuel, it's not a crime to get the film look... And to have that film-like from a digital budget that's the goal IMO and many other Red buyers.

We want 35mm for the rain price. And we will have it. If not entirely regarding the hardware, it seems using cheap (YES: CHEAP) disk based technology.
  • 0

#10 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:42 AM

RED is a digital camera, not a film camera -- even if the images are high-quality, beautiful, sharp, etc., they are digital images. It's like comparing the image characteristics of something shot on a 35mm still camera to a high-end D-SLR camera -- you might prefer one over the other even though they might look similar, but there are characteristics unique to each process / format, just like oil paints are different from acrylic paints or watercolors.

Dear Mr. Mullen, i did have had almost the exact opinion until 2,3 years ago. The, im my humble opinion, dramatic expansion of the creative possibilities in D.I. since then anyhow changed my judgement quite a bit.

A good example for my agnosticism towards photochemical/digital is a recent production we did here, high-budget 110 minutes documentary with ~50 minutes worth of re-enacting of events ~1900-1920. Aimed at cinematic-release and prime-time TV.

The movie was shot on cinealta, 35mm and (yikes!) even some HDV here and there... HDV as crash-cams, being rolled over by trains etc. BTW : I have to admit that i had a certain satisfaction having the HDV-cameras killed :)

Anyhow, back to the topic: In the D.I. and colorgrading process, the footages of such different origins have been matched to each another, one time pushing HDCAM to 35mm look (interiors etc) by adding grain, manipulating the gammas, then moving 35mm towards HDCAM-look (superwides, landscapes etc) by removing grain, sometimes having a mixed-look. etc.

The blending of the look integrated the cinealta and 35mm pretty good, sometimes even perfect.

However, it took ~3 weeks worth of D.I., but the differences between classical photochemical and new wave digital were eradicated in the process.

I have to admit that i highly enjoy this new freedom. As Martin Scorsese once said "2001 made you aware that the possibilities of cinematic manipulation are indeed infinite".


I think we're getting to a point where people will start to judge digital images more for their own qualities rather than worry about them matching film exactly.

interesting aspect of this: when integrating VFX/Animation shots, some motives rather make if preferrable to make the VFX film-stlye, other ones are better done when removing the films typical artefacts (grain etc).
  • 0

#11 Graeme Nattress

Graeme Nattress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:19 PM

RED is a digital camera, not a film camera -- even if the images are high-quality, beautiful, sharp, etc., they are digital images. It's like comparing the image characteristics of something shot on a 35mm still camera to a high-end D-SLR camera -- you might prefer one over the other even though they might look similar, but there are characteristics unique to each process / format, just like oil paints are different from acrylic paints or watercolors.

I think we're getting to a point where people will start to judge digital images more for their own qualities rather than worry about them matching film exactly.


David, I agree. Red images are digital cinema camera images. They don't inherently look like film or video. They just look like high quality digitally produced images. I think, especially shooting raw, they give a fantastic canvas to work on in post to produce the look, no matter what that look it, you wish to create. And yes, digital cinema images have their own unique aesthetic that I think people will being to enjoy for it's own merits.
  • 0

#12 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 18 September 2006 - 01:18 PM

In the case of HDV cameras such as the HVX200, a 35mm "style" is very hard to even approach and can never be matched, factoring in significant difference in resolution, latitude and DOF among other things. Many of the people expect Red to entirely replace 35mm film for their purposes, on their limited budgets, and therefore hope to use it for a very large range of application; I prefer the quality of film myself to HD because of that special look it has and it suits a large number of projects much better than HD would.

My point: For those looking for Red to become the sole camera for their use, how close can Red get to the quality of 35mm film? Will grain added in post look good in comparison? Will it actually give many people "no excuse option to 35mm film"?

Cheers,
Anatole
  • 0

#13 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 18 September 2006 - 02:35 PM

Here's a question then....

Has Red done an output of their footage to 35mm then projected it in a theatre?

I ask because I wonder what the possibilities are for using Red in feature films that are intended for theatrical release. I asked in another thread how many US cinemas are now set up for digital projection of some kind and the only response was 1-2%. If this is true, and I can't verify it, then any one using Red for a feature project destined for the theaters will have to output to 35mm at some point.

I sure hope it looks better than "Colateral" did.

R,
  • 0

#14 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 18 September 2006 - 03:42 PM

I asked in another thread how many US cinemas are now set up for digital projection of some kind and the only response was 1-2%. If this is true, and I can't verify it

1-2%... When? During 2006? RED won't be available... yet.
  • 0

#15 John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen

John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 18 September 2006 - 03:50 PM

Sorry for barging in like this, but is the above-mentioned "test footage" available somewhere online?
  • 0

#16 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 September 2006 - 05:49 AM

Here's a question then....

Has Red done an output of their footage to 35mm then projected it in a theatre?

I ask because I wonder what the possibilities are for using Red in feature films that are intended for theatrical release. I asked in another thread how many US cinemas are now set up for digital projection of some kind and the only response was 1-2%. If this is true, and I can't verify it, then any one using Red for a feature project destined for the theaters will have to output to 35mm at some point.

I sure hope it looks better than "Colateral" did.

R,


Well in theory it would certainly look better than Colteral, I cannot see why (depending on shooting conditions as these will determine the digital artifacts) it wouldn't look as good a grinless 2- 4k DI transfer. Can you? I'm also not sure what your getting at with this 1-2 % figure- is it really relevent? How many mainstream features have you seen recently that did not go through a digital process?

keith
  • 0

#17 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 19 September 2006 - 07:55 AM

How many mainstream features have you seen recently that did not go through a digital process?

Proper POV this question is.
  • 0

#18 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 September 2006 - 08:14 AM

Proper POV this question is.


Is this a bablefish thing or are you emulating Yoda? either way i'm not sure i understand.
  • 0

#19 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 September 2006 - 11:44 AM

John-Erling - The footage isn't yet available online (you can find some that were filmes with cheap camcorders, but their no use), but should be going onto the Red website in the next week or so.

To everyone else - I won't get into the debate about the Collateral footage being bad, as I personally think it suited the film perfectly; Red should most definitely perform above the Collateral standards, seeing that the footage had no discernable noise or grain. I guess in the dark, it'll be good too, way better in terms of grain and noise that you get in 35mm film. This shouldn't be a worry for anyone - the problem is, it looks too good and therefore not what some people want for their films. We'll have to wait and see what we can do in post to get it to look like film, I guess.
  • 0

#20 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 September 2006 - 12:50 PM

I think Richard's "how will it look in a 35mm film out ?" is a legit question...

Trouble is there are too many variables between now and then to say it'll look like A or B or C.

Premature the question is think I.

-Sam I am
  • 0


Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

CineTape

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Opal

Willys Widgets

Technodolly