Jump to content


Photo

Full Length Music Video Shot Using Red


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2007 - 04:26 PM

Here is a link to a music video that was shot on the Red camera:

http://www.hd4.tv/red/Sep1_8K_1k.html (this was initially posted on Reduser.net)

First off, well done and congrats to the production team for getting 'er done.

I must admit though that I'm not thrilled with the footage. Here the Red stuff feels very video, we suffer from some undexposure meant to indicate the sexiness of a dimly lit club, and for many of the shots it seems like everything is in focus from 2 inches in front of the lens to the wall 30 feet away... :(

Just wanted to throw the vid up here so people who hadn't seen lots of Red stuff (and especially Red stuff put towards creative use, as opposed to test use).

Evan W.
  • 0

#2 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 29 September 2007 - 06:55 PM

"I must admit though that I'm not thrilled with the footage. Here the Red stuff feels very video"

Not only that but the Red camera totally messed up the dialogue. I couldn't understand a word of it, sounds like the worst English ever.

R,
  • 0

#3 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2007 - 12:00 AM

Hey Richard,

Sarcasm? As in, Red does acquire digitally so to suggest that the resulting footage looks video'ish is akin to being surprised that people speaking another language don't sound like they are speaking English. Is that the idea? If yes then... lol.

Now that I've lol'ed, allow me to clarify - some of the footage looks like low quality video on the level of adequately shot mini-dv or HDV as opposed to what one would expect from a camera with Red-like specs. Some of the stuff also looks pretty nice though and I've definitely seen some Red footage (from other projects) that has impressed me.

Evan W.

Edited by Evan Winter, 30 September 2007 - 12:01 AM.

  • 0

#4 John Mastrogiacomo

John Mastrogiacomo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Las Vegas, NV

Posted 30 September 2007 - 12:43 AM

The music video really has a video feel to it.

I'm sure we are going to see video from total garbage to extraordinary with the Red just as we see with any other camera.

Sooner or later, more and more people will realize it is not the camera, it's the people shooting with the camera that makes the difference. ;)
  • 0

#5 Michael Campanella

Michael Campanella
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Electrician
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 30 September 2007 - 06:58 AM

I've seen quite a bit of Red footage that I like, however this was the first stuff I saw that was really a disappointment.
  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 01 October 2007 - 07:51 AM

I have to agree that I wasn't overly impressed. I did like one shot, though; where they're up against the bright white light-wall and the almost silhouetted. The light just has a nice wrap 'round their faces, I feel.
  • 0

#7 Benjamin Smith

Benjamin Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Director
  • Austin, TX

Posted 01 October 2007 - 10:58 AM

I'm sure we are going to see video from total garbage to extraordinary with the Red just as we see with any other camera.


I agree we can speculate all we want about the video but with out knowing exactly what they used we just can't say why it was good or bad. I think (from looking at footage on reduser) that this is not an "on the fly" camera. you have to set it up and take the time to light it well to get good quality. This video had a mix of both. and it also suffered from the restraints of digital video that is going to happen. After all it is a digital camera. Which is what red promised, a super amazing digital cinema quality camera it will never mount up to the romantic look of 35mm film.

I think it all has to do with who is behind the camera.
  • 0

#8 Toby L Edwards

Toby L Edwards
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 01 October 2007 - 11:23 AM

I think this actually look pretty good compared to the footage I've seen on Reduser. Most of the other footage looks very CG and very fake. Like the Airplane flying at the camera. It looks like a very bad CG shot. So again this looks pretty good for Video. So if this replaces 16mm I will be shocked! To even compare it to 35mm Film seems kinda funny to me.
Just my opinion.
Toby
  • 0

#9 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 01 October 2007 - 10:57 PM

I liked the low-light performance.

One cautionary result of this video: Don't get in too close to someone with bad skin/no makeup at 4K! "I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille."
  • 0

#10 Hans Engstrom

Hans Engstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Sweden

Posted 03 October 2007 - 08:05 AM

I liked the low-light performance.

One cautionary result of this video: Don't get in too close to someone with bad skin/no makeup at 4K! "I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille."


