Jump to content


Photo

New RED ONE frame capture


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
40 replies to this topic

#1 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:45 PM

Cooke 65mm lens:
Posted Image

RED 300mm lens:
Posted Image
  • 0

#2 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:57 PM

It's already open another thread on the news (I'm sorry Jan -- I hadn't seen that) -- anyway, here is the prior one:

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=18308

...besides this one with such pics.
  • 0

#3 Chad Stockfleth

Chad Stockfleth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 622 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Louisville, KY

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:58 PM

Is the second shot color-corrected? It looks a bit to me, but I could be wrong.

I'm definitely a fan of that highlight on her tongue!
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:12 PM

Emanuel,

I know the Cooke 65mm well. I have a feeling the Cooke SF65 (soft focus attachment) is fitted to the lens, could be wrong, just curious.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:20 PM

Emanuel,

I know the Cooke 65mm well. I have a feeling the Cooke SF65 (soft focus attachment) is fitted to the lens, could be wrong, just curious.

Stephen

Stephen, I can't answer on that and unfortunately we don't have Jim anymore to help on our curiosity.

It's already open another thread on the news (I'm sorry Jan -- I hadn't seen that) -- anyway, here is the prior one:

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=18308

...besides this one with such pics.

Fortunately, there are other cinematography.com members interested in these recent news.

Here is another open thread:

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=18277

I'm sorry Gavin but I hadn't seen this either. You're that one guy... :)

Edited by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes, 01 November 2006 - 03:25 PM.

  • 0

#6 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:22 PM

I looked at the frame and went "It looks funny". My wife, who is not in the business, saw it and went "It doesn't look real, it looks flatm, like a painting. I don't like it."
  • 0

#7 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:27 PM

I looked at the frame and went "It looks funny". My wife, who is not in the business, saw it and went "It doesn't look real, it looks flatm, like a painting. I don't like it."

Well, if your wife doesn't like, she has a good alternative: a true SD interlaced video camera. There are a lot of options out there.
  • 0

#8 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:43 PM

Definitely some sort of color correction on the second image (assuming that the first was shot 'straight'), unless the RED 300mm is a very warm lens....

Nice images, though. Shame it wasn't a sunny day - I'd like to see how it handles high contrast.
  • 0

#9 Tim Terner

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:48 PM

I looked at the frame and went "It looks funny". My wife, who is not in the business, saw it and went "It doesn't look real, it looks flatm, like a painting. I don't like it."


Well how would your wife make it look any different in the available lighting Nate ?
  • 0

#10 Eirik Tyrihjel

Eirik Tyrihjel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 01 November 2006 - 03:50 PM

Definitely some sort of color correction on the second image (assuming that the first was shot 'straight'), unless the RED 300mm is a very warm lens....

Nice images, though. Shame it wasn't a sunny day - I'd like to see how it handles high contrast.


The later image is supposedly shot using the Red codec at a very heavy compression (100:1 was mentioned somewhere), to test how well it holds, I guess that could impact the colors as well.
  • 0

#11 Tomas Koolhaas

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:04 PM

Well how would your wife make it look any different in the available lighting Nate ?


He said his wife is not in the business so of course she wouldnt make it look any different, he was just giving a reference of how someone who is not a DP looks at these images, which in the end most people who will view tham are. Why would you get so defensive that you would attack someone's wife who isnt even a DP???
Calm down mate.
  • 0

#12 jan von krogh

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:09 PM

my cat looked at it and purred.
  • 0

#13 Tim Terner

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:11 PM

He said his wife is not in the business so of course she wouldnt make it look any different, he was just giving a reference of how someone who is not a DP looks at these images, which in the end most people who will view tham are. Why would you get so defensive that you would attack someone's wife who isnt even a DP???
Calm down mate.


To be honest, judging by Nates comment of ' It looks funny' whether he also is in the business
  • 0

#14 jan von krogh

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:14 PM

The later image is supposedly shot using the Red codec at a very heavy compression (100:1 was mentioned somewhere), to test how well it holds, I guess that could impact the colors as well.


the redcode of the second image is 540kilobyte for the orignal 4k image. impressive. final data rate will be at least the double. encoding was done on softwarebasis, will be burnt into silicon for production.




To be honest, judging by Nates comment of ' It looks funny' whether he also is in the business


my cat for sure isn´t, even if she has the hobby to operate motorized faders on the NLEs mixer....
  • 0

#15 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:20 PM

the redcode of the second image is 540kilobyte for the orignal 4k image. impressive. final data rate will be at least the double. encoding was done on softwarebasis, will be burnt into silicon for production.
my cat for sure isn´t, even if she has the hobby to operate motorized faders on the NLEs mixer....


Erm 540k from a 4k image is not impressive my mum can turn a 4k image into 540k, infact she's so good at it she can even email them up for our relatives to view. this just shows how dumb this is, people are talking about compression as if it is a sign of cinematic quality and quoting whatever they read on the internet as fact.
  • 0

#16 Emanuel A Guedes

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:22 PM

He said his wife is not in the business so of course she wouldnt make it look any different, he was just giving a reference of how someone who is not a DP looks at these images, which in the end most people who will view tham are. Why would you get so defensive that you would attack someone's wife who isnt even a DP???
Calm down mate.

You're wrong! I'm not the typical poster who attacks without knowing what he or she is talking about. Do a round-up. Any clever reader could understand what I wished to say. First time I advice you to think better before posting what you think what the others are thinking.
  • 0

#17 Tim Terner

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:25 PM

You're wrong! I'm not the typical poster who attacks without knowing what he or she is talking about. Do a round-up. Any clever reader could understand what I wished to say. First time I advice you to think better before posting what you think what the others are thinking.


Now I'm staying out of this one
  • 0

#18 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:27 PM

You're wrong! I'm not the typical poster who attacks without knowing what he or she is talking about. Do a round-up. Any clever reader could understand what I wished to say. First time I advice you to think better before posting what you think what the others are thinking.


Sorry Emanuel most of the time I have no idea what your saying, indeed apart from the fact that you're irritated none of the above passage makes any sense. Though to be honest i'm not sure i need to understand what you "wished to say"...
  • 0

#19 jan von krogh

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

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:31 PM

Erm 540k from a 4k image is not impressive my mum can turn a 4k image into 540k, infact she's so good at it she can even email them up for our relatives to view.

i suppose she is using jpeg for this, which would a bad quality. there has been evolution in datareduction, and the redcoded images offer a somewhat higher quality than your mums email-jpegs. if she would like to get even better quality to your family, she should go jpeg2000 instead or even better, use one of the up-to-date state-of-the-art waveletcodecs. redcode is exactly this. the trick is just how much info you squeeze in the target. reducing the image is easy, making it fast and in good quality requires some engineering.

this just shows how dumb this is, people are talking about compression as if it is a sign of cinematic quality and quoting whatever they read on the internet as fact.

you should inform the DCI about your findings, they happen to have defined the digital cinematic standard as datareduced.

joking aside, i didn´t see the redcode in the internet the first time, i saw it at IBC. red had 4k projection there. and we for sure plan to use datareduction whenever it makes sense as we and the whole industry is doing it since years.
  • 0

#20 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:33 PM

I looked at the frame and went "It looks funny". My wife, who is not in the business, saw it and went "It doesn't look real, it looks flatm, like a painting. I don't like it."

Without wanting to turn this into another useless film vs video thread, your wife has rightly spotted that electronically captured images look flatter than film images of the same scene. Film looks more sculptural, more three dimenssional. That is something which struck me when I first saw images shot on the Genesis, backgrounds looked like painted backdrops, there was no depth to the images. Unfortunately that is the nature of electronic images and it cannot be changed.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

CineLab

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineTape

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets