Not sure I'm as impressed... Don't kill me...

[sunnyjim]

I find from what we've been provided with this camera isn't as cinematic as they claim. Granted we have only a handful of screen grabs and clips to digest but still I'm not totally impressed. I am not arguing about the resolution or cost, that can't be beat, red has done the world a great service, I just am a bit displeased with the visual aesthetic. What I want out of a red is something that looks a bit more filmic and a lot less videoy, something that can contend and even replace 35mm. I got to be honest, and I know just about everybody is going to disagree with me, but I find the screengrabs we've been provided with from the milkgirls to the PJ short still look pretty videoish. They do not look very filmic to me and I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it's the coloration or just a series of bad lenses,, but to me, these scaled down images look just like any other HD acquisition. They're fine, but they don't look like professional cinema to me. They don't look like the kind of thing I'd seen on a lowes theater screen on a friday night. They look like something I'd see in the San Jacinto Indepedent film festival if you get my meaning... The PJ frame grabs to me look less like saving private ryan and more like a history channel reenactment in its visual aesthetic. Maybe it's the lenses maybe it's the sensor, maybe its the coloration, I just find it looks like really really really good digital video but still nonetheless... video. I dunno what it is... I guess there's something not right about the lenses... compare anything done by januz kazminski and compare it to what we've seen between milk girls and these PJ stills...

I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of. People have salivated and obsessed over this thing based on some pretty scarce source material, the "milk girls" clip and some obscurely framed rotating glasses have resulted in beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew. I'm not saying they're trying to cover up anything, but the suspense and speculation doesn't seem to be hurting sales. I think we are idealizing this machine and what it can do. I don't know what the magic trick is to get video to look like film, I guess it's a combination of lenses and coloration but in my personal opinion we still don't seem to have it. This opinion is merely based upon the scarce source material with which we've been provided. I think the red camera will be great for any number of applications but as far as competing with narrative 35mm films, the kind you pay money to go see in theaters, the kind with big moviestars and big budgets, this camera's visual aesthetic falls short. That's just my personal opinion based on the little intel we've been provided with. I think this machine will be great but as far as looking better than or as good as 35mm, I don't think it'll happen quite yet. To me it still looks very digital and videoy to me and simply uncinematic. I may eat my hat when the PJ short goes online, but that's just what I honestly think from what I've seen.

I guess what I want is for someone to convince me otherwise. I would love it if Jannard and his crew would commision other filmmakers or production companies to shoot more footage under more different and varied conditions so that we can all make more informed purchases. I just want to see more, because what've I've seen on the internet, is pretty freaking scarce, has not completely sold me. Footage shot with different lense packages and different color processing techniques would be a nice addition to red's website. I think it's a bit sketchy how we've just had the milkgirls the bubble blowing and the rotating glasses to go on for 9 months or however long it's been. There's a certain visual aesthetic that people associate with professional cinema, most layman often can tell whether what he's seeing is video or what he's seeing is film. I just want to see more, more footage under different and varied conditions, using the very same lense packages used on recent and successful hollywood movies. Let's just see more, please.:umm:

[Stephen Williams]

. I just want to see more, more footage under different and varied conditions, using the very same lense packages used on recent and successful hollywood movies. Let's just see more, please.:umm:

Hi,

The lenses were Cooke S4's & Optimo Zooms, can be seen daily in a cinema near you.

Stephen

[vidalsosa]

This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.

[Fix]

I agree with sunnyjim in some content. But in my case i dont think they did a hell of a good job in post. I would do it otherwise to enhance that classic 35mm look, but thats yust because i love it. Like alot of people love the VIper for its "real" feel. I dont like that, and sure alot of other people feel the same.

Tht thing is.. I have seen 35mm footage, not graded look like video... You may say that sound ridiculous. Keep in mind all high budget movies are gredet with care... not in 2 weeks like mr jackson did. But for that amount of time im truly impressed.

[jamesedwelland]

As I understand the prime lenses used in the PJ clip were cooke S4's..a mainstreem industry standard. I dont tink lenses have anything to do with what you see.

Its Apples and Pears again. Red is not film. I agree with the idea that this is not what people are used to seeing as 'film' (though some recent movies are challenging this)and film dose have a quality which we all associate with a movie. A particular look; something which has over time entered our conciousness and indicates to us that we are seeing a movie and not a doco or soap. A few moments of a movie even on TV and you can tell if its a film originated on film (though trickier sometimes with TV drama telecinied from 16mm neg rather than than a telecine off a film intermediate)

I think the asthetic will change. We will become more used to seeing non film originated movies. And others have said, you are still free to shoot film where you think the look of film is important.

Some screenings of the PJ short other than stills would be most welcome.

[Brice Ansel]

Comon guys, who cares what people think, everybody can have his personal opinion. Personnaly that post will not change my opinion, I'm still in.
Cheers everybody.

[Álex Montoya]

It's a grading thing. And that some of the pics of the PJ short film have a long depth of field.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/589/012562xsbym5.jpg

[Floris Liesker]

This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.

I hope you are joking.

[garageman]

This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.


So are you saying people can't criticise this camera and the way it's sold at all? Don't be such a fascist. Sunnyjim has some very valid points in his post, we have seen very little footage from this camera to convince many people of what this camera should be able to do, we can't all be at NAB. Most of us have reserved our cameras on faith -I did- and until we've all shot stuff ourselves we won't know until then what we really have. I see nothing particularly inflammatory about his post, you shouldn't even care IF you are someone who hasn't even reserved a camera, he's merely skeptical which is good.

We need to see the Jackson film and I suppose Red's recent reluctance to display it now at 1080p/2k online will only fan those flames for critics. I can understand that they would like everyone to see it at 4k rez but that's just unrealistic, and since we generally don't see stuff at more than 1080p at home anyway, should it really matter?

Personally I don't think that Red is Video or Film, it's something else, it's Digital, which can do things film/video can't do.

[Álex Montoya]

I mean:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1254/015197xscwx3.jpg

[Fix]

Now my question would be... where did you get those grabs? hehe

[Justin Kirchhoff]

That grab is great. The rocks pop out so much that it seems like I can touch them.

[Patrick Jennings]

video will always look like video when it's in the digital world. it's just how it goes. once you make a film print of great footage, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. it adopts all the film charaeristics.

[vidalsosa]

...

I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of. People have salivated and obsessed over this thing based on some pretty scarce source material, the "milk girls" clip and some obscurely framed rotating glasses have resulted in beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew.

I'm curious as to how comments like this helps anyone on this board. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but when we take the gloves off and start to attack others and their intentions then I maintain, this should not be condoned here. Other boards notorious for Red bashing maybe. This is simply a tired argument for all I care.

A few grabs and this... just wait until somebody screws up their Red shoot. I will hate to be behind any screwed up shoot with the Red one. :help:

[Tony Lorentzen]

Like some famous DP said "It looks like film - without the grain". There's your answer I guess.

[Scott H. Jones]

I dunno what it is... compare anything done by januz kazminski and compare it to what we've seen between milk girls and these PJ stills... ...To me it still looks very digital and videoy to me and simply uncinematic. I may eat my hat when the PJ short goes online, but that's just what I honestly think from what I've seen... ...Let's just see more, please.:umm:

You will have a different opinion when you see the Peter Jackson short. And the cameras are supposed to start shipping in about a month so there will soon be a ton of stuff up to look at. The demo clips are there just to give you an idea of resolution, contrast range, color rendition, depth of field, etc. All of Januz Kaminski's stuff has been shot with a huge lighting budget and has been heavily color graded.

I was a skeptic too until NAB, thought it was all marketing hype. Then one of my partners and I finally decided to stand in line and check it out. We saw the short, watched the post workflow demo, checked out the camera up close, and bought one. The partnership with Apple was the clincher. Being able to edit 4K in FCP with no hardware acceleration is fantastic.

My question is whether or not the codec is going to hold up in compositing / effects work. The post demo dude got really defensive when I questioned whether or not an image that's undergone 12:1 compression will have issues when composited. The codec is brand new so they're probably still working out the kinks. But I'm not too worried about it. We met a guy in line who's getting his camera in July so we'll get a chance to test it before ours delivers in Nov/Dec. If we change our minds the deposit is refundable. I feel pretty confident we're going to keep it, though. After NAB I'm a believer that this camera is truly revolutionary.

[Álex Montoya]

Oh, and it's true that ungraded film looks a lot like video. A friend of mine showed me a DVD with the first edit of his first feature and it looked, well, ungraded.
Stylization is a wonderful thing that, paradoxically, helps us buying the story and that comes after the thing is filmed.
I mean, everyone here has seen the Se7en featurette about color grading, right? How did the final scene look before grading?

[martinnoweck]

Hi Garageman,

interesting point you mentioned in your post:

a) is HD (or Digital) meant to emulate or to be like film or develop own characteristics?
b) and how will the non-geek audience perceive this discussion (remember: if the story is good, you can push the negative 7 stops...)

IMO, Digital is not Video and not the retarded cousin of 35mm Film and it is up to us, to use this wonderful tool RED has provided for us and develop a new style of Digital Cinematography.

Just my two cents,
Martin

[PaulClements]

This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.

This isn't the best way to treat someone who expresses concern about Red's camera Vidalsosa. It isn't the opinion of this community that we are closed off to criticism. Infact if it's constructive criticism then it's exactly what Jim and Co should be given.

Concerning the footage. It was of course shot and put together in a very short time, of that there is no doubt. Some of the grabs look good, some of them do look so clear they look less filmic in one sense. What you have to consider Sunnyjim is that there is so much information there for post to use, to pull apart and play around with. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers had large amounts of colour correction and were shot over months, which means all the explosions and effects can be tailored to look perfect. Another consideration is the Director and his crew, since each will have a different style and preference to lighting and so on. A lot of Jacksons recent work such as Lord of the Rings and King Kong are of course heavy on special effects and due to this intervention of digitalization they can often appear as though shot digitally. In this respect I agree that more DP's need to be given the camera so we can get an idea of the different flavours people put into their own work, but if you are not an early reservation holder then this will happen long before you could ever get the camera. To think you can achieve that same quality as saving private ryan or similar in such a short time scale is as unrealistic as believing owning RedOne will automatically make you a great storyteller. Imagine if they had tried to make that 12 minute short in 2 days using film and then tried to have it ready for NAB less than 2 weeks later? With the same lenses, lighting etc it probably wouldn't have looked a great deal different.

[Scott H. Jones]

Like some famous DP said "It looks like film - without the grain". There's your answer I guess.

You can always add the grain in post! Seriously, manipulating the images from this camera to "look like film" is going to be really easy.

[Fix]

Well it all tumble down to one inconvenient truth, as Gore would have put it. We cant blame the film equipment anymore. I guess many have to show some pretty good results now in a couple of months. "well I shoot it on a red, should got 35mm"... go to your corner.

[Scott H. Jones]

Imagine if they had tried to make that 12 minute short in 2 days using film and then tried to have it ready for NAB less than 2 weeks later? With the same lenses, lighting etc it probably wouldn't have looked a great deal different.

And it would have been a lot more expensive. Not only do we no longer need telecines, we don't even need tape decks for digitizing!

[ChristopherKenworthy]

If I worked for A Major Competitor, I'd be in a panic. And I'd send a few employees over to these boards to start up new accounts and say the Red image isn't so great. And then we'd see lots of posts by very junior members that spread doubt and fear about the image. Which is exactly what we are seeing. This weird propaganda will never put off the believers, but it could frighten those who are new to Red. Of course, these posts could be genuine, but every day, we see posts that fly in the face of the actual evidence. We all know how propaganda works. You repeat a lie often enough for it to feel like truth.

I'd really like to see some Red footage printed to 35mm, and projected the traditional way, because I bet it looks very filmic. And maybe the gate weave and constantly degrading print would keep the 35mm purists happy.

[Álex Montoya]

And the workflow is a gift from heaven: I mean, UHD digital acquisition and post-production at affordable prices, without needing to go to external facilities... count me in!!!

I mean, I am starting in a month a short film with final copy in 35mm and I am struggling for a workflow that, keeping a good HD quality, hasn't got a step that ruins the whole budget.

Right now I'm thinking Varicam-DVCPROHD-Avid-After Effects and film-out. The RED would be the perfect choice for this.

[garageman]

If I worked for A Major Competitor, I'd be in a panic. And I'd send a few employees over to these boards to start up new accounts and say the Red image isn't so great. And then we'd see lots of posts by very junior members that spread doubt and fear about the image. Which is exactly what we are seeing. This weird propaganda will never put off the believers, but it could frighten those who are new to Red. Of course, these posts could be genuine, but every day, we see posts that fly in the face of the actual evidence. We all know how propaganda works. You repeat a lie often enough for it to feel like truth.


Don't underestimate the intelligence of the members of the board, new or old, seeing is believing and the image is more powerful than any piece of written propaganda. The sooner we start seeing long form moving footage the better. We are hearing it has been done and has been shown at NAB. The rest of us need to see it in 2K at least. I have a 30 inch apple screen so it should be still able to display the most important characteristics of the RED, dynamic range et al. without losing much aside from the extra rez.

[Adrian T.]

You can always grade the picture to your likings. The most important thing is that the information you need is there. And with RED ONE and REDCODE I'm convinced it is.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1042/testjz9.jpg

[PaulClements]

I thought I'd have a play with one of the grabs, just to illustrate what I meant about how someone grading it differently would give a different look and feel. It's preference though.

Here are three images of one grab that I've played with. Please note I did two things in photoshop and spent all of about 20 seconds doing it. It's not perfect in the slightest, I'm not saying it now looks filmic, but it gives an impression of what a good post house could do.

Original

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=465&stc=1&d=1177155916



Hue/Saturation altered (Knocked out a bit of red, saving private ryan and band of brothers have a very green feel to them)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=464&stc=1&d=1177155916


Added a bit of grain

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=466&stc=1&d=1177155916

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Don't underestimate the intelligence of the members of the board, new or old, seeing is believing and the image is more powerful than any piece of written propaganda.

I've never found a board with so many intelligent and interesting people.

This thread is about the image quality, so if you have doubts about the image, show the NAB frames around to a few people who aren't in the industry. Get them to comment on the image quality, not the subject matter. I've found that people think the images look beautiful; and they comment on the image quality being rich, yet detailed. And they always assume it's a frame grab from a film - not a still, or a digitally recorded image.

[garageman]

I've never found a board with so many intelligent and interesting people.

This thread is about the image quality, so if you have doubts about the image, show the NAB frames around to a few people who aren't in the industry. Get them to comment on the image quality, not the subject matter. I've found that people think the images look beautiful; and they comment on the image quality being rich, yet detailed. And they always assume it's a frame grab from a film - not a still, or a digitally recorded image.



I think people will think it's from a film because of the subject matter and the action in the frame not because of image texture/look I bet.


I don't have doubts about the image, I haven't seen enough to form a full opinion. I've seen some great stuff but I have some questions too. I'm saying people won't stop questioning this camera until the visual proof is there, whether they are new to the board or not.

Footage in motion will probably look sharper and display other characteristics not seen in stills. It is a camera designed for cinema, so stills will not convince anyone of anything. Until we see some longform footage to put critics to rest, people will continue to ask questions.

[Brainstorm]

Ah. So people are going to start "re-directing" the RED material now so that it looks 'more like film'. That's a bit presumtuous isn't it? Or do you all expect Peter Jackson's grading choices to be your choices? Do you think you can do better regrading a downloaded image off the web in than he did with a 4K Quantel Pablo?

Why must everything be like exactly something that has come before to be great?

RED have made no claims to being "better" than film. What they have done is created an amazing NEW tool that's neither film nor ordinary HD digital video... and you can own one at a very reasonable price IF you choose to. If you want you stuff to look "just like film", go shoot film.

Maybe we should all have the grace for a few people to try their RED before everybody tries to redesign it.

[Jess Charlton]

Added a bit of grain

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=466&stc=1&d=1177155916

Eek! That last one looks like super 8 film! :)

[Álex Montoya]

Nope, Brainstorm.
We are trying to explain that the RED footage can be reinterpreted in various ways to someone with an eye clearly inclined to a filmic look.

[PaulClements]

Ah. So people are going to start "re-directing" the RED material now so that it looks more like film? That's a bit presumtuous isn't it.. or do you all expect Peter Jackson's choices to be your choices. Or do you think you can do better regrading a downloaded image off the web than he did with a 4K Quantel Pablo?

I did say that I spent 20 seconds doing it. I don't think it necessarily looks good. I'm just showing that different post will produce different effects. And taking one production as all red productions will look the same is stupid since it offers such a large scope for giving you the look and feel you desire.

At no point have I tried to say, look how much better am I at color correction with my little computer and photoshop, I'm not trying to re-direct and I'm not being presumtuous. What a ridiculous thing to say.

This is the forum for examining and discussing the Red camera, every single grab posted in the last 18 months has been photoshopped in such ways, so why make such a point? Man that bugs me.

[PaulClements]

Eek! That last one looks like super 8 film! :)

lol, I overdid the contrast to be fair, but I wanted the alterations to be noticable, besides some people might rest assured because they've wanted to use Red as a replacement for super 8 lol :)

[Brainstorm]

This is the forum for examining and discussing the Red camera, every single grab posted in the last 18 months has been photoshopped in such ways, so why make such a point because I do it on one grab by Peter Jackson? Man that bugs me.

Paul... please don't feel I was singling you out in any way. I know you're a true enthusiast.

All I'm suggesting is the the only way anyone can really find out what THEY can do with a RED is to shoot with one. Until then, it's very unrealistic to try and make such bold pronouncements and judgements as to what it's capable of looking like.

I felt the post that stared this thread was an unneccesarily "down" critique of a type that breeds unfounded suspicion and discontent.

How could you not be impressed by getting the sort of picture quality that was shown at NAB (and all the other advantages of workflow, etc.) at this sort of price?

Beats me.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I thought I'd have a play with one of the grabs, just to illustrate what I meant about how someone grading it differently would give a different look and feel. It's preference though.

Here are three images of one grab that I've played with. Please note I did two things in photoshop and spent all of about 20 seconds doing it. It's not perfect in the slightest, I'm not saying it now looks filmic, but it gives an impression of what a good post house could do.

Original

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=465&stc=1&d=1177155916



Hue/Saturation altered (Knocked out a bit of red, saving private ryan and band of brothers have a very green feel to them)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=464&stc=1&d=1177155916


Added a bit of grain

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=466&stc=1&d=1177155916

Paul very good points, just continue...

[ChristopherKenworthy]

I spoke the the guy who invented the Genesis camera last year, in Palm Springs, and the rental price on that thing was outrageous, and the image less than I'd hoped for. My point being that, if you're in this industry, the Red camera is virtually free, so you have to be impressed. If I'd spent Gensis type figures, I might be worrying a bit more. But it's so cheap that if the image is terrible, I'll just use it to shoot my home videos. But from what I've seen, the image isn't terrible. The moving image projected at NAB stuns crowds to silence. And that can't all be Peter Jackson's doing, because the audience was never so quiet at King Kong...

[Fix]

Brainstorm i think you are missing the point of this conversation. I dont think anyone is claiming Red is better than 35mm. But I do think many want to belive there is a possibility to make theyr footage look like 35mm with a Red camera. Dont forgett that most of the best movies ever made is by 35mm and the look and feel have a incredibly inpact in the movie industry.

Now its seems Red can make a whole lot of different expression. make it look like video, 8mm, 16mm,35mm... something different. The later I favour.

[martinnoweck]

Good point, a couple of years ago you got a Sony DSR 500 WSP for the price of the RED ONE.

Martin

[PaulClements]

Paul... please don't feel I was singling you out in any way. I know you're a true enthusiast.

All I'm suggesting is the the only way anyone can really find out what THEY can do with a RED is to shoot with one. Until then, it's very unrealistic to try and make such bold pronouncements and judgements as to what it's capable of looking like.

I felt the post that stared this thread was an unneccesarily "down" critique of a type that breeds unfounded suspicion and discontent.

How could you not be impressed by getting the sort of picture quality that was shown at NAB (and all the other advantages of workflow, etc.) at this sort of price?

Beats me.

Fair enough. But I would advise anyone to take the grabs into photoshop and have a play around with it. Chances are that you could replicate that look and feel you like in films.

The original poster might very well have been down on the grabs, and he has every right too. Sometimes we watch a film and dislike the cinemtography, whereas someone sat next to you thinks it's the most beautifully shot film he's ever seen.

It's for this reason the OP has that right, but it's also for this reason I and I'm sure many others will mess about with the grabs to see what can be achieved even at this early stage and therefore re-educate skeptics because they think the image is too video-like or whatnot.

I agree with "the only way anyone can really find out what THEY can do with a RED is to shoot with one" but if there's an opportunity to dispell some skepticism then it's the duty of this community to help out. Not to disregard that skepticism as someone trying to put the camera or even members of reduser.net down.

[garageman]

I suppose we do have to remember that RED have advertised the camera as having the qualities and dynamic range inherent in 35mm film as well as using the quotes of well known 35mm cinematographers to help promote the camera, so we can't blame people when they make comparisons between film and RED.

[Brainstorm]

I suppose we do have to remember that RED have advertised the camera as having the qualities and dynamic range inherent in 35mm film as well as using the quotes of well known 35mm cinematographers to help promote the camera, so we can't blame people when they make comparisons between film and RED.

Obviously people will compare... but is it realistic to make judgments before a whole bunch of REDs are working in the world out there? Of course not.

Maybe RED is as close as digital can look to film – for now. Maybe it's better just to say, "it looks like it was shot on a RED". At $17,500, isn't that pretty F$#!ing amazing?

Blows my socks off. No holds barred.

As I said before, if you want it too look EXACTLY like film, shoot film.

[PaulClements]

The fact that people are anticipating using this to make movies, automatically means it should be compared to film.

[ericyoung]

I find from what we've been provided with this camera isn't as cinematic as they claim...I am not arguing about the resolution or cost, that can't be beat, red has done the world a great service...I got to be honest, and I know just about everybody is going to disagree with me, but I find the screengrabs we've been provided with from the milkgirls to the PJ short still look pretty videoish...I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of. People have salivated and obsessed over this thing based on some pretty scarce source material, the "milk girls" clip and some obscurely framed rotating glasses...I think we are idealizing this machine and what it can do...That's just my personal opinion based on the little intel we've been provided with...To me it still looks very digital and videoy to me and simply uncinematic. I may eat my hat when the PJ short goes online...
...Let's just see more, please.:umm:


This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.

Have to disagree vidalsosa - I didn't find sunnyjim's post particularly offensive, and I count myself as, at least partly, a fanboy. He raised some fair points and qualified them as purely his opinion, and while the bit about "salivating and obsessing" was a bit of an unnecessary dig, I didn't read his whole post as an attack.

There's no need to throw back personal insults about being "myopic and idiotic", and the fact that he has only posted twice doesn't mean he has less right to an opinion than me or any other poster here. Getting personally insulting is just unproductive.

I'm quite looking forward to the hat eating though! :clown2:

[garageman]

Obviously people will compare... but is it realistic to make judgments before a whole bunch of REDs are working in the world out there? Of course not.

Maybe RED is as close as digital can look to film – for now. Maybe it's better just to say, "it looks like it was shot on a RED". At $17,500, isn't that pretty F$#!ing amazing?

Blows my socks off. No holds barred.

As I said before, if you want it too look EXACTLY like film, shoot film.


I don't think anyone on this board is making judgements, because they really can't, other than those who have seen proper footage. The original poster of this thread was merely expressing curiosity of why many, not all, would show so much zealotry for something that has yet to prove itself, and someone shot him down for it.

[Ace]

This only being your second post leads me to believe you came here for one purpose... to inflame folks. Please refrain if you may from anything denigrating about reservation holders or the camera itself on this site. This is a site dedicated to "fanboys" as you insinuated in your lenghty diatribe. Take your bad mouthing to sites that agree with your myopic and idiotic POV.

Not cool man.. Lets not turn into the other forum shall we. His concerns deserve to be aired without attack as long as they are not disrespectful. Red is strong enough to answer to the toughest critics, so bring it on.

As for it being his second post, RED is primetime now. There will be alot of newcomers to the board and the whole nonesense of "postcount" should be put aside.

[Mardi_Gras]

More photoshopping... little grain here, desaturation there and here's your wip.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I saw the RED footage on a plasma over at Apple.
The RED footage showed me that I made the right decision.
As you have seen through the various posts - you can grade RED
footage anyway you want. Start with the best image first and go
from there.

[Jess Charlton]

I find the screengrabs we've been provided with from the milkgirls to the PJ short still look pretty videoish. They do not look very filmic to me and I'm not exactly sure why.
...
Maybe it's the lenses maybe it's the sensor, maybe its the coloration, I just find it looks like really really really good digital video but still nonetheless... video. I dunno what it is...
...
To me it still looks very digital and videoy to me and simply uncinematic.

I'm all for constructive criticism. But since Sunnyjim doesn't really know what it is that is bugging him, I get the feeling he won't be convinced of the cinematic potential of Red, until he can see films shot on Red at the cinema.

Good on Sunnyjim for starting such a lively debate though.

[Jonas Nyström]

Sunnyjim - I think you forget one quite important thing; the price - RED: USD 17500. 35MM: USD 175 000. I don't either think my RED will be good as shooting 35mm (yet) - but I can afford the proximity to filmlook (dof) and the resolution give you options to do almost everything you want in post.

[donatello b]

based on what each has seen so far from the RED - each will decide on how it looks ... i think the question is fair ... however when it is attached with

"have resulted in beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew. I'm not saying they're trying to cover up anything, but the suspense and speculation doesn't seem to be hurting sales"

how does that fit it with does the camera have a film or video look discussion??

seems that subject would fall more under "OFF TOPIC"??

the PJ short has a "look" that was created in post and that is what the Director decided on ... i think if 20 of us got to go in and CC grade the short it would result in 20 different looks ( and some would add grain )

as REDs are shipped we'll start to see many look's and comparision to FILM..
so i would say if the FILM look is the only look one wants and you don't see it in RED at this time you may want to hold off on ordering a RED till you see the "look" you want or order/rent another camera that has what you are looking for ...

[PaulClements]

I think a great testiment to the ability to make Red footage comparible to film is the fact that Timur Bekmambetov will be using it on 'Wanted' but only for certain sfx shots.

Why would they choose a camera that cannot be adapted to look correct alongside film?

[David Dennis]

This is something I've really been curious about. Why are filmmakers so obsessed with film?

Does a film have to look like a film to entertain audiences, or to be commercially successful?

At this point, I think we have had some successful films that were shot on DV, which should answer that question. RED is clearly a quantum leap over DV quality, and so a much broader range of films could be shot with it.

The question should not be "Would something shot on a RED look like film, down to all the random imperfections?"

It should be "Would audiences pay good hard cash for a well-made movie produced with a RED? Would they care that it was film or not?"

People have seen the Jackson short. From what I hear, they have been blown away. In fact, some of them admitted that they got lost in the story being told and didn't pay as much attention to the technical aspects as they wanted!

To me, this proves that yes, a theatrical film could be made with RED, and it would be successful based on how well made it was, not on whether people thought it was shot on film or not.

I liked Jim's post about how to make bad RED footage. One of the most important ways was his #4, shoot something that isn't interesting. Shoot something interesting, and people will love you, and the RED camera.

D

[Mike the beginner]

Why does someone not put up a poll and ask if anyone has cancelled their reservation due to? and then list lack of money, image quality, negative comments etc. I think you will find few IF ANY have cancelled due to image.

There is a long list of things i wanted from a camera, image was just one of them. Low light another, interchangeable lenses another. pre-record and so forth.

Most importantly i wanted a camera i could learn from and did not need to replace three years from now and have to learn how to use another camera. I wanted to complete a fishing video to promote a fishery i run, yes to all you cine guys, red might seem overkill. But if i succeed i will get all of my money back from an estimated $60,000 + expenditure within two to three years, I will then have a master copy of something that i believe i can continue to promote and use for the next twenty years thereafter.

I can learn with red and even though it will be extremely tough and difficult if i get stuck in, it is doable as you guys say. If i used a three chip pro-sumer camera i cannot perform what the camera cannot do! A lot of my footage will be at sunrise and sunset times. A i/3rd chp cannot perfom miracles. An expert can perform near miracles with a pro-sumer camera for sure but the limitations of the camera will hold him back.

The price of the red one body is great value the accessories are like all pro accessories "expensive compared to what i expected to pay" but cheap as pro gear goes.

As for the image. Graeme commented some time ago that he would have several pre-set images for those who did not want to get into colour correcting etc. As a home cinema and movie admirer i know the difference between Star wars type of movie image compared to say Gladiator, just to seperate the two. I love both for what they are image wise.

The photo's of the milk girls to my eyes was fantastic. Creamy and smooth was fittingly used by some to describe the look. Give me that type of pre set umage and i will be very happy.

I worried about the highlights of the red a while back particularly when those tests with other cameras saw the pro-sumer canon xh1 being so incredibly close to the red prototype then. Working near water all the time requires good control of highlights. I have yet to see a fishing video that the water looks good on. All that is history now as red develops and improves its sensor.

Others have mentioned the PJ film and the sky scenes as looking great.

I understood what the thread starter was saying, he could have worded it better in part, my posts are too long and i dont always say things exactly right, so what. His comments were constructive enough to merit thought and input.

The new red zoom lens prototype has breathing problems according to some. Red are not flawless. Red will make mistakes or do things that will be below what we might expect, not often i trust, but it is bound to happen on ocassion. Reds products represent value for money, many will buy the zoom breathing or no breathing it represents great value.

We need critics just as we need rave reviews etc. Provided the critics are not derogatory or rude it can be fine with us red believers.

As a mere movie goer FWIW i think the whole sharpness image is overdone. what we need is body/texture call it what you like but "that something" that makes the image stand out from video. We also get landscape images that never really look sharp overall when shot from a 1.3rd chop camera, kinda hard to describe but they just look fuzzy overall. I believe red changes all that, i am getting my camera critics or no critics.

Now do we have pre-record or not red team........:bleh:

Mike the beginner

[killfilm]

hi,

just wonderin, film has certain qualities that define it as film that red now offers
they are:

dynamic range....check
resolution...check
frames per second....check
color rendition...dont know---maybe in post?
sharpness...adjustable?
D.O.F...check
gamma...adjustable?

am i missing something :umm:

[zak forrest]

what did yall think of ZODIAC? i saw it both digitally and on film, i liked the film a little better. both ways it looked incredible, and red blows viper away...


ive never used any fake grain programs/plug-ins.. can you actually compare them to something that was digital and then FILMEDOUT like the print i saw of zodiac? is there a huge difference or have these plugins come a long way

[Manfred Lopez]

hi,

dynamic range....check


Actually, we still don't know what the dinamic range is for the red one. Someone was saying that maybe 11 stops. But film has 15 stops. Still a big difference.

[Keith Alan Morris]

video will always look like video when it's in the digital world. it's just how it goes. once you make a film print of great footage, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. it adopts all the film charaeristics.

hear hear! agreed!

[JohnF]

Okay I'll say it...

RED will not be better than 35mm film.

I love film, I always have. I love the resolution, the latitude, the flexibility of it esp B&W film. I even love the sound of it running through a projector...

But let me qualify my above statement about RED vs 35 Film:

An exposure on film relies on the probabilistic nature of quantum effects on silver-halide crystals, this makes every frame shot on film totally unique regardless of content.

Whereas a CCD/CMOS detector is a grid of semiconductors designed to detect visible light photons. This grid design lessens to quite a considerable degree the variability between frames not to mention the actual response to light is different (linear instead of an S like curve).

RED is a camera that has brought electronic filming to a level that approaches the resolution and latitude of film but by the very nature of the medium RED will not be better than film - just different.

What you choose to do with RED is up to you as the RED team has produced an electonic camera that many of us have been asking for for years now (35mm chip and PL lens mount) and have kept it flexible (RAW frame recording)... Do you want the film look? Then post and grade it that way. Or (being a creative medium) if there is a totally new look/style you want then can you can go ahead do it.

But as for the original question around what or how will RED will perform that is a totally legitimate question. Personally I need to know details about the camera and its workings/functions before I make a commitment to using RED.
Why? Because for the material I wish to shoot I need specific capabilities to capture the action I intend to film - this is the same for any camera and imaging medium that is already out there right now.

What I do understand is that the RED team has been working like hell on their prototypes and have been, uniquely IMO, totally honest that specs are likely to change over this development period. When the product is ready we will know what it is capable of and once the thousands of users start shooting we will know how well it performs.

RED has shown that a quality camera can be produced at a price that makes sense in today's film/TV market environment. Not to mention showing the attitude missing from so much of the world's industry of "If you are going to make something new make it better than what came before."

Good on 'em! And remember RED will not be better than 35mm film just different which matters to all of us at the production and post end but to an audience there will be no difference, in that respect RED will be as good as 35mm film.

JohnF

[Chris Kenny]

hear hear! agreed!

also, look at 300. crystal clear, yet looked just like film from digital projection. (didnt like the movie, but i liked the look.) imagine 4x the quality.

300 was shot on film. A fairly grainy stock, in fact.

[donatello b]

i been shooting film for a long time .. i don't count 15 stops .. but then i play it safe and go with 10 stops ...perhaps with a DI one might be able to pull 15 stops ? ...but in general neg to print film i haven't seen 15 stops

[Scott H. Jones]

hear hear! agreed!

also, look at 300. crystal clear, yet looked just like film from digital projection. (didnt like the movie, but i liked the look.) imagine 4x the quality.

Sorry, I'm confused. What do you mean by "looked just like film from digital projection?" I saw 300 on a digital projector -- and it was shot on film. So it WAS film from digital projection.

-----
Scott Jones
www.xlfilms.tv

[Manfred Lopez]

i been shooting film for a long time .. i don't count 15 stops .. but then i play it safe and go with 10 stops ...perhaps with a DI one might be able to pull 15 stops ? ...but in general neg to print film i haven't seen 15 stops

It depends on what film stock. Properly exposed 5245 can pull of 15 stops, which I think is the maximum for Kodak negative.

[martinnoweck]

There is one thing I don't understand with a movie like "300" - why was THIS movie shot on film?

Martin

[Keith Alan Morris]

Sorry, I'm confused. What do you mean by "looked just like film from digital projection?" I saw 300 on a digital projector -- and it was shot on film. So it WAS film from digital projection.

-----
Scott Jones
www.xlfilms.tv

i didnt know it was shot on film and edited my post so others wont get confused.

i saw it from digital projection too and marveled at the projections clarity.

[Tonaci Tran]

Sunnyjim,
It's far too early to make assessment based purely on frame grabs alone. I also think you should realize how amazingly fast RED created this camera from scratch. They were not obligated to show ANY footage..in fact they even got heat for showing early proto footage. If anything, I wouldn't have blamed RED for not showing any footage at all until they were 100% done.

To answer you question: "I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of. "

umm.. put down 1,000 dollars.. money back guarantee at ANY time for Any reason. It was risk free if you could afford put down a 1,000. It was a no brainer decision and now those who simply put down 1,000 have a nice ROI with Jim's generous allowance.

[Ken Corben]

Sunnyjim,

Good on ya' for asking not to be led to slaughter for sharing your opinion. Your post started a stimulating conversation in a community that includes the gammit from students to ASC DP's. As you can see by the posts on this thread there is a level of professionalism, candor and respect amongst the majority of redusers ready to engage in opinion, speculation and possibilities RATHER THAN she's right and he's wrong nonsense.

A short answer to the main question in your post, if you are a filmmaker after a certain 35mm look, is now an industry pre-production standard really. The Director and DP must take digital test clips through grading then film out to 35mm and project it to obtain one's "signature look." I say signature because to me it would be sad to simply duplicate a 35mm look given the lattitude of digital acquisition and post afforded by RED, Pablo, talented DP's and colorists et al.

I will completely understand if Jim decides not to post the PJ test on the web immediately - it simply will not be anything other than web compressed video for naysers to magnify some pixel element 800 times and say, "I told you so." Nonsense really. I am a professional shooter and found myself immersed in the screening at NAB rather than studying the faults in the images. As others and I have said before on this forum - the audience really won't care or notice a difference if it's a great film. In fact, if the short was posted on the web as a Peter Jackson short with no mention of RED it would be a huge hit (viral video).

Keep 'em coming,

Sharky


I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of....I just want to see more, more footage under different and varied conditions, using the very same lense packages used on recent and successful hollywood movies. Let's just see more, please.

Pre-NAB '07 one might have said it's more hope by endusers than hype by others AND only a $1000 USD deposit (fully refundable)
Post NAB '07 If one saw the screening, the cameras and the end-to-end workflow it was a no brainer. Afterall, it's only a deposit of $1,750 USD that is also fully refundable. More importantly, the time between when the cameras start shipping and when the new NAB orders are received we will see RED footage tested and applied in a range of work across the board including the complete work flow. And even then the deposits are still refundable - that's an industry first (among others).

[Rogelio Salinas]

The bottom line is that RED is offering an incredible product at an incredible price. I was talking with my wife and telling her about how incredible it is that RED is offering a format that is more than four times the resolution of the Cinealta and the Genesis at a fraction of the cost. Dollar for dollar, whether you believe the images do or do not look filmic enough, you cannot beat the value and quality investment that RED is offering. I also love the fact that RED is going against the grain and offering discounts to those who have placed faith in the company and the product. Most companies (cell phones, banks, ect.) usually give their discounts and introductory offers to new clients which they hope to steal from the competition. RED is headed places my friends and those of us who have taken the leap of faith will benefit from it.

[Manfred Lopez]

There is one thing I don't understand with a movie like "300" - why was THIS movie shot on film?

Martin

Because Red wasn't available then. :biggrin:

[Desert Rune]

I was talking with my wife and telling her about how incredible it is that RED is offering a format that is more than four times the resolution of the Cinealta and the Genesis at a fraction of the cost.

What was her reaction? You left out the best part! :shifty:

[Mise-en-Scene]

Addressing SunnyJim--

I agree with many of you whom have posted replies to SunnyJim. On his point about little footage, I have to agree, however, the RED team has been under a lot or pressure to get this camera on the mass production line. This means very little time to shoot and post results. It is also expensive to transfer video to film.

As a junior junior member (no- this is not a repetitive misprint), I have learned a great deal from everyone on this wonderful reduser website. I am still learning... I am picking up technical books to catch up to many of you. I have taken many film classes, but they don't teach what I am learning from many of you.

Regarding the film look: Ted was right when he said that the RED camera is neither video or film. A good example is George Lucas' movie, Star Wars 1,2,3. They were shot using the inferior 1080P Sony camera and look what he did with it. I thought I was watching film and video blended together (which is actually the truth-- smiles). My first impression was that it is a bit more like watching the news, but the story, cinematography, and fine details is what made this look attractive to me. Granted, part 1 and 2 was a bit boring in some scenes (my opinion), but the overall story was engaging.

I prefer detail to film's fuzzy look, especially when panning- which has always been disappointing to me with film.

We all grew up with film and 24 fps when moviemaking was first started in the early 1900s. I believe 24 fps was chosen partly because this is the least visually disturbing speed (where humans can see motion without noticing the flicker) at the best possible cost savings per feet of film. Because of this, man has become acclimated to this look-- the film look. People now will be seeing a new look-- the RED digital look and sooner or later, everyone will come to accept this look in all theaters. It has taken people 100 years to accept film as the definitive movie experience. It will take a lot less time for people to make the transition from enjoying the 35 mm to digital picture feel. It really is a personal preference issue.

The footage that I have seen from the LA exhibition was stunning. It looks equal - if not better- than film, but they both have there positive points. I am just elated at the fact that I will soon be the owner of a powerful digital acquisition camera that will provide me with the technical tools necessary to compete with the high-production values of Hollywood.

Good luck to all of you who have been bitten by the moviemaking bug!!

[peter roehsler]

video will always look like video when it's in the digital world ...

Yes, but to play with looks can also be quite tempting :-)

Just my 2 cents of photoshopping ...

[Graeme Nattress]

The first time I saw the Mystic India stuff at NAB, I saw it projected in 4k and I thought I was looking at 4k digital acquisition, but I was really looking at something shot on 65mm and scanned.

Graeme

[M Most]

There is one thing I don't understand with a movie like "300" - why was THIS movie shot on film?


Primarily for two reasons:
1. Heavy use of overcranking, sometimes at 120+ fps.
2. The director and the director of photography preferred it.

By the way, the ability to easily overcrank and undercrank also figured into Quentin Tarantino's decision to shoot the "Death Proof" segment of "Grindhouse" on film, as well as the ability to use low cost "crash cams" in dangerous locations.

[Scott H. Jones]

i didnt know it (300) was shot on film...

I assumed 300 was shot digitally too when I saw it. When I checked out the making of videos on the website I was surprised to see them shooting with Arris. The zoom effect was done with a huge 3-Arri rig. As to why they shot it on film, I guess it's because they could afford to -- and the RED ONE wasn't yet available. ;^)

[anamibia]

I don't post very often. I've shot features, 35mm, low and medium budget. I was at NAB first thing monday morning. The PJ short was very, very impressive. The stills are not. Does red look as good as film? It depends on what film(s) you're refering to. Red is the most revolutionary thing to happen to cinema since the introduction of sound. There were certainly (as pointed out elsewhere), imo very minor technical problems but....

Exiting the PJ short, what came to mind was "i don't have to stop shooting again, ever". What Red (and the like) make possible is the ability of individuals to control the practice of their craft (like musicians, writers, painters, etc). This is will transform cinema as it presently exists.

[M Most]

Addressing SunnyJim--

Because of this, man has become acclimated to this look-- the film look.

There's a bit more to the "film look" than simply a 24fps frame rate. One of the interesting things about film prints is that the color pallette that's represented is remarkably similar to that of classic Western paintings. It's generally acknowledged that there are certain colors and combinations of colors that are simply pleasing to the human psyche, although this is a bit different in different cultures. But for Western eyes, if you look at the classic painters, they all chose to depict their images using a slightly muted color pallette, with deep greens and deep reds, rather than the brighter greens and reds that you often see in modern day video imagery. Some people might define this as more "sophisticated" and less "garish," but it is certainly the case that film prints - and classic paintings - reflect a color pallette that's closer to what the human eye usually sees than video does. It's also interesting to note that capturing on film is not necessarily the most direct route to achieving this, as film negative transferred directly to video can, and often does, have more of a "video" color pallette than the same negative viewed from a film print - or a DI process, which electronically simulates the color characteristics of a film print. This is also one of the reasons that television dramatic programs (which are almost exclusively transferred directly to video from the negative) tend to look "different" than features viewed on either HD broadcast or DVDs (which are almost exclusively the product of a DI process, going through a lookup table that simulates a film print) - with the features generally looking more "filmic."

[kmikami]

It's fun to see everyone's different tastes in grading. Here's mine

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u31/kmikami_2007/012562xs-grade.jpg

[Yash Keough]

I don't post very often. I've shot features, 35mm, low and medium budget. I was at NAB first thing monday morning. The PJ short was very, very impressive. The stills are not. Does red look as good as film? It depends on what film(s) you're refering to. Red is the most revolutionary thing to happen to cinema since the introduction of sound. There were certainly (as pointed out elsewhere), imo, very minor technical problems but....

Exiting the PJ short, what came to mind was "i don't have to stop shooting again, ever". What Red (and the like) make possible is the ability of individuals to control the practice of there craft (like musicians, writers, painters, etc). This is will transform cinema as it presently exists.

Anamibia,

You said you were at NAB and that the PJ movie was impressive the stills were not. Would you be so kind so as to clarify? Did you mean that overall, the image looked great when in motion but the stills don't really do it justice? Or did you mean that the film was well done but the quality wasn't so good in your eyes? Just curious. I'm guessing the former.


Yash

[Rogelio Salinas]

Quote from: Desert Rune "What was her reaction? You left out the best part!"

I just have to tell you that I have been blessed with the best wife I ever could have asked for. I have been in the process of developing my first feature for the last few years. The timeline goes as follows: a few years ago I was originally going to shoot it on miniDV in 480i, then I was able to test the Canon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100. My lovely wife told me that she wants to purchase one for me, but I told her, as sweet as her intentions were, I wanted to wait to purchase a camera until we were ready to shoot. Then the JVC HD100-200 models and the Panasonic HVX200 sparked my interest, and being able to shoot in 720P was a great step up, and of course my wife wanted to get me one of those, but once again I told her, that we should wait until we come closer to the shoot. During this time I discovered RED, but I felt that it was leaps and bounds to advanced and that the price would easily be over 100K if 1080P cameras were going for 90K+, but once they released the price of $17,500. I was convinced that instead of settling on 720P we were soon going to have the ability to shoot 4K! Yes now we were going to have to invest a little more into the production, but it would be well worth it and bring much more value to the picture. We begin shooting in November and we should have our RED by October. If I would have been impatient and rushed into production we would have shot it in 480P, and now we have the opportunity to shoot it in a format that is 28 times the resolution. She was quite surprised when I told her that 4K is 28 times the resolution of 480P, but she is being supportive. So my wife and I agreed that God's timing is perfect and good things come to those who wait.

[Anders Holck]

I'm very happy that we finally get to see stills from the movie. To me it looks very good. It's clear that they chose a very muted and muddy look, and compressed the dynamic range to get as many stops onto the screen as possible.
It's very hard to judge the detail qualities in a donconverted image as the scale introduces aliasing especially if you scale by more that 50%.

It's easy to make them pop by raising the contrast, like this, but then there is clipping the highlight and you get a broad daylight feel.
http://www.holckowen.com/2.jpg

I really like what we've been shovn so far :-)

[Keith Alan Morris]

that looks really good, anders, on its own!

[Keith Alan Morris]

what were your settings?

[Alex D. da Silva]

It's certainly too early to have a verdict on RED, but so far it looks incredibly good.
I disagree with SunnyJim when he takes the cost out of his consideration. This is a great part of the whole equation; for about a fraction of the $ your acquisition is on the same level of Hollywood Studios productions.

I’ve been trying to be discreet about a certain comment that was pass to me at the NAB through a good friend. I wasn’t there to witness and I didn’t hear myself, but he’s the PDG (président-directeur général) of a certain 16 and 35 mm European well-known camera manufacture. Anyway, after visiting the RED booth he supposedly announced to his peers “In less than 2 years there’ll be 2 largely used formats: 35 and RED”

If we haven’t seen enough footage (I agree btw), please do not compare test footage with the likes of two times Academy Winner DP Kazminski production.
I don’t want to be repetitive, but what we’ve seen so far is not film neither video is a different and relatively new format. Digital Cinema is in its infancy and RED, so far, can bring it to the adolescence years. It is up to us to understand, improve, stretch, challenge, etc… the camera, lenses and format, which are mere tools of the trade. All of this will be done by far more people, talented or not, because of RED’s accessible cost.

I’m not a fan, I’m an enthusiast and I’m thrilled to be part of this opportunity.

[Scott H. Jones]

Primarily for two reasons:
1. Heavy use of overcranking, sometimes at 120+ fps.
2. The director and the director of photography preferred it.

The Phantom 65 is able to shoot 4K @ 125 fps (the HD version can go up 1000 fps) so there are digital options for shooting high speed. Despite some improvements the Phantom camera and workflow are clunky though. It's great that the RED One is going to shoot 4K at 60 fps right out of the box. Use the new frame interpolation feature in Motion and you'll be able to do a nice looking 120 fps or higher. Regardless of the digital options available I suppose there will always be film snobs.

[anamibia]

yash,

the image looked great. when i first saw the stills i cud understand the reservations Red may have had about posting them. they don't really represent what the full motion felt or looked like. essentially i agree with Mr. Mullen.

[Cail Young]

Mmm, dream sequence.

[kmikami]

This Monday morning grading can be fun in relation to a still but it's totally irrelevant in relation to the actual film since we don't know what the context of the shot is, what comes before and after, what's the story, who's the hero, what's the time of day, the mood of the scene, how long the shot lasts, what the director is going for, etc.

[Cail Young]

This Monday morning grading can be fun in relation to a still but it's totally irrelevant in relation to the actual film since we don't know what the context of the shot is, what comes before and after, what's the story, who's the hero, what's the time of day, the mood of the scene, how long the shot lasts, what the director is going for, etc.

Point being?

It's Sunday morning here, anyway. I like to grade, and having some really nice source material to mess with makes it all the better.

[kmikami]

That wasn't directed you, just a general thought aimed at the people who were criticizing the original stills or any of the re-graded versions. Just pointing out how subjective it can all be. And anyway, it's Saturday morning here :)

[Clint Johnson]

What the hell, I'll throw my 2/10ths of a cent (value of post adjusted for me not being a big time DoP or colourist)

vidalsosa, that was rather rude and probably not something you would say to the Sunnyjim's face. While I disagree with Sunnyjim's relative ranking of s35 film and Red Digital acquisition, it isn't reason to be rude. I'd say that your first response was far more incendiary and actually did seem to be trolling for a flaming.

I think that Sunnyjim is having a problem with an image that is extremely clean compared to the grain of film.

I personally think that the purpose of digital acquisition should be to get as clean an image as is possible and with as wide a latitude as possible so that we can degrade it to match the look we want... and that includes the "filmic" look Sunnyjim is seeking.

Yes, I said degrade. If we are using honest nomenclature, grading is a contraction of degrading - a process to get footage to have a certain appearance that was impossible, or too difficult, to get practically. What we are used to seeing up on the screen is not clean and with a wide latitude, it is dirtied up and crushed in service of the emotional impact that the director and DoP are seeking to impose on the viewer.

From the admittedly limited footage that I have seen from the Red One, it should give super clean images for me to degrade... and Sunnyjim should be able to start with Redcode RAW and get a good colourist to grade it to look like pretty much any film stock he wants. Or at least any GRADED film stock he wants. If he is trying to match ungraded film stock with Red digital... then he is just rasterbating and should go do that in private. <g>

[Ben Feuer]

Why was this moved to off-topic, it doesn't seem off-topic to me. It's about RED isn't it?

[Manfred Lopez]

Why was this moved to off-topic, it doesn't seem off-topic to me. It's about RED isn't it?

I guess some people wish that this whole thread dies a slow painful death in the oblivion of the off-topic wasteland. :tongue: (Just kidding... don't ban me :innocent: )

[Joel Kaye]

They do not look very filmic to me and I'm not exactly sure why.

Can you point us to movie stills on the Internet that feel filmic to you? Or a trailer you like?

By the time a film is in your theater the effective resolution has dropped to about 2K. Then there's the scratches and soft spots on the screen etc. It's also been heavily color graded. Also - don't forget there's the great audio that really fools you into the world of the movie. Straight out of the camera film can feel like video.

When RED gets transferred to film and projected it'll feel totally different.

I saw the PJ movie and 4K is it's own experience. It's very clean but not hypersharpened. I like it - I think some degradation was probably in order for a WWI movie but that really wouldn't have shown off the camera.

Also, remember guys - PJ's short only had about 9 stops of latitude. Is anyone complaining about the latitude they are seeing so far? It's being said that another 2 stops have been worked into the camera since then.

Some phenomenal stuff is going to be done with this camera, but if it's not your cup of tea then shoot film. If you make a good movie I'll watch it despite the fact that it won't look as pristine as RED footage. :innocent:

[Manfred Lopez]

Can you point us to movie stills on the Internet that feel filmic to you?

http://www.depauw.edu/acad/film/FilmStudiesPage/Film_clips/citizen%20kane%20crossfade.jpeg

http://anaximandrake.blogspirit.com/images/medium_welles-citizen-kane.jpg

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/citizen_kane_5.jpg

[Scott M]

Perhaps it's just not as obvious to some how awesome a clean slate of pure pixel glory can be to start from. Here's my grading example entry:

[Joel Kaye]

If they posted stills like that I'd have canceled already ;-). Those are pretty bad representations of Citizen Kane. Maybe RED needs to shoot some beams through the haze next. Always seems to be a crowd pleaser.

I think you could compare some of the air to air in the "Great Waldo Pepper" to some of PJ's air to air. That might be interesting.

[Fix]

Maybe RED needs to shoot some beams through the haze next. Always seems to be a crowd pleaser.


agree :). Last movie of steven spielberg (Munich) wouldent be the same without those "smoking" shoots.

[Manfred Lopez]

If they posted stills like that I'd have canceled already ;-). Those are pretty bad representations of Citizen Kane.

Sorry, it's hard to find frame-grabs of Citizen Cane in 4K. :sarcasm:

[Brook Willard]

Alright.

People have been pretty respectful so far... let's keep it that way. This thread has grown to 10 pages while I was sleeping. To those of you who posted less-than-constructive things about our poster and his supporters... stop. Let the man say what he has to say. He was very respectful and presented his feelings appropriately. No need to call him out for trolling.

As for the simple initial questions, the stills presented look fairly "HD" because they're 17x oversampled. That's going to push sharpness into a fairly unrealistic range no matter what you do. I don't know what scaling algorithm Jim used when he posted the shots.

As for grading, that was Peter/Richard's call. They graded for the movie... not for film, digital or any other purpose. They graded for the story.

As for lack of grain... well... yeah. You could add it if you wanted it.

As for it looking "digital" instead of "filmy"... well, it's digital. RED never set out to look like film... it set out to look like RED. While RED can be made to look like film, it will always look like RED. As for the DOF characteristics, they lived at F:8 through most of the film.

As for latitude, we're just making up numbers until somebody posts a direct representation of film and RED right next to each other. Film has 15 stops? I personally doubt that. It may have that much latitude *total*, but its inherent "gamma" curve limits the visibility of many of those stops. The PJ film was shot on a malfunctioning camera that was down on latitude - expect more in the final cameras. Graeme has also found some brilliant ways to save highlight and shadow data in post... you have to see it to believe it.

I'm making no excuses here - I'm merely trying to represent the data accurately. If you're not impressed, that's fine. RED isn't for everyone. Film is not dead. I have no doubt that I will continue to shoot film in the future when it's requested by a production. I love film, it's really great. I also love RED. That's cool for me. If it's not cool for you... I respect that. I'd love to continue hearing from the "nay-sayers" [sounds so negative...] into the future as more footage is released.

[Floris Liesker]

I was originally trying to f*ck the image up for fun, but while working on it I started to like it.

Anyway, maybe this feels more like film.

[Poi Boy]

The beauty of red's raw image is that you can make it almost anything you want ! why are people so hung up on "not filmic or too videoish ". It can be whatever you want it to be if you have the skill to manipulate the pristine image. What could be better than that ? To me that is what makes it superior to film.
Aloha
-A

[Daniel Reichenbach]

The beauty of red's raw image is that you can make it almost anything you want ! why are people so hung up on "not filmic or too videoish ". It can be whatever you want it to be if you have the skill to manipulate the pristine image. What could be better than that ? To me that is what makes it superior to film.
Aloha
-A

Thats absolutely the point, but first you have to be able to manage not just the camera, but also all digital tools arround, to know, what is possible, what don't work. If you know about all that, RED will give you enough space, latitude and freedom to realise quiet everything you can imagine.

[mike70]

As a newbie poster, it's a bit off-putting to find the quasi-religious zealotry from some posters. The Red is a camera, after all, a product--not a belief system, and if some of us are approaching it as such, we shouldn't be criticized as un-believers.

My own experience was probably like many others: I heard about Red, read enuf about it that it sounded incredible, and trekked to LV to find out for myself. The footage was designed more for the sizzle than the steak--with the heavy editing and continuous action, it was difficult to judge the result technically--it wasn't a side by side comparison with other video footage or with 35. (In addition, there was a bit of a CIA feel to the whole demo, with bouncers ordering you behind lines, and Red staff unwilling to even pan or tilt the cameras, but that's another story..)

On another thread, I posted my thoughts re the footage: not enuf blacks, a video sharpness and overall two-dimensional feel or lack of richness, probably due to the fact that the whole sequence was shot in broad daylight, and a few brief jitters on fast pans. David Mullen and another poster addressed my concerns about the blacks, the jitter was probably more a mounting problem than a video artifact, which leaves only the "video" look as something "disturbing."

That concern comes from my predisposition towards the film look, which many of the previous posters have addressed. I like the film look. I like shooting with the DVX100 at 24pa--if HD weren't invented, I'd continue to be happy. It gives me a filmic look without the cost of film. If I'm going to plunk down 35k (which I am ), I think it only natural that I'm curious if, in addition to the incredible sharpness of the imagery, I could also attain that look. (I very much appreciate all of the frame grab manipulations in this thread, because they're showing me that the look can be greatly influenced in post.)

Having said all of this, I was overwhelmed with the clarity of the image--in terms of sharpness/resolution, it was indistinguishable from what you see in a theatre. After only a few minutes, I thought to myself, My God, with this camera, I can shoot a 35mm film.

There's the old Samuel Johnson line about the dog walking on its hind legs --it's not how well he does it, but that he does it at all. Having seen the Red dog walk like this, I was just wondering if he danced the tango, too.

[Alexander Nikishin]

If you look at all the graded photos, the ones with added grain, or noise I should say, look just like film.

I think Red has reached the quality of 35, give or take a stop or two, it only lacks the grain of film, which I for one don't always want to be in my final product.

[kmikami]

Here's one for the fog fans :biggrin:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u31/kmikami_2007/012562xs-fog.jpg

[Matt Gottshalk]

The footage I saw at NAB looked almost Imax-like.

I was impressed.

[Peter Richardson]

Guessing someone has already provided this link, but here's a nice subtle grade that really adds to the "filmic" look....

http://www.box.net/shared/igahnliuyt

I actually agree, to a certain extent, with Sunnyjim's original post, but as everyone seems to be pointing out, getting a "film look" is just a matter of a little work in post.

Peter

[Ben Feuer]

That most recent grading looks about right to me.

TheThe, I respect and agree with your assessment of the most recent stills; they are sort of "History Channel" esque. But as others are clearly demonstrating, RED is going to be camera that lives and dies in post.

[Joel Kaye]

RED is going to be camera that lives and dies in post.

Film does too these days.

[Tom Lowe]

Well, this guy's post count and line about "beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew" make it seem like he could be trolling and trying to bash Red. He's done the classic hit and run on this thread. There are going to be plenty of angry and jealous people who will try to do this here; it is to be expected.

Too many people here are dancing to this guy's tune right now, IMO.

[REINHART PESCHKE]

I find from what we've been provided with this camera isn't as cinematic as they claim. Granted we have only a handful of screen grabs and clips to digest but still I'm not totally impressed. I am not arguing about the resolution or cost, that can't be beat, red has done the world a great service, I just am a bit displeased with the visual aesthetic. What I want out of a red is something that looks a bit more filmic and a lot less videoy, something that can contend and even replace 35mm. I got to be honest, and I know just about everybody is going to disagree with me, but I find the screengrabs we've been provided with from the milkgirls to the PJ short still look pretty videoish. They do not look very filmic to me and I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it's the coloration or just a series of bad lenses,, but to me, these scaled down images look just like any other HD acquisition. They're fine, but they don't look like professional cinema to me. They don't look like the kind of thing I'd seen on a lowes theater screen on a friday night. They look like something I'd see in the San Jacinto Indepedent film festival if you get my meaning... The PJ frame grabs to me look less like saving private ryan and more like a history channel reenactment in its visual aesthetic. Maybe it's the lenses maybe it's the sensor, maybe its the coloration, I just find it looks like really really really good digital video but still nonetheless... video. I dunno what it is... I guess there's something not right about the lenses... compare anything done by januz kazminski and compare it to what we've seen between milk girls and these PJ stills...

I'm curious to know why so many people have been willing to put up so much money for a camera whose images we've seen so little of. People have salivated and obsessed over this thing based on some pretty scarce source material, the "milk girls" clip and some obscurely framed rotating glasses have resulted in beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew. I'm not saying they're trying to cover up anything, but the suspense and speculation doesn't seem to be hurting sales. I think we are idealizing this machine and what it can do. I don't know what the magic trick is to get video to look like film, I guess it's a combination of lenses and coloration but in my personal opinion we still don't seem to have it. This opinion is merely based upon the scarce source material with which we've been provided. I think the red camera will be great for any number of applications but as far as competing with narrative 35mm films, the kind you pay money to go see in theaters, the kind with big moviestars and big budgets, this camera's visual aesthetic falls short. That's just my personal opinion based on the little intel we've been provided with. I think this machine will be great but as far as looking better than or as good as 35mm, I don't think it'll happen quite yet. To me it still looks very digital and videoy to me and simply uncinematic. I may eat my hat when the PJ short goes online, but that's just what I honestly think from what I've seen.

I guess what I want is for someone to convince me otherwise. I would love it if Jannard and his crew would commision other filmmakers or production companies to shoot more footage under more different and varied conditions so that we can all make more informed purchases. I just want to see more, because what've I've seen on the internet, is pretty freaking scarce, has not completely sold me. Footage shot with different lense packages and different color processing techniques would be a nice addition to red's website. I think it's a bit sketchy how we've just had the milkgirls the bubble blowing and the rotating glasses to go on for 9 months or however long it's been. There's a certain visual aesthetic that people associate with professional cinema, most layman often can tell whether what he's seeing is video or what he's seeing is film. I just want to see more, more footage under different and varied conditions, using the very same lense packages used on recent and successful hollywood movies. Let's just see more, please.:umm:
Most these cameras - HD , 2K, 4K can give you a good image, more or less,what makes the difference is the glas ( lens ) you put on them, just like with a film camera.
i worked with the Genesis, Viper, sony f 900, etc. with their lenses or HD lenses, but the best looking stuff, by far, was with the Varicam with the PS 35mm adapter and the ZEISS MARK II , standard prime lenses. these lenses are small and gave me the most film-like results. these highly acclaimed Prime Lenses are used on hundreds of films over the last decades. they are smaller than the Cooke S4s and more inexpensive. i'm afraid the Red Primes cannot stand up to proven quality of the ZEISS MK 2 or Superspeeds.

[donatello b]

i have yet to see the PS adaptor used in a wide shot that you can't see something from spinning ground glass in image ...

the zeiss standards haven't been made for years and they are good lenses ..
i don't think they were ever more $$ then the cooke S4's .. today zeiss standard primes are very reasonable used 6000-9500 5-6 lens set ..

i really don't see how one can state "i'm afraid the Red Primes cannot stand up to proven quality of the ZEISS MK 2 or Superspeeds. "
if you haven't tried the REDs or know of somebody that has?
did you handled them at NAB ?

perhaps you had same thoughts a year ago when you heard about RED and thought RED will never have the quaility of variCam ?

[M Most]

The Phantom 65 is able to shoot 4K @ 125 fps (the HD version can go up 1000 fps) so there are digital options for shooting high speed. Despite some improvements the Phantom camera and workflow are clunky though. It's great that the RED One is going to shoot 4K at 60 fps right out of the box. Use the new frame interpolation feature in Motion and you'll be able to do a nice looking 120 fps or higher. Regardless of the digital options available I suppose there will always be film snobs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "snobbery." The Phantom can do as you say, but it stores all of its material on internal memory, which then must be dumped, which takes time. This makes it impractical for first unit photography of the type required on a production like "300." I was trying to tell you the reasons film was used in this case, and they are very valid reasons. Not everything is appropriate for a digital approach, particularly at this point in time (or a bit over a year ago, which is when 300 was shot). Not everyone wants a digital approach. At the same time, film is not necessarily the best tool for all production either. There are choices available, and there are soon to be more and better choices. If you have the knowledge and the ability to do so, you choose what's best for the particular production circumstances technically, creatively, and financially.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I always find the description of "filmic" laughable. Why? Because every single major blockbuster in the last 10 years has passed under the hands of a compositor. At which point some percentage of the footage was in all likelihood combined with CG or Digitally shot elements. The amount of matte paintings right now in films is staggering. The number of sky replacements in even your run of the mill comedy would almost be unbelievable to the average movie goer. And you know what, almost all of it has gone unseen.

Those who claim that they "know" footage that wasn't shot with film have deluded themselves. Nothing is pure anymore and a good compositor will perfectly match the look. The truth is. There is nothing magical to the "film" look. It's like a story one of my friends who used to be a lighting director told me. "We'd have clients who would come in and ask for 'film style lighting' which we were happy to oblige, of course all that meant was we just spent more time and money." The 'film look' is 90% time and money.

Anyway not to be left out from the bastardization of someone else's art... my stab at making it 'filmic' whatever that means. I took David Mullen's opinion to heart and gave it an EXR grain pattern somewhere between 5298 and a 7293 on crack to ummmm make it even more filmic...?

[Illya Friedman]

It depends on what film stock. Properly exposed 5245 can pull of 15 stops, which I think is the maximum for Kodak negative.

Properly exposed? By rating 45 at what, 50 ASA? My experience with 45 is that it's far too contrasty to get anywhere near that much range!

Illya Friedman
Dalsa

[Illya Friedman]

Most these cameras - HD , 2K, 4K can give you a good image, more or less,what makes the difference is the glas ( lens ) you put on them, just like with a film camera.
i worked with the Genesis, Viper, sony f 900, etc. with their lenses or HD lenses, but the best looking stuff, by far, was with the Varicam with the PS 35mm adapter and the ZEISS MARK II , standard prime lenses. these lenses are small and gave me the most film-like results. these highly acclaimed Prime Lenses are used on hundreds of films over the last decades. they are smaller than the Cooke S4s and more inexpensive. i'm afraid the Red Primes cannot stand up to proven quality of the ZEISS MK 2 or Superspeeds.

I don't know anything about the Red lenses, so I'm not commenting about those...

And I didn't think I would be defending Red's lens choices... but really... "Best looking" what does that mean? Saying that MK 2 and superspeeds are superior to S4s by using a Pro35 and a Varicam is pure lunacy.

Even if the MKII or Supers somehow had higher MTF (which is unlikely, but we can project to find out for certain) the Pro35 knocks the lens MTF way, way down.

Don't get me wrong the Varicam is a outstanding camera, best bang for buck in rentals right now. The Pro35 is also a fine tool for project to be broadcast or for DVD finish. However, I don't recommend the Pro35 to anyone planing on theatrical projection. Don't believe me, ask you lab to project a test, it's been done by many.

The S4/S4i lenses are very respected. Project an A/B and see for yourself.

Illya Friedman
Dalsa

[laguun]

I don't know anything about the Red lenses, so I'm not commenting about those...

And I didn't think I would be defending Red's lens choices... but really... "Best looking" what does that mean? Saying that MK 2 and superspeeds are superior to S4s by using a Pro35 and a Varicam is pure lunacy.

Even if the MKII or Supers somehow had higher MTF (which is unlikely, but we can project to find out for certain) the Pro35 knocks the lens MTF way, way down.

Don't get me wrong the Varicam is a outstanding camera, best bang for buck in rentals right now. The Pro35 is also a fine tool for project to be broadcast or for DVD finish. However, I don't recommend the Pro35 to anyone planing on theatrical projection. Don't believe me, ask you lab to project a test, it's been done by many.


the pro 35 can´t be recommended for theatrical projection. it looks unsharp.

btw, all of the 1080p blockbusters by lucal, fincher, mann etc have been done w/o the pro 35.

[Stephen Gentle]

Well, this guy's post count and line about "beaucoup bucks for Jannard and his crew" make it seem like he could be trolling and trying to bash Red. He's done the classic hit and run on this thread. There are going to be plenty of angry and jealous people who will try to do this here; it is to be expected.

Too many people here are dancing to this guy's tune right now, IMO.

I agree. This guy is not really making constructive criticism, he is just taking a lot of swipes at Jim and RED.


I always find the description of "filmic" laughable. Why? Because every single major blockbuster in the last 10 years has passed under the hands of a compositor. At which point some percentage of the footage was in all likelihood combined with CG or Digitally shot elements. The amount of matte paintings right now in films is staggering. The number of sky replacements in even your run of the mill comedy would almost be unbelievable to the average movie goer. And you know what, almost all of it has gone unseen.

Those who claim that they "know" footage that wasn't shot with film have deluded themselves. Nothing is pure anymore and a good compositor will perfectly match the look. The truth is. There is nothing magical to the "film" look.

I was thinking the same thing too. It just goes to show that a good colourist or compositor will easily be able to make RED footage look like film (if you like that kind of thing) as long as you have shot it like film.

[MDP16]

Oh well one less kook in the water.

[GlennChan]

If you look at film's color response, it sort of has a s-shaped curve in its "red", "green", and "blue" channels. The highlights tend to de-saturate and there's other color shifting / tonality going on.
*Actually it's not as simple as red, green, and blue since some film stock has four layers. There's also an effect where the layers block light from the other layers. The overall response can be approximated with a 3-D LUT. (And you can just do a s-shaped curve in the RGB channels to approximate that 3-D LUT.)

Interestingly enough, I believe modern film stocks are designed to have as little of this color shifting as possible... so they start to look more and more like video.

The color shifting/bending of film is probably one big factor why Red has a different look/aesthetic than film. (Though theoretically you can use a 3-D LUT to make it look like more film-like? I can't say I've tried though.)

[Scott H. Jones]

This has absolutely nothing to do with "snobbery." The Phantom can do as you say, but it stores all of its material on internal memory, which then must be dumped, which takes time. This makes it impractical for first unit photography of the type required on a production like "300." I was trying to tell you the reasons film was used in this case, and they are very valid reasons. Not everything is appropriate for a digital approach, particularly at this point in time (or a bit over a year ago, which is when 300 was shot). Not everyone wants a digital approach. At the same time, film is not necessarily the best tool for all production either. There are choices available, and there are soon to be more and better choices. If you have the knowledge and the ability to do so, you choose what's best for the particular production circumstances technically, creatively, and financially.

No need to get testy. I wasn't arguing with you or trying to suggest their reasons were invalid. I was just pointing out (for those us who might not have the luxury of Hollywood budgets) that there are options for shooting high-speed digitally. I even said that the Phantom workflow is clunky. And I didn't say or mean to imply that the makers of 300 (or you) were film snobs, I said that regardless of the digital options available there will always be film snobs. Granted I should have avoided using this less than flattering gibe. I've just run across plenty of DPs who think film is and always will be superior to digital cinematography and who insist on using it even when it's not warranted. By the way, I tend to be a digital snob. Even when I have the budget for film I tend to choose digital because I like the immediate feedback, the workflow and the fact that it saves my clients money.