Bad RED footage...

[Jannard]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

1. Miss exposure.
2. Miss focus (very easy to do)
3. Shoot in bad light
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
5. Screw up in post.
6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22
7. Pan too fast
8... help me out here. Can you add any?

Jim

[Kjetil Haugen]

Forget to push record....

[Jarred Land]

Forget to push record....

heh heh heh.. now now come on... nobody has EVER done that !!... well ; maybe more than once.. or twice.. errr.... :)

ha ha hah.

[Brook Willard]

8. Miss proper/desired framing

[Nikolai Vavilov]

set wrong shutter angle/speed

[underachiever]

Thinking that the peaks in the bottom of the evf are audiolevels?

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

1. Miss exposure.
2. Miss focus (very easy to do)
3. Shoot in bad light
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
5. Screw up in post.
6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22
7. Pan too fast
8... help me out here. Can you add any?

Jim
Zoom in and out
move the camera before moving of person starts
shoulder camera when there is a need for tripod
tripod when there is an need for shoulder
wide angle when you wanna seperate things from the background

[Nikolai Vavilov]

heh heh heh.. now now come on... nobody has EVER done that !!... well ; maybe more than once.. or twice.. errr.... :)

ha ha hah.

hmmm... Think I did it once :weight_lift:

[Craig Ryan]

Remember to take that damn lens cap off!

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Forgott degraded ND filters for the sky and to say, RED has not enough range

[John Allardice]

.....be shooting a Joe Eszterhas script?

[Greg M]

footage is not steady...as you have the shakes because you are excited to be shooting with your new Red One

[Daniel Reichenbach]

In backlight situation of course ;-)

[lumiere]

Shoot good RED footage and compress it for youtube.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Man this is fast thread...

[shaftbond]

use bad actors

[Nikolai Vavilov]

Just to remind Jim... it is very easy to forget post GOOD RED footage here :)

There is lots of REDfellows all around the world waiting that shot as Christmas to come -)

[Craig Ryan]

using no makeup artist will easily yield bad RED footage...unless you're a dermatologist, you aren't going to enjoy all of the skin imperfections in glorious 4k.

[Kjetil Haugen]

AND..... drumroll.... hire Kevin Federline in a lead role...

[Jiri Bakala]

Wrong WB? Oh no, you can't really do that, the VF is in colour (boy, I can't wait to get away from B/W viefinders...).

[Peter McCully]

Remember that cinematography has been making and breaking it's own rules for a hundred ywers before there was Red. Let's keep that tradition going...

[Matthew Verkler]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

1. Miss exposure.
2. Miss focus (very easy to do)
3. Shoot in bad light
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
5. Screw up in post.
6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22
7. Pan too fast
8... help me out here. Can you add any?

Jim

5. Screw up in post. The others are understandable to an extent, but it's not a mistake in post until it goes out the door . . . . . No excuse for this one. Except for spelling mistakes - 20 people can check these and some still get through, once in a while.

I love post because I can fix any mistake I might make before it matters.

I love shooting cause I hate sitting in a dark room forever.

[Peter McCully]

whoops. Tired. That should have "red" YEARS

[Brian Kaz]

1. Use a different camera by accident

2. Let my mom shoot something

[Pol Turrents]

forgot tapes at home.... uh... I mean Red drives :p

[Matthew Verkler]

Remember that cinematography has been making and breaking it's own rules for a hundred ywers before there was Red. Let's keep that tradition going...

Yeah, a lot of our techniques started out as mistakes. But f22, well, I guess it IS a look of sorts . . . . and yes I have shot f22 when I forgot ND. Crap.

[Craig Ryan]

Agreed, we should definiely keep the expermiental spirit of cinema alive even with RED; but remember that there is a difference between BAD footage (unintentional) and simply breaking the rules (usually intentional on some level).

[Nikolai Vavilov]

Wrong WB? Oh no, you can't really do that, the VF is in colour (boy, I can't wait to get away from B/W viefinders...).

Wrong WB? It's RAW! Don't you ever shoot RAW on any modern SLR photocam?

[Paul Hazlett]

let your monkey butler shoot while you act.

not that I have ever done that....he is a better actor anyway.

[damonbots]

It's a trick question!!!

Everything that pumps out of the RED ONE is GLORIOUS!
The heavenly footage massages your optic nerves like a small fluffy kitten rubbing against your leg... like Tunga, the Tanzanian dwarf who rubbed the cramp out of my leg whilst climbing Kilimanjaro... like the time we got wasted in Vegas and we hired that call girl Buffy to... oh, I've gotten sidetracked.
Glorious... simply glorious!

[Ken Willinger]

Put everything in the truck...but forget the camera at home. I did that once!

[JD Holloway]

Here try this one,

Some pro cameras can get f'ed up when shooting very near a car (say in the door frame) as the ignition is turned. The frame jumps significantly for a couple of frames. The cameras need better EMF isolation as the car becomes a large antenna. Maybe RED should test this out?

J.

[Jannard]

It is a real question... great images are possible with RED, but so are bad ones. It is important to know why. I don't want a customer thinking that just because they bought our camera, great footage automatically falls out the back end.

Jim

[Greg M]

Its still a craft, the tools are only there to assist us.

[Shawn Nelson]

Bad footage will result whenever you use it in a way that does not go with the story. A well exposed, well focused, well panned wide angle of an emotionally intense scene will be lifeless.

[Bachman]

Use Media100 to edit

[Paul Hazlett]

Ok,

If you want to screw up footage real good just dont light it. or light it badly

I think this is the single biggest cuiprit to bad footage, many people have no idea about how to light a scene to create depth, add drama, set a mood etc,

[createra]

Just like digital cameras help individuals to become better photographers, a camera like RED will help individuals become better cinematographers. The possibility to test things and play around helps you develop your talents.

You could also draw a parallel to 3D. A few years ago, most things looked really bad, but now there are a lot of really great artist "popping" up.

Better and cheaper tools helps individuals to become better artist.

[Harmonica]

...underwater shooting without the housing.

[Nikolai Vavilov]

People made bad footage and people made good footage.
The question is as old as world, why ask it again?
You're guys made really great job. No. Insane job!

...Sometimes one very good russian plane constructor said simple thing: If the plane is'nt look beautiful, it cannot fly well. I think the same is with your's camera. It looks not only beautiful, it looks like you put your best dreams into it. Kudos, RED team... you are people who make world go round.

[Drew Mylrea]

Heavy heavy frontlighting.

[damonbots]

"6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22"

I used a pair of ski goggles in a pinch last year when I forgot to take ND's to Mammoth. No shit. I actually got several compliments on the shots. They were Smith's... ummmmm sorry. :whistling:

[Graeme Nattress]

Wrong WB? Never - because you shoot RAW!

Graeme

[wshultz]

Get bad audio--it always looks worse.

[Cory Schulthies]

Just like digital cameras help individuals to become better photographers, a camera like RED will help individuals become better cinematographers. The possibility to test things and play around helps you develop your talents.

You could also draw a parallel to 3D. A few years ago, most things looked really bad, but now there are a lot of really great artist "popping" up.

Better and cheaper tools helps individuals to become better artist.

One thing about digital cameras is people do "machine gun photography". not being selective on shots, not composing them well...ect. sometimes with a digital medium people aim shoot and pray they hit some thing. it will be easy to have bad RED footage, just as it is easy to have bad digital photos. But with the ability to shoot a lot, eventually people are going to get some ting that looks really good, even if they are a horrible cinematographer.

[Kjetil Haugen]

It is a real question... great images are possible with RED, but so are bad ones. It is important to know why. I don't want a customer thinking that just because they bought our camera, great footage automatically falls out the back end.

Jim

Most of us are experienced enough to know how true that is. But at least, with Red, we can only blame ourselves for bad footage, the camera has all the potential in the world!! But good point.

[Jannard]

I guess what I'm saying is that if bad RED footage is posted... it is not our fault... :-)

Jim

[M Olsen]

A good workman never blames his tools !!

[Greg Voevodsky]

Basic Instinct rocked... His others... I agree... not the best... Mars looked way too orange. :-)

[Evin Grant]

Use an Sony SRW1 HDCamSR deck to record. (Well your accountant will certainly think it looks bad):ohmy:

[Greg Voevodsky]

Having walked out of Miami Vice from its long lense blury grainy look, I'd say that that was not a tour de force for I think the Genesis or whatever camera. Superman - looked nice and clean like RED... except RED Im sure would look better. Thank God, Blair Witch was not shot with RED... we'd all be sick.

[Graeme Nattress]

With MV they did use a 360 shutter on night stuff, which would give a very blurry look. They traded some grain for blur, effectively.

Graeme

[Brook Willard]

They also used a 360 degree shutter on certain sequences in Apocalypto. There really needs to be a warning...

"Warning: you have selected a 360 degree shutter. Your footage will look bad by all common definitions of good."

I'd rather underexpose by a stop than deal with that look.

[Kjetil Haugen]

Having walked out of Miami Vice from its long lense blury grainy look, I'd say that that was not a tour de force for I think the Genesis or whatever camera. Superman - looked nice and clean like RED... except RED Im sure would look better. Thank God, Blair Witch was not shot with RED... we'd all be sick.

Viper actually... Michael Mann wanted that look for MV so you can't really blame the camera. But still, point taken. Red rules!

[Graeme Nattress]

That's right - if it's the director's decision, all you can say is that you don't personally like the look. But it's always good to have those tools handy if you need them.

Graeme

[Ace]

Jim makes a very important point..

I think everyone should know that RED probably wont, will not turn anyone into an artist. It will definately be the key enabler in removing limitation, and allowing experimentation (profoundly important factors in creating art), but other then the camera, all the good ole rules apply. There are plenty of crappy looking 35mm shot films out there.

Ive said it before, but there will be a few redusers who will switch on their camera, shoot a few a scenes and then be shocked to realise their imagery looks no better than it did on DV (other than the ridiculous detail, depth of field and chocolatey smooth dynamic range). Because along with this great tool, has to come great talent and artistry to live up to it. Halfhazardry in DV will not be acceptable in s35 (or DV for that matter), it will show.

I see too many independant filmmakers on DVXuser.com, obsessing over the technology of the HVX and discussing the ins and outs of certain settings, picture modes, post production techniques etc, and paying no attention to an actors hair or lighting up skin properly, and consequently, (sorry) crap is produced. This doesnt just apply to scripted style filmmaking either. This paradigm will no doubt exist with every artistic tool that is released, RED no exception.

For those just starting out in the filmmaking field, REDs are big shoes. Aspire accordingly.

[David Mullen ASC]

In defense of Michael Mann and "Miami Vice", it's clear when comparing that movie to something like "Zodiak" (also shot on the Viper, though Mann also used other cameras like the F900 for some shots) that Michael Mann is not even attempting a classic film aesthetic.

He's attempting to discover a unique "digital aesthetic" in which the artifacts of the medium are enhanced and exaggerated, not hidden in an attempt at a film look. He doesn't even try to hide the increased depth of field of the 2/3" CCD camera. And instead of using the Viper in FilmStream Mode (RAW), he used it in HD-Stream Mode so that he could process the signal on-set, use gain, white-balance, etc. So I don't think it is fair to compare the movie to something like "Superman Returns" or "Flyboys", which clearly fall into a traditional film aesthetic.

It's sort of like using a synthesizer to create music and whether it is set-up to emulate traditional instruments or to create a uniquely electronic sound.

Also, it's the nature of some filmmakers to try and "break" their tools, push them to their failure point, either out of need or for artistic reasons.

---

In regards to technology, one of my professors in film school was director Alexander Mackendrick ("Sweet Smell of Success", "The Ladykillers", "The Man in the White Suit") - he once said: "Technology is inherently seductive... and often a director spends time dealing with technical problems as a way of avoiding dealing with human problems." (i.e. it's more fun to play with the camera than learn to talk to actors and get a performance out of them.)

Technology should be in the service of art, not the other way around. You can't start out with a tool and then decide how to use it -- you have to have a creative idea first and then find the right tool to implement it. Often I get this question from film students: "I have to light a night exterior - please tell me how I should light it" to which I usually reply "What do you want it to look like?" Technology is no substitute for having an imagination.

[fightordie]

Don't want to start a debate on the artistic decsions made but I loved Miami Vice and loved the grainy night look.Don't recall anything blurry. Its a look that for some works. Too clean an image can be just as distracting to me.

[Ace]

David, I agree. The grainy night scenes to me were most definately a deliberate Homage to Television reality drama.

[Matthew Verkler]

Jim, you know, I came away from NAB astounded at how well RED had thought everything out, from acquisition to post and even eventually display. Your question makes me realize the gaping hole in your master plan - the cinematographer. Or are you actually setting us up for introducing "The Missing Link" in the plan:

The RED Fully Integrated Field Upgradable Cinematographer Microchip Brain Implant, or RED FIFUCMBI!

Please, say it ain't so! We promise, we'll continue to hone our craft and never ever release footage from our REDs that isn't up to snuff! Promise! Don't make us go under the knife!

It's like having children; at some point they are released into the world and they're on their own. RED can make the best camera possible; the rest is up to us.

[Kjetil Haugen]

He doesn't even try to hide the increased depth of field of the 2/3" CCD camera.

That's right. He choose HD specifically because of the increased DOF. It's part of his "look at the city" thing. Backgrounds are important to him. I'm a big fan og Mann, but I remember watching MV at a time in my life when I really wanted HD to prove it could stand up to 35mm. I ended up drinking pretty heavily that night....

[Bachman]

David, I agree. The grainy night scenes to me were most definately a deliberate Homage to Television reality drama.

48 Hours After was a way better example of grainy film look than MV. And that was shot DV on XL1's

[Ace]

Jim, you know, I came away from NAB astounded at how well RED had thought everything out, from acquisition to post and even eventually display. Your question makes me realize the gaping hole in your master plan - the cinematographer. Or are you actually setting us up for introducing "The Missing Link" in the plan:

The RED Fully Integrated Field Upgradable Cinematographer Microchip Brain Implant, or RED FIFUCMBI!

Please, say it ain't so! We promise, we'll continue to hone our craft and never ever release footage from our REDs that isn't up to snuff! Promise! Don't make us go under the knife!

It's like having children; at some point they are released into the world and they're on their own. RED can make the best camera possible; the rest is up to us.

Actually, maybe hiring one of the best cinematographers to write a RED user guide might not be such a bad idea. But this will happen anyway as this RED online community matures.

Im not sure if the current Canons have this, but the first film SLR I ever got to play with (owned by my dad) was a canon T-90, (beautiful machine). Anyway, they came with like a 120 page booklet on how to take great shots, including lighting, framing, composing.. It was like a classroom in a book to accompany your newly bought camera. I remember learning quite a bit from it as a child. Do they still do this?

[Ace]

48 Hours After was a way better example of grainy film look than MV. And that was shot DV on XL1's

Thats the whole point, it wasnt meant to resemble "film look". It actually looked like part of an episode of "COPS", which served the feel and story of the movie quite well. A very intellegent semiotic reference.

[Tony Lorentzen]

I guess what I'm saying is that if bad RED footage is posted... it is not our fault... :-)

Jim

I was under the impression that the RED would make me a better DP! JIM... You promised!!!! :sarcasm:

[Matthew Verkler]

On a serious note, what we do is completely subjective. Who knows what people will shoot with RED, but I am sure that enough high profile stuff will be properly shot that nobody will blame RED for the questionable stuff. I knew a DP that made 35 look like really bad 16, but nobody blamed that on the film or the camera.

And artistic choices and compromises will be made. I suppose someone could look at Barry Lyndon and say that it was poorly lit and that it was grainy. That would be a narrow view and would be completely missing the point. Or someone could say that Southern Comfort looked dirty and wasn't "beautiful". As long as the choices we make support the story, everything is on the table as far as I'm concerned.

Don't worry so much - the camera and workflow will prove themselves. Yes, we need to do our part. Yes that is a concern for you because you want your babies to do well in the world. Unlike Oakley, where you can control every aspect of the product with your incredible attention to detail, making a camera for sale means you have to let go. Frustrating, isn't it? Knowing your product is out in the world on its own. After sale, all you can do is have faith in the RED users. And do your best to support our activities and art with continuing education and advise from RED. The rest is up to us.

I say this with the utmost respect for you, Jim, and what you've accomplished, as well as the RED team.

[feb31films]

In defense of Michael Mann and "Miami Vice", it's clear when comparing that movie to something like "Zodiac" ... that Michael Mann is not even attempting a classic film aesthetic.
He's attempting to discover a unique "digital aesthetic" in which the artifacts of the medium are enhanced and exaggerated, not hidden in an attempt at a film look.

Great point, David. Sometimes Directors and DP's actually do things on purpose!:wink:

I think one of the real tragedies of the advent of Digital Cinema is that so many people have tried to bend the digital tools to "copy" a film look. I applaud Michael Mann for doing what he did in trying to discover the new aesthetic. Whether or not he succeeded is up to the individual viewer, but the fact that he made the effort is worthy of note. The tools are evolving so rapidly now with new exciting options, yet it seems most people are just trying to do exactly what they have been for years, only cheaper. I remember back in film school watching cinema from the late 60s and early 70s. SO MANY people were experimenting, pioneering new techniques and discovering new aesthetics. Digital cinema (and distribution) is affording us a new opportunity to experiment and create and push the boundaries. I truly hope more of us take advantage of that.

[peter roehsler]

8. bad framing?

The english word for the device at least is finder, while the german word for finder is `seeker´ (sucher) - some shooters take this verbally, with their cams running.

[dalen johnson]

I guess what I'm saying is that if bad RED footage is posted... it is not our fault... :-)

Jim

- mini collection of a red video gallery can offset any claim like that...which has already been started

- as silly as it may sound to some of the 'pros', seeing that red is going to enter a new market - it would be great to see something like what Lynda.com does...video tutorials on using the red and 'videography'/cinematography in general. Again, this might seem like an odd concept to some, but its not far fetched at all. - :)

Peace

dalen

[Gunleik Groven]

I guess what I'm saying is that if bad RED footage is posted... it is not our fault... :-)

Jim

Yes. Ultimately you are. Of course! -;)

Hey, you lured and tricked us all to believe that the camera is actually a real thing - with your beautifull images, so you, Sir - must take personal credit and resposibility for every frame shot with a Red -;)

Gunleik

[Stephen Gentle]

Wrong WB? Oh no, you can't really do that, the VF is in colour (boy, I can't wait to get away from B/W viefinders...).

Or not shoot RAW so you can set the white balance in post

EDIT - whoops, Graeme said that a few pages back... I should probably read the whole thread before I post!

[Scot Olson]

Jim, I am sure you are genuinely concerned about the Red One footage that is about to be released for the world to see. This footage will be from customer cameras, it will be footage that you were not be able to supervise, footage you did not approve before our viewing (as you have nearly every mysterium frame that we have seen so far).

But here is the good news. You are unleashing a fantastic new tool into the creative world. By next year you will be able to assemble the "NAB 2008 Red Show Reel" full of the almost unbelievable fruits of your hard labor. The pieces on that reel will have been shot all over the world, in all types of genres. There will parts from academy award winning DPs and by first time indi filmmakers, all getting the chance to shoot with a camera that leaves no excuses but ones own creativity and determination. The common denominator of every piece on that reel... it will look AMAZING.

Watching that real of customer work will be like watching your child as he steps out on his own and achieves something great. I can imagine it will be one of your proudest moments yet.

[Mike]

When I first bought the XL1s camcorder many years ago, I was excited to test out the camera as I was only using a cheap sony 1 ccd camera prior to that.

I was shocked to discover the footage looked not much difference from the consumer 1 ccd camera footage and I thought something was wrong with my XL1s and almost wanted to exchange it.

The person operating the camera definitely makes all the difference, and perhaps there may be people who may go through what I did when I first started with the Red Camera.

Lighting, production design, composing makes all the difference.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

1. Miss exposure.
2. Miss focus (very easy to do)
3. Shoot in bad light
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
5. Screw up in post.
6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22
7. Pan too fast
8... help me out here. Can you add any?

Jim


Look at your new camera instead of the subject you are shooting.

[vidalsosa]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

1. Miss exposure.
2. Miss focus (very easy to do)
3. Shoot in bad light
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
5. Screw up in post.
6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22
7. Pan too fast
8... help me out here. Can you add any?

Jim

8. Leave the set to pick up a fight with a Red-basher :gun:

[P Andersson]

Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: 1bad
: failing to reach an acceptable standard

Main Entry: 1stan·dard
: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example

If fear of bad footage leads to "Good Footage" that always conforms to the established authority, it would be kind of like trying to hold on to film origin

I'd rather go for Badass footage myself

[laguun]

F1 - have the AC store the filmroll in the car at 65 degree celsius while lunch
F2 - have the producer buy "cheap" filmstock of unknown age
F3 - have the lab screw the onelight
F4 - have a young enthousiastic production assistant run in the thent while changing/loading rolls
F5 - use >500 ASA as experiment
F6 - mix stocks w/o knowing as rolls have been loaded false
F7 - use rental 35mm cam with mechanical problem
F8 - don´t be to precise with gate/hair check
F9 - always use labs withou testing the workflow before
F10 - get a newbie/cheap runner for the rushes
F11 - F20 business secrets

-disclaimer-
all these methods have been fieldtested

-warning-
most tricks of this list will fail when attempting to shoot bad images with a red.

[Petr Dvorak]

8. Just forgot to check if all batteries are charged ;)

To see bad footage (mine or from others) is very important, it always help me to learn what to improve next time or how dont shoot it. If you know how.

[Sean]

Just to remind everyone... it is very easy to shoot BAD RED footage. All you have to do is:

...
4. Shoot something that is not very interesting.
...

Jim

I tried to think of one to add, but #4 sort of sums up every other possible mistake I can think of. I'd like to add "bad production design," but I still think that falls in category #4. I mean, you see a bunch of "un-cinematic" crap in a shot and the shot is spoiled. Watched a low-budget horror last night, and the female lead steps into a shower (no surprise) and they pan up to the shower head...and it's a white plastic shower head. It just stood out so badly. Ruined the shot. So un-cinematic. Better production design (i.e., an interesting chrome-finish shower head or something) would have saved it.

Certainly true that there will be a lot of bad stuff shot with any camera, film or digital, when any of the things on Jim's list are contravened.

[Paul Lee]

Great thread! I judged student films for a few years and as a result of this 'research,' generated the Student Film Drinking Game in the same spirit. Enjoy and let me know if you have more!

http://web.mac.com/paulee303/iWeb/student_film

[laguun]

Enjoy and let me know if you have more!
http://web.mac.com/paulee303/iWeb/student_film
oh boy, nobody would survive that amount of drinking necessary....

[Jay A. Kelley]

In regards to technology, one of my professors in film school was director Alexander Mackendrick ("Sweet Smell of Success", "The Ladykillers", "The Man in the White Suit") - he once said: "Technology is inherently seductive... and often a director spends time dealing with technical problems as a way of avoiding dealing with human problems." (i.e. it's more fun to play with the camera than learn to talk to actors and get a performance out of them.)
.

David,

If Makendrick was one of your teachers then you went to the same school I did.. Do you remember Bill Jackson? He is a wonderful man and was my mentor while i was there. I still speak with him off and on. And I miss Sandy.
:(

Jay

[Johnny Friday]

Wasn't that footage shot on a fast trak? As I would imagine new camera for the DP.....MEANS.....oh yeah this isn't my Panavision 35 that I've worked with for how many years? I'm kinda slow, but I gotta play with my NEW cameras for sometimes weeks before I have usable footage in some cases to seek out what i think are usable settings under the shooting circumstances. I know that's not the case with some professionals out there, but it is mine.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I was at CalArts from 1988-1991 and took classes from Sandy Mackendrick and Bill Jackson (his 3-camera live TV class.)

[Jay A. Kelley]

Yes, I was at CalArts from 1988-1991 and took classes from Sandy Mackendrick and Bill Jackson (his 3-camera live TV class.)

That was a great school.. I went in thinking camera, camera, camera, and left thinking story, story story!!

Jay

[Matt Gottshalk]

Record a Gansgta-Rap Polka Country music video.

[Greg Voevodsky]

David, I agree. The grainy night scenes to me were most definately a deliberate Homage to Television reality drama.

Enough said. I also was working at Chiat / Day when the shaking camera look came in 1990 with people talking about dog food?! (Sorry, I forget what the commercial was for and the random dialog.) A few of us then and now still hate random bad camera work. At least now, it has evolved into a subtle dynamic energetic look used in 24 (very well done) that does not draw attention to itself - unlike Miami Vice - grainy and soft or random shaky camera work done on purpose by Chiat / Day or Blair Witch with similar styles done by amateurs).

There is nothing wrong being an artist, add grain, put Vasoline on the lense, shake the camera, under light, over light, (hey have your actors mumble and underexpose like the Godfather and win an Oscar.) I'm just saying there is a high end, commercial look, or Paramount look that most would say was and is beautiful and there is the opposite of a dirty, dark, grainy, shaky, raw, look. Like music, it can be overproduced or produced badly - its subjective which you like and which fits the story or song best. But when you sing out of tune on purpose, don't expect me to like it for your homage to American idol. ;-)

[Greg Voevodsky]

oh boy, nobody would survive that amount of drinking necessary....

Hey, I'm drunk... but ... I've been watching some of my favorite Hollywood films with your film student drinking game and since most film student cliches are borrowed from the master copiers - or homage payers - depending how you see it - I might blame the parents and the film business (lets do the same movie but different - hmmm Die Hard on a Boat (done)) rather than blaming the students.

[Rodrigo Lizana]

- Use a poor quality prime or zoom !.
- To forget that the camera is a tool and that´s the indian the one that matters. Not the arrow.

[Paul Lee]

...I might blame the parents and the film business (lets do the same movie but different - hmmm Die Hard on a Boat (done)) rather than blaming the students.

Noted Greg, and very true. As per the other discussions, it is the narrative that binds it all together. The students use the cliches in suprising density as they are feeling their way through this complex medium. Obviously my game is in good humor. I could certainly kick back a few watching films I did or worked on in school!

[tj williams]

Shoot the interior of a biplane cockpit, with your RED, under exposed 3 stops and pump it in post because you only shot two days. If you hurry before they fix the black vertical banding you will be able to duplicate it!

[DSH]

Whats interesting about RED is that some people are approaching it from the "run and gun" perspective because of the price bracket and methodology. And others (me included) thinking posibly I can have more control and maybe time (through Apple' Colour) to manage a look. Its a different way of working to the traditional film model. I can grade while the edit is happening etc.

I've always shot film, and its taken the incredible event that is RED to make me jump away from film because it expands my creative horizons. It can reflect more of my vision and the production team, but it does need a good team.

There were elements on PJ shoot that I picked up on, but it was a shoot that I'd reckon would need two and half days to shoot with two units, so the crew did great. The upshot is though if you want to deliver a project in 2k/4k, any weakness's in your production will be exposed. Whether its not good makeup, design,lighting, or a so so focus puller.

Resolution alone does not make a film.

[Jared VanLeuven]

8. Shoot 4k porn?

Ugh. Some things were just not meant to be done in HD. :D

[Fix]

8. Shoot 4k porn?

Ugh. Some things were just not meant to be done in HD. :D

Dont underestimate the porn industry. As you may recall, VHS won over Betacam in the consumer market strongly effected by that particular industry. But I agree in terms to the 4k porn. I doubt that will happen soon, they did choose VHS :poster_oops:

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Dont underestimate the porn industry. As you may recall, VHS won over Betacam in the consumer market strongly effected by that particular industry. But I agree in terms to the 4k porn. I doubt that will happen soon, they did choose VHS :poster_oops:

We'll see about that! prepare for 4k porn!

[Jeremy Hughes]

Shoot with the wrong framerate. 12fps instead of 120fps.

[Brian Broz]

Back on topic here, I just shot a beer commercial (wide open) with an HVX200 and mini-35/Zeiss Ultraprimes. (Normally I'm on shoots as an HD tech or 2nd Cam Assist).
I always knew/understood focus was a challenge when maintaining a shallow depth of field...and experienced it first hand. There's a reason why you need a camera department when shooting 35mm. It took me (the operator) 3 or 4 takes to get closeups (leaning in to sitting down) right. Something most of us will need to practice before shooting, as we don't want to have a perfect performance ruined by soft focus.
I'm certainly up for the challenge....and look forward to becoming a better focus puller...but Jim has a very good point.

[Fix]

Going from DV to HD(1080) with manual focus I think was a real challenge. I have tons of shoots that is a tad out of focus. scale down to dvd and you dont even see it. Keep it in 1080 and its quite evident IMO. 4k...phu, I can only imagen.

[Dennis Guskov]

Forget to push record....

LOL.
or push record button without realizing it. That will DEFINITELY produce...
Bad RED footage

[Sean]

#8. Shoot without a good script.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Often I get this question from film students: "I have to light a night exterior - please tell me how I should light it" to which I usually reply "What do you want it to look like?" Technology is no substitute for having an imagination.

The best film teacher I ever had in college was my Calculus 1 teacher. He always had us work backwards through problems repeating his motto "What do you want to do?" It's some of the best advice I have ever received. "Once you know what you want it's easy to figure out how to get there."

I see a lot of people wandering around in circles hoping the solution will fall in their lap but they don't even know what they're looking for.

--

In response to the topic at hand:

1) Over sharpen your footage.
2) Apply too heavy of noise reduction... whoops too soon? :nerd:

[DeaneThrussell]

personally i think the way shoot good red footage will be to really take advantage of the low depth field and blacklight kinda of like tony and ridley scotts early work like the hunger or duelist this way you solve the problem that the extreme amount of detail gonna give you with casting and make up and also props unless your shooting landscapes and wildlife then it's happy days