Did you work on this shoot? If so what lenses did you use?
  • 0

#11 Lance Flores

Lance Flores
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Producer
  • San Antonio/Dallas/Detroit

Posted 03 October 2007 - 10:34 AM

I agree we can speculate all we want about the video but with out knowing exactly what they used we just can't say why it was good or bad. I think (from looking at footage on reduser) that this is not an "on the fly" camera. you have to set it up and take the time to light it well to get good quality. This video had a mix of both. and it also suffered from the restraints of digital video that is going to happen. After all it is a digital camera. Which is what red promised, a super amazing digital cinema quality camera it will never mount up to the romantic look of 35mm film.

I think it all has to do with who is behind the camera.


It's not a matter of "restraints of digital video" like video/TV camera deficiencies restrained by 5stop limitation, limited color depth, etc., but the characteristics (and parametric) of the acquisition medium. Film has its own image capture deficiencies, however, talented and ingenious chemists, film processors, cinematographers, directors, editors, and others over the decades have either evolved the technologies or created art inspired uses for those attributes of film; and we have learned to love them. They are illusions. That's one of the reasons why we go to movies.

The video suffers from inappropriate lighting, inter alia. This is going to be the case for a while, as the learning curve matures and knowledge is disseminated throughout the industry. Like others, I noticed that the linear characteristics of the acquisition is the most telling attribute. I have experimented with algorithms to modify the bottom of the curve to resemble the toe of the , the spectral response curve. As a result there is a quite indescribable feel of film, or more precisely, something not video.

The other attribute is the organized nature of the cell layout of electronic sensors vs. the naturally occurring integration of image resolution and color information from the randomness of grain size and orientation, which are used to stylize the motion capture on film. And like 24FPS we have become accustomed to those attributes as we have the aspect ratios of the presentation format. All this is a function of physics, mathematics, and "better living through chemistry." To this point video, or rather, electronic image acquisition has had neither the latitude, gamut, and resolution, to be able to manipulate the image information as has been available though film acquisition; and herein lies the issue to be overcome with 4K high dynamic range digital acquisition. The image information need to manipulated as is that in film that occurs as a function of film's physical/chemical nature or the extraordinary innovations by filmmakers over the years by lighting techniques, filters, gels, processing, etc.

The challenge for digital cinema production is to apply the mathematical manipulation of the data acquired as has been done in film acquisition, in order to create an illusion of moving images as imaginative as has been done in the past.

I think the foolish bickering about the process of image capture I see here, is mostly driven by irrational and overemotional chauvinism of close minded irrational thought. I am so pleased that over they years such people didn't work for Eastman Kodak, I really like color film as well as B&W.

Same for the guy who invented the indoor electric coffee pot. I hate boiling coffee in a cast iron pot over an open fire in the rain. Even if it does seem more organic.
  • 0

#12 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 October 2007 - 10:58 AM

lets be honest even if this was shot on a 10K camera or 70mm it would still be a load of cheasy poop. good story, good lighting, good direction then we' be in a better position to discuss. but this is horse dung with flies on top...
  • 0

#13 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 October 2007 - 02:51 PM

Hi Lance,

With regards to your analogy,

"Same for the guy who invented the indoor electric coffee pot. I hate boiling coffee in a cast iron pot over an open fire in the rain. Even if it does seem more organic,"

I'd imagine that the main reason indoor electric coffee pots were invented (like most inventions) was for convenience's sake. But what if iron pot boiled coffee really does have a better taste? For the average person, the end result of slightly better taste still wouldn't be enough of a reason to deal with the antiquated methodology.

But for an artist the end result is everything. It should not and would not matter to a true artist if the methodology was antiquated or less convenient as long as the result is better art that more accurately expresses the artist's intent (or at the very least the other options, if chosen, should not damage that intent).

This is why the film vs. video debate is so heated, so interesting, and so difficult to decide; it's because we're talking about artists, their art, and their methods of creating that art. Indeed, if anyone is guilty of "close minded irrational thought" it is the man who is perturbed by debate and discussion and not those who attempt, through such discussion, to arrive at some greater conclusion.

Evan W.
  • 0

#14 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 09 October 2007 - 06:56 PM

lets be honest even if this was shot on a 10K camera or 70mm it would still be a load of cheasy poop. good story, good lighting, good direction then we' be in a better position to discuss. but this is horse dung with flies on top...


Tell us how you really feel. :lol:
  • 0

#15 Lars Zemskih

Lars Zemskih
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 October 2007 - 07:46 PM

I think the video is bad that it makes the footage look bad as well.

Edited by Emile Rafael, 09 October 2007 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#16 John Hall

John Hall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Best Boy
  • Toronto, Canada

Posted 13 October 2007 - 02:12 PM

"Same for the guy who invented the indoor electric coffee pot. I hate boiling coffee in a cast iron pot over an open fire in the rain. Even if it does seem more organic,"

I'd imagine that the main reason indoor electric coffee pots were invented (like most inventions) was for convenience's sake. But what if iron pot boiled coffee really does have a better taste? For the average person, the end result of slightly better taste still wouldn't be enough of a reason to deal with the antiquated methodology.


Now you're discussing consumers and thats a whole different kettle of fish (*groan*).

An electric kettle saves the average person plenty of time and, perhaps, money.
It is the afficianados that debate about the true merits of a system based on it's end result. Average people want convenience.

If the film vs video question were posed to a consumer, he or she would probably ask "Will shooting movies on video make it cheaper for me to see them?" (fat chance, I know...)

I, myself, prefer espresso from the cafe by my house, and I pay a premium for this.
  • 0

#17 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 October 2007 - 02:52 PM

I'm sure we are going to see video from total garbage to extraordinary with the Red just as we see with any other camera.

Sooner or later, more and more people will realize it is not the camera, it's the people shooting with the camera that makes the difference. ;)
[/quote]


Words to live by, man. I am constantly mystified when I hear all these people talk like getting the highest definition camera is going to suddenly turn them (and their projects) into cinematography award winners. That's the truth about the leveling of the playing field: While most cameras are still out of most of us's price range, some, like the HVX200, give most people the opportunity to get their feet wet with moviemaking. At the end of the day, though, the ones with experience, skill and talent will outshine the rest of them no matter what the format chosen to film on is . . .
  • 0

#18 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 October 2007 - 06:24 PM

"I must admit though that I'm not thrilled with the footage. Here the Red stuff feels very video, we suffer from some undexposure meant to indicate the sexiness of a dimly lit club, and for many of the shots it seems like everything is in focus from 2 inches in front of the lens to the wall 30 feet away... :("



Well, IT IS video. And not very well lit and shot. Personaly, the only times I have been fooled by video as film is when it is properly shot and colored, then goes to film out and it is projected using a film projector. And then, maybe, it can look like film originated.

Perhaps someone should finally set out to define the HD aesthetic in its own right once and for all, as opposed to always trying to make it look like film . . . And being bummed out when it doesn't. I am thinking Julien Donkey Boy, which is one of the best (and most beautiful) examples of Lo-Fi video in its own right one can ever see. And even that one was printed on film, and then, from that print, to video distribution. But then again, one's got to see the film print version though, otherwise it looses a lot of it charm.

Ultimately, I guess the jury is still out on ithe film vs video issue. Perhaps just using the best of each format as dictated by the script or thematic content of the film, as oppossed to simple economics of not being able to afford shooting on film. Not very realistic in the day to day, I know . . .

Still I think a lot of cash-challenged filmmakers could make the best of the video format -embracing it for what it is, warts and all- instead of always pursuing the ever-elusive, never yet fully attained, "film look" on low budget video.
  • 0

#19 Kevin Magee

Kevin Magee

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • London, UK

Posted 18 October 2007 - 02:56 PM

Hi

This is just badly lit, poor quality pop video mash.

To me it looks like it has suffered from the " we're shooting on video so we don't need to light it like we are using film" syndrome. To me the opening sequence looked far better than the rest, but perhaps it was the subject matter that helped them up thier game.

Until we see something that has been lit and graded wtht the same amount of time and money as 35mm neg iet will always be apples and oranges. At least then it might be oranges and lemons.


Kevin
  • 0

#20 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 October 2007 - 03:17 PM

Until we see something that has been lit and graded wtht the same amount of time and money as 35mm neg iet will always be apples and oranges.

What we need is a side by side test shoot.



-- J.S.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc