Jump to content


Photo

RED frame grabs...


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 September 2006 - 10:36 AM

There are a few frame grabs from the footage shown at IBC on the RED website. Shot 24 fps at 1/48th sec and around f4.

Jim
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 22 September 2006 - 12:03 PM

There are a few frame grabs from the footage shown at IBC on the RED website. Shot 24 fps at 1/48th sec and around f4.

Jim


Jim,

I think the cigar shot is fantastic!

Stephen
  • 0

#3 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 22 September 2006 - 01:08 PM

But what kind of stogie is it?

That's a 2k blonde in the porsche shot isn't it? What other lights were used in the setup? It is very impressive how both the black flag and the light itself hold detail.

Amazing photos indeed. I wish I could see it in motion. Next you'll have to take meter readings, I'm dying for that information!
  • 0

#4 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 22 September 2006 - 01:25 PM

Very nice women . a bit tacky . John Holland ,London
  • 0

#5 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 22 September 2006 - 01:37 PM

But what kind of stogie is it?

That's a 2k blonde in the porsche shot isn't it? What other lights were used in the setup? It is very impressive how both the black flag and the light itself hold detail.

Amazing photos indeed. I wish I could see it in motion. Next you'll have to take meter readings, I'm dying for that information!

What is the blonde lighting ? the shot as in most studio car shots are top soft lit . John Holland ,London.
  • 0

#6 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 September 2006 - 02:59 PM

I dont mean to be rude, but a shot of two page 3 girls smoking a cigar and a flash sports car (filmed with a camera that looks like a gun)... its all a little bit eighties isn't it?

keith
  • 0

#7 jan von krogh

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

Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:19 PM

I dont mean to be rude, but a shot of two page 3 girls smoking a cigar and a flash sports car (filmed with a camera that looks like a gun)... its all a little bit eighties isn't it?

keith

I dont mean to be rude, but i enjoyed girls, smoking a cigar, and a flash sports car not only in the eighties.

camera, concept, imagequality (saw them on 4K projection at IBC06) and businessmodel are rather 2010, imho.
  • 0

#8 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:24 PM

well jim, with that shot of the ladies, you at least proved it isnt CGI footage. CGI doesnt make ladies that look that good. Looks great Jim, just need to make sure us poor folks can afford it.
  • 0

#9 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:59 PM

I always thought digital photography has emulated film very well, so as a still image it looks great. But like David, I really want to see how it handles motion before I give it a thumbs up or down.

best

Tim
  • 0

#10 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:31 PM

Hi,
These shots look good but I for one would like to see examples with more contrasty lighting, maybe a face sidelit by a window, which is also in frame. This may be more useful in showing the kind of scenarios we will face on day-to day shoots.
Cheers.
  • 0

#11 Josh Bass

Josh Bass
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:43 PM

I find the comment about the images being "out of the eighties" very offensive.



























Those girls are clearly from a phone sex commercial circa 1991
  • 0

#12 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:48 PM

Superb !
  • 0

#13 spieden

spieden
  • Guests

Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:55 PM

oops...

Edited by spieden, 22 September 2006 - 11:56 PM.

  • 0

#14 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:58 PM

We are a garage operation and had three days to shoot something to get ready for IBC. We can handle the 1980's comments. We are building a camera, not trying to raise funds for a movie. We have just posted the 1st 2k image. It is interesting because it captures that "instant". Please note the noise levels (or lack thereof). And the "hand" that certainly does NOT smack of video. A 4k version (8-bit jpeg) will be posted tomorrow.

http://red.com/gallery-still.htm

Jim
  • 0

#15 Tim Terner

Tim Terner
  • Sustaining Members
  • 340 posts
  • Producer
  • Prague, CZ

Posted 23 September 2006 - 12:12 AM

Captures look great. I don't think getting contrasty shots will be a problem judging by these images.

What lens were you using Jim ?
  • 0

#16 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 September 2006 - 12:14 AM

This was shot with a Cooke 65mm S4. We really like the Cooke primes.

Jim
  • 0

#17 Deanan DaSilva

Deanan DaSilva
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 23 September 2006 - 01:39 AM

A 4k version (8-bit jpeg) will be posted tomorrow.


Hi Jim,

A 10 or 12 bit or tiff dpx would be more appropriate, no?

Just wondering, if you're rating your camera at 100 or 160 asa, wouldn't you expect a noise free image from any decent sensor? I would guess that 160asa is a fairly conservative rating in favor of shadow detail and less noise. It would be intresting to know what your range you think the sensor would be useful for (ie. how far can you push it before the noise becomes too apparent and starts popping the patterns). You can sort of guess by gaining up the jpeg but it would be a very crude guess. (and obviously it's too early to be meaningful because alot of things will be different once it's actually a shipping product).

BTW, have you shot with the MasterPrimes yet? They lean more towards the Cooke's warmth than the UltraPrimes and they hold sharpness really well out to the edges. I'm a bit suprised with the falloff at T1.3 though (although, I have to say as a personal preference I really like the falloff at F1 on the Noctilux).


Cheers,

Deanan
  • 0

#18 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 September 2006 - 02:15 AM

Deanan... we haven't shot the Ultra Primes yet. Got a set you want to lend us?

We'll post 12-bit tiffs pretty soon. Remember, we are still a few months out from shipping. ISO is a very tricky subject. We are playing it on the conservative side until we do more testing. Our sensor turned on for the 1st time about 4 weeks ago. And we spent a lot of time getting ready for, and attending, IBC. We are now back on the development track. By showing "work in progress" it is easy to assume we are done. We are not. The images we have posted don't even have dead pixel correction. We'd like to get a few more things done before we post full 4k images that will be under a microscope.

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard, 23 September 2006 - 02:16 AM.

  • 0

#19 Deanan DaSilva

Deanan DaSilva
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 23 September 2006 - 11:33 AM

Deanan... we haven't shot the Ultra Primes yet. Got a set you want to lend us?

We'll post 12-bit tiffs pretty soon. Remember, we are still a few months out from shipping. ISO is a very tricky subject. We are playing it on the conservative side until we do more testing. Our sensor turned on for the 1st time about 4 weeks ago. And we spent a lot of time getting ready for, and attending, IBC. We are now back on the development track. By showing "work in progress" it is easy to assume we are done. We are not. The images we have posted don't even have dead pixel correction. We'd like to get a few more things done before we post full 4k images that will be under a microscope.

Jim



I think people are already putting you under the microscope and while jpegs may say don't put
me under a microscope, people are already putting the jpegs through torture and making assumptions
based on an 8 bit image.

Cheers,

Deanan
  • 0

#20 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 September 2006 - 07:53 PM

Holy smokes those look like video! Not even remotely close to the look of 35mm. I mean they look "good" as in the same as what you'd expect from a digital stills camera, but nothing like a "feature film."

Question: on the Red home page there appears to be smoke coming out of the Red camera. Is this what one can expect when they start using it, spontaneous camera combustion?

R,
  • 0


Glidecam

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio