First Clip from Crossing the Line

[Jarred Land]

Here you guys go. 1k excerpt clip from "Crossing the Line"

I would like to list the full credits here of everyone who worked on the film, as credit is due and here is our chance to give it.



Written & Directed by
Peter Jackson


Additional Director
Neill Blomkamp


Producer/Assistant Director
Carolynne Cunningham

Executive Producers
Jim Jannard
Fran Walsh



FIRE CHIEF Jarred Land

FIRE STARTER Deanan Da Silva

EDITOR Jabez Olssen
ASSISTANT EDITOR Rhys Bonney

POST PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR Pamela Harvey-White

VFX FACILITY Weta Digital Ltd

VFX SUPERVISOR Matt Aitken
DIGITAL PRODUCER Kim Lavery
VFX EDITOR Lucas Putnam
IMAGING SUPERVISOR Nick Booth
ASSISTANT EDITOR Aaron Cubis
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Brett Skinner
SENIOR ANIMATOR Andrew Calder
PAINT & ROTO SUPERVISOR Quentin Hema
FX TD Sam Bui
COMPOSITING SUPERVISOR Charlie Tait
CAMERA SUPERVISOR Lee Bramwell
SENIOR CAMERA TD Stephan Remstedt
CAMERA MATCHMOVERS Peter Godden
Ufo Remmy
Dennis Trutanic
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Tristan McMahon
DIGITAL RESOURCE MANAGER Adrian Samuels
TECHNICAL SUPPORT James Dinsdale
Andrew Lambert
WRANGLER MANAGER Joseph Wilkie
WRANGLERS Sam Edwards
Tim Ward

POST & SOUND FACILITY Park Road Post

TELECINE MANAGER Jon Newell
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR Ian Bidgood
TECHNICAL OPS SUPERVISOR Phil Oatley
DI COLOUR TIMER Clare Burlinson
iQ/PABLO EDITOR Adam Scott
SOUND DEPARTMENT MANAGER John Neill
SOUND RE-RECORDING MIXERS Michael Hedges
Gilbert Lake
SUPERVISING SOUND EDITOR Brent Burge
SOUND FX EDITORS Melanie Graham
Hayden Hallow
DIALOGUE EDITOR Martin Kwok
FOLEY ARTIST Robyn McFarlane
FOLEY RECORDIST/EDITOR Matthew Lambourn

PRODUCTION MANAGER Carey Johnson
PRODUCTION CO-ORDINATORS Naomi Wallwork
Clare Olsen
ASST TO PETER JACKSON Matthew Dravitzki
ASST TO NEILL BLOMKAMP Victoria Burkhart
PRODUCTION RUNNER Mike Minogue
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT Phil Nixey
1st ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Liz Tan
2nd ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Sarah Lowe
CASTING Tina Cleary

DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY Richard Bluck

CAMERA OPERATOR (incl aerials) James Cowley
CAMERA ASSISTANT Sean Kelly
CAMERA ASSISTANT Andrew Stroud
2nd ASSISTANT CAMERA Phil Smith
2ND ASSISTANT CAMERA Garth Michaels
VIDEO ASSIST Nigel Stanford
Laurence Alexander
VINTAGE PLANE
CO-ORDINATOR & PILOT Gene DeMarco
VINTAGE PLANE ASSISTANT
CO-ORDINATOR & PILOT Tim Sullivan
HELICOPTER PILOT Alfie Speight (Heliworks, QT)
AERIAL GRIP Brian Harris
GAFFER Dave Brown
BEST BOY Andrew Ayrton
LX ASSISTANTS Glen Ayrton
Chris Pert
Matt Andrews
Reuben Morrison
KEY GRIP Dion Hartley
DOLLY GRIP Melissa Ririnui
GRIP ASSISTANTS Maurice Kapua
Ben Vere-Jones
GRIP ENGINEERS Tony Reed
Dominic Taylor
SOUND RECORDISTS Chris Ward
Justin Webster
ART DIRECTOR Dan Hennah
ART ASSISTANTS Ra Vincent
Nathan Grey
STANDBY PROPS Sven Wiig
ART ASSIST/TANK GUNNERS Derek Misseldine
Roger Houston
Chris Gifford
TANK DRIVER Mike Tropay
ARMOURER Aaron Huriwaka
ASST ARMOURERS Mark Brown
Hamish Bruce
SPECIAL FX SUPERVISOR Steve Ingram
SPECIAL FX Karl Chisholm
Dave Booth
Peter Zivkovic
Doug Falconer
MAKEUP Frankie Karena
COSTUME CO-ORDINATOR Matt Appleton
COSTUME ASSISTANTS Tim Tozer
Duncan Brown
Gareth McGee
LOCATION/UNIT MANAGER Boris Kunac
UNIT ASSISTANTS Mike Hay
Simon Oakes
SAFETY/MEDIC Andy Buckley
STUNT CO-ORDINATOR Kirk Maxwell
CATERING Blue Carrot

LIGHTING EQUIPMENT Portsmouth Limited

CAST

YOUNG SOLDIER Tom Hobbs
PILOT Calum Gittins

STUNT SOLDIERS Justin Carter
Rodney Cook
Mana Davis
Steve Drage
Moo Hammond
Kirk Maxwell
Tim Wong

SOLDIERS/PILOTS
(in alphabetical order) Joel Anscombe-Smith
Simon Bently
Charlie Bleakley
Lee Bowden
Kip Chapman
James Conway-Law
Nik Dunbar
Jordache Edser
Patrick Fogarty
Sam Fogel
David Goldthorpe
Cohen Holloway
Brent Lyndsay
Nathan Miester
Achim Munz
Ryan Okane
Nic Sampson
Erroll Shand
Andrew Waterson
Michael Whalley
Gareth Williams

WEEKEND WARRIORS
(in alphabetical order) Kyle Ashley
Ed Denton
Simon Godsiff
Patrick Kalyn
Niko Kaye
Richard Kirby
James Willingham

WEEKEND RE-ENACTERS
(in alphabetical order) Nicholas David Bates
Roy Owen Biddle
Nicholas Jason Bray
Bruce Richard Cairns
Graeme Collins
Jeremy Rae
Bruce Stewart


Caro, Peter, Fran and Jim would like to
thank a terrific cast and crew.


Thanks To Universal Pictures for the use of
music from “King Kong” by James Newton Howard.


Shot in Masterton, New Zealand
On Red pototype cameras “Borris” and “Natasha”

enjoy..

Mirrors:

http://www.proapptips.com/redmirror/crossing1.mov - thx Slater
http://www.24puser.com/crossing1.mov
http://www.runjumpfly.net/crossing1.mov - thx Chas
http://www.pixelquestfilms.com/crossing1.mov - thx Haakon
http://simplemente.net/crossing1.mov - thanks man for the mirror.
http://www.3dspark.com/RED_One/crossing1.mov thx nutman
http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov - thx Jeff

[Jarred Land]

and as always.. mirrors appreciated :)

[helgetjelta]

Yepp, this is great, nice look,

Santa is comming early this year!

[PaulClements]

Thanks Jarred

[Mardi_Gras]

Cool...

[PaulClements]

Right click and save helgetjetla

[Kyle Spicer]

Awesome Thanks so much Jarred!

[Erik Bianchi]

working for me.

[PaulClements]

hmm... I've already done 10%... I can't complain if no one else can dl it lol :)

[mikedelano]

ive got it started :)

thanks!! I cant wait!

[Jarred Land]

my poor little server :)

[Luke Boyce]

Holy Shit!!!!!! F***ing Incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PaulClements]

lol jarred

[Yash Keough]

Sweet thanks guys! Downloading now! :D

Yash

[Mardi_Gras]

my poor little server :)

Feel your pain Jarred. It'll only be this one-time, though.:blink:

[Greg Greene]

looks sweet. no worries here.

[Antoine Fabi]

my poor little server :)

he..he...you aked for it...you're the fire chief...
better prepare your extinguisher...or at least a liquid cooled radiator...

[Jeremiah McLamb]

AWESOME!!! But I want MORE!!! Will there ever be a full download of the short? Because not only do I want to see the glory that is RED...I would also just like to see the short!

...but THANK YOU for this clip...it is amazing!

[Thom Steinhoff]

If you haven't started downloading, please wait 5 minutes and 43 seconds... no 42... No... 41...

(Closing eyes and praying that Jarred's server doesn't crash)

:)

[Michael Schrengohst]

Me wants more!!!
Excellent tidbit.

[Steve Connor]

Absolutely outstanding clip, thanks for posting - guess you'll need some serious cooling on your server for the next few days!

[Drew Mylrea]

oh. yeah.

[Alex Boothby]

Thanks Jarred. Love it.

[GlennChan]

1- Is there a torrent available?

2- What's the color management in that movie? I find it much easier if the target color space is sRGB (and since this was graded as rec. 709, then presumably there's no gamut clipping issues???).

[Edmund Boyle]

Ireland on standby. Waiting......waiting.......waiting. Suspense is killing me! Its like been a kid again waiting for Christmas midnight to open up your presents

[Alexander Nikishin]

Ah the memories from NAB, beautiful.

[Adrian T.]

I'm flabbergasted! :blink: WOW!

[Yash Keough]

I just watched it. Honestly, the stills really don't do it justice like that clip does. That looked awesome! :D Now I just want to see the whole short ;) Thanks to all the guys who worked on that and the RED team! :D

Yash

[S. Um]

Beautiful!

[Alexander Nikishin]

After watching that, Saving Private who?!?

[PaulClements]

You gotta post the rest lol... it looks great, fair enough larger is better but it's still impressive enough

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Thanks for the clip!
Very interesting, can't wait to see more!

It really has it own look, not film, not video...

[IAN SUN]

Just Imagine the 4K guys.

It was sweeet! OMFG!

[jbeale]

Thanks so much to Jim, Jarred, Peter Jackson and the whole crew for making this available to us! The video looks absolutely great at 1024x512. I wasn't at NAB, hard to imagine what 4k would look like. I'd be happy to host a copy of this file on my website if you'd like.

I see you list about 150 separate credits. They did this in two days of shooting? I am guessing very significant pre-planning must have gone into this shoot. All this must have been quite a shock for the Red team if they were just expecting to shoot test charts, as I understand they were from the NAB reports posted here.

Edit: at 0:24 when the sky shows at the bottom of the frame, just to the right of a vertical bayonet near the bottom edge of the frame, you can see an OOF dust spot. Maybe on the lens or the sensor. This is not a complaint, I only saw it on viewing #4 and I don't know how you'd avoid this with the dirt being flung around! On the plus side, a fixed dust spot is just one example of "fixed pattern noise" so I'd think it could be erased pretty easily in post these days, if you wanted to.

Jarred's server seems to be holding up ok, but here's a mirror if you need it. (Sorry I used a pre-existing parent directory name. It doesn't seem fair to refer to this beautiful piece of cinema as "video", it definitely doesn't look like video!)

http://www.bealecorner.com/video/RED/crossing1.mov

[GMCinema]

my poor little server :)

Coming in with a slow 105KB/Sec .....

[Craig Harding]

Just a small correction to the credits - one of the actors, Nathan Meister, his surname is spelled "Meister", not "Miester" as it appears in the credits shown here.

He's a friend of ours, and mentioned a "top secret" shoot he was on a few weeks back, he wasn't allowed to say anything about it. After the first day of NAB we speculated it was PJ's Red Shoot, but couldn't confirm with Nathan as he's in Oz on another job.

[Rune Hansen]

my poor little server :)

Here's a mirror: http://simplemente.net/crossing1.mov

Hammer away.

-rune

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just downloading it now... Will take about another 3 or 4 mintues, only getting 220KB/sec. Anyway, I can post a mirror after a bit, have to leave right now.

[Michael Ragen]

I'm only getting 30k/sec. Although I'm probably killing the coffee shops wi-fi.

[Mike Zinner]

The look of it is amazing. The motion rendering is absolutely perfect. The ones who saw something being wrong with the Milk-Girls clip should be silenced now.

[Fix]

Ok after playing it about 5 times I got to say.. me want more. But that is the way of all great things. It looks truly stunning on a HD projector (thumbs up). IM waiting for those higher-res clips :) push the envelope!

This is going to be a truly good era

[Sanjin Jukic]

Amazing 00:00:35.17/24fps. A Great Moment in History of Moving Images. With the RED we are now crossing the line between 35mm film and 4K digital acquisition. The history of moving images is just happening in front of your very eyes. Thanks to all, Peter, Jim, Neill, Carolyn, Jarred, Deanan, Jabez, etc...

[Charles Perkins]

here is another mirror:

http://www.runjumpfly.net/RED/crossing1.mov

it is still uploading though so give it about 20 minutes.

[schnauzer]

even so.. I like the milkgirls more! I'm not that fond of PJ's style.

[Simon Blackledge]

bravo...

not keen on the fake cam shake.. but really nice..

s

[Brian Kaz]

This looks great, fellas.

The "fake shake" is the only thing I didn't like, but hey, that's got nothing to do with the Red.

[Luke Boyce]

The thing is, it looks even brilliant at 1k!! It's just such a huge tease! I've watched it about 20 times now and at 20 seconds I just start to get into it every single time. It made me cry. Jim, Ted, Peter and the rest of the team, I don't honestly know if I can thank you enough. It feels like the beginning of the rest of my life!!

[Brian Kaz]

Oh, yeah...

Encore! Encore!

[Dave Cooper]

Can't wait to see more.

[Häakon]

That looks so flippin good. :-)

Anyone notice that it looks to be shot at pretty narrow apertures (the DOF is quite wide in this short). Certainly ND filters could have been used if they so chose to open up a bit more, though it probably would've made focus much more difficult in this kind of run-and-gun situation (and especially with no VF). I just found it interesting since being able to obtain shallow DOF is one element of the camera that the RED team is proud to promote.

Anyway, it looks awesome and I can't wait to get shooting with RED. Jarred, here's my mirror for you:

http://www.pixelquestfilms.com/crossing1.mov

All set and ready to go. :)

[Ivan G]

Fast download speed here!

[Jarred Land]

thanks for the mirror Haakon.

And as for the DOF.. just because you have it, doesnt mean you need to use it (or abuse it)

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Really looks great for 1k.
The general feeling is awesome and so is the motion look.
But it makes it obvious that overexposing is something to be avoided at all cost, especially clouds since the transition from bright to less bright parts may show some pink hue which is not that good looking.

Again, this is so good looking in general that it should be possible to expose for your brightest parts and still be able to recover your shadows in post.

Emmanuel

[Häakon]

And as for the DOF.. just because you have it, doesnt mean you need to use it (or abuse it)
Absolutely not. I totally understand the choice to shoot it this way and think it looks great! :-) I had just noticed it (in the 4K theater, actually) that they made the concious choice not to open up, even though that's one of the cool properties the RED ONE has over all the other 2/3" cams out there.

No problem about the mirror - anything I can do to help. :-)

[Fix]

It really has it own look, not film, not video...

Absolutely! And if you dirt it up in post you can match film in 2sec. No way you can shoot something that clean with 16mm or even 35mm IMO. Or wait, maybe if you tin can all negatives and carry them on gold plates, that would be cheap.

I agree to the fake shake in post though, not that splendent (with and Australian accent). But consider the time they use to make this movie its ok.

[Ronnie Silos]

Well, I just took the movie, loaded it in quicktime, exported it to AppleTV (720p), saw it on my 1080p Sony - with B&W 805 speaker setup. Even at this convertion, it looks amazing!!!! It hangs in there with all the million dollar previews. Wow!!!!

[Obin Olson]

I see rolling shutter "sheer" ...I sure hope that does not effect image tracking for VFX shooting....

looks like heavy sheer as the camera pans off the wheel in the first shot....how much sheer are you guys getting with a really fast pan?

[robbo]

"(with and Australian accent)"

Steady on, matey. That's a New Zealand accent.
Like me calling you Swedish. :-)

[Jarred Land]

But it makes it obvious that overexposing is something to be avoided at all cost, especially clouds since the transition from bright to less bright parts may show some pink hue which is not that good looking.

Again, this is so good looking in general that it should be possible to expose for your brightest parts and still be able to recover your shadows in post.

Emmanuel

the pink was added in post.. it was an effect, and can be seen throughout the movie.

The movie has less latitude than the original as well, being compressed into the quicktime. You can do a little test using the 4k JPG from red.com of the sword and compare the latitude to the last part of this movie.

[Thom Steinhoff]

Amazing. Simply amazing. Come on, admit it. How many of you have now watched it frame by frame? :whistling:

No grain for me. I love the look--why muddy it up? While we're at it we might was well remove all of the color, drop it to 15 FPS and back it up with out of tune piano music.

If video is water and film is mud then lets leave it Red as it is: a fine, smooth, Whisky.

[Shawn Bannon]

If you watch a lot of Peter Jacksons movies he loves wide angle lenses, he is pretty well know for the CU with wide angle lens. But maybe not to the extent of Terry Gilliam.

[zak forrest]

i love the film, that fake zoom shake is embarassing... the zoom part being the worst. i know its a total personal aesthetic choice etc.. took me right out of it. was less apparent on the big screen but still bothered me. hate to harp on something negative especially because it has nothing to do with the redcamera and this is a red forum... the movie is amazing.

Are there Peter Jackson production stills? Wheres the behind the scenes? Peter Jackson is all about those bts documentaries...

[Luke Boyce]

Good point. Will the Extended Version be out by Christmas?

[Jance Allen]

The sheer that obin mentioned is interesting - what is that? That wheel seems to warp its way out of frame if you step through the frames. Looks like lens distortion except for the timing of it. Interesting.

Footage looks amazing though! I was fortunate enough to see the 4k at NAB. Thanks, Red team!

[Yash Keough]

Good point. Will the Extended Version be out by Christmas?

Maybe we'll get an extra hour added on in the extended one! Making Crossing the Line the first RED feature!!! :biggrin: :bleh: haha

Don't get me wrong though. The LOTR extended editions rule! :D

Yash

[Fix]

"(with and Australian accent)"

Steady on, matey. That's a New Zealand accent.
Like me calling you Swedish. :-)


Hehe my bad m8. That was truly a New Zealand accent!
Hope I dident offend any other Austrailian by my geographical misterpent.

And by the way I love the Sweds, so go ahead and make my day :)

[Obin Olson]

Jance, it's an issue with CMOS chips. I was building a raw camera at one time and hit this "issue" what happens is that as the image sensor picks up the image it does so in scan lines if you will, from top to bottom of the imager, so what you get is an image that is recorded at time intervals, even though it is a VERY small amount of time you can see it when objects pass through the frame at high speeds. it's called image sheer in the cmos world and is created by a chip that is not "global" shutter but "rolling" shutter. I know that global shutters are hard to find, and have issues but I was afraid this was a rolling shutter chip and I now see it is. IF you run the chip at a VERY high MHZ this effect will lessen, but then you are outputting far to much data for any cpu to deal with, and I would take it that at 12 million pixels worth of data per frame RED can't run the MHZ any higher then it is. the only "issue" with this is that it may be really hard to motion track the footage as it pans ...we are not sure about this and tests need to be done. I hope it will be a non issue.
One potential problem will be shooting with high shutter speeds, the viewer will see the image "sheer" from left to right and right to left because the motion blur will not cover it up. I hope that is not an issue for the viewer of "shakycam" style high shutter speed shooting.

AWESOME looking footage though!

[Robert Jackson]

i love the film, that fake zoom shake is embarassing... the zoom part being the worst.

Yeah, when the demo was being played at NAB I was thinking, "WTF?" But then the fighting turns kind of semi-comedic with big wide-eyed reaction shots and stuff, so I kind of assumed that the almost cartoonish effect they used was kind of a wink to let you know people's intestines weren't going to come flying at the screen or whatever.

[Rune Hansen]

The sheer that obin mentioned is interesting - what is that? That wheel seems to warp its way out of frame if you step through the frames. Looks like lens distortion except for the timing of it. Interesting.

It's an artifact from having a rolling shutter as opposed to a global shutter. This is because the sensor does not read the image progressively, but rather line by line, as a slit scan. Each line can be ever so slightly offset in time, and this causes that particular type of artifact. If your mobile phone has a camera you can probably see this very clearly by panning the image around horizontally while in preview mode.

I've seen some work done on correcting this in postproduction. ( more info here: http://mpac.ee.ntu.edu.tw/Exhibition/rolling-shutter.php )

Cheers,

rune

[MattGibson]

Another mirror:
http://distro.radiantvista.com/crossing1.mov

Thanks for posting the clip Jarred!

[Miltos Pilalitos]

It looks like i am the only one who is not bothered by the explosion shakes. They are timed well and balanced. The shots would look less dramatic in my opinion without it.

I see that most of you hate it but i just had to express the different opinion.

Also, i believe that if the average Jo watches this short in the cinema not knowing anything about RED or Digital Cinema in general, would be 100% sure that this was the same kind of stuff he's been watching in film for years.

Even with the not so shallow DoF there is nothing videoish about this footage.

I love my camera! :love:

[Jance Allen]

Thanks for the explanations. Makes sense. That rolling shutter correction example is cool, although you'd use up your 4k for overscan to fill in the coverage. I can see some 3d tracking challenges ahead.

[Poi Boy]

I 100% agree Miltos.
-A

[Robert Sanders]

Unbelievably cool for a multitude of reasons. First, this camera just rocks. Second, Peter Jackson rocks.

Wow.

I have GOT to see more!

Thank you team RED!!!!

[Brainstorm]

Please can we see more Mr. Jannard! I think it looks fantastic!!!

[mikedelano]

That warping effect almost looks like it matches up with the focus pull, maybe ? This is some really amazing looking footage by the way, congratulations to everyone involved in this project, Ive gotta start saving up for this thing :)

[Álex Montoya]

I got nothing against shakes in posproduction, what annoys me a bit is that they are mixed with a little digital zoom, I guess to get some overscan to do the shake.

[Brian Kaz]

Finally got to see this with my projector and I must say, the camera shake doesn't look nearly as bad viewed on a large screen.

Also, the still with the plane everyone is arguing about in that other thread looks fantastic.

Anxiously awaiting more.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Everthing is great except the length of the footage :)
The picture is fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on that cam and play with Redcode.

As a technical thigny, personally I would do the shake with 50% less zooming, and adding a bit of motion blur, this way it looks a bit artificial IMHO, but that's just me and people will always find something they would have done differently. Excuse my nitpicking.

Great job, guys. Eagerly awaiting for more footage...maybe 1080p ?

[Jarred Land]

the shake is alot better in the theater with a very large low frequency speaker rattling the seats, how it was meant to be seen. It literally is supposed to make you want to hit the floor, and watching it on a computer screen with little speakers in a little window doesnt do it justice...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I don't dislike the camera shake as much as some, but I'm not sure if I really like it either. Hmmm...

To repeat what has been said, it looks great.

Another mirror: http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov (http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov)

[Alex Boothby]

That digital camera shake is terrible and therefore I'm not buying the camera. Also the fonts used on the opening credit are crap - they don't even match. And seriously... what's with that guys teeth?!?! Everyone associated with Red should be ashamed. Jannard sucks.

[Poi Boy]

I guess you are right..cancel my order..
-A

[Tom Lowe]

It looks like there are enough mirrors up, but if you need another, PM me Jarred and I'll put it up right away.

[DEXTERG]

Boothba you sure,
I'd love to have your Red #478 if Mr. Jannard would allow.

[Gregory Karydis]

Here's another mirror

http://www.3dspark.com/RED_One/crossing1.mov

Download speed should be limited by your bandwidth.
Can't verify that but the maximum my bandwidth allows for about 500k/s and that's what I got from the server.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Beautiful! Wow!

[wshultz]

Please sir, I want some more...

I think the shake enhances. I wouldn't have thought a thing about it if someone hadn't pointed it out. Must be because I was instantly pulled in the story.

Amazing that this will only get better. It will be MINE. Oh yes...It WILL BE mine!


(disclaimer: soldiers, guns, cannon, and planes not included. Music is not done in camera. Some restrictions apply)

[Jon Howe]

It's on my University's server. It should be fast. So get it while it lasts.

http://www.et.byu.edu/~canasian/films/crossing1.mov

Canasian

[casey warren]

That footage looks exceptional. I've downloaded all the stills, they look great as well. Cant wait to see the full movie in 4K (hopefully at a Seattle theater....maybe....)

[Ace]

Wow! Thanks so much for posting this.. Im really proud of how this turned out, really wonderful!

[Rich lee]

The camera seems like it will deliver in terms of resolution and latitude.

Although, I wish there were different version of the same scene...done with a variety of color corrections to help show of how deep you can dig into the exposures.

In terms of the footage/clip itself...it seems ok...the color correction seems flat.

The post handheld is not good and i find it distracting. I am totally into hand held being done in post as long as it looks good.

Im curious to see some scenes that use some faster lenses.

Im excited to play with the camera.

[Brook Willard]

That scene gives me chills...

[Ace]

Totally. And thankgod Universal let the music stay in!

[Nik Manning]

Don't take this the wrong way but it looked normal. It looks like what I expect a movie about this era to look like. It looks like a HD trailer from Apple.com. That is an amazing feet honestly it looks like ------ a 35mm film shot by Peter Jackson.
I guess that is saying something. What Lens was used? Was this shot using the red codec that you can record 3 hours straight to one hardrive?

[Brook Willard]

Nik, your questions have been answered extensively in other threads. That said...

Cooke S4s and Angenieux Primo zooms were the lenses. Yes, it was shot with REDCODE RAW to a RED DRIVE.

[Craig Ryan]

That gave me a much better idea of what the film must have been like more than the 4k stills did.

I admit at first I noticed the first Shake and thought it seemed off, but the rest of them blended right in and were completely natural. After watching it over and over I cranked my speakers; it's nice to have a 5.1 Klipsch THX setup for this kind of thing. IMO actually seeing and hearing the footage for the first time really gives me a tip of the ice berg of what the experience must have been like. I need to see this in 4k though for sure! Thanks for posting!

[Jaime Vallés]

Looks great! Very cinematic! Can't wait to see more footage.

Any idea when there will be a 4K screening in New York City?

[sander kamp]

Looks good to me.

One reason the shakes look bad is that they have no motion blur at all.

[Craig Bowman]

Thanks for posting that Jarred. I have never been able to see any of the Red 4K screenings just the grabs and all of the downsampled clips, but they still look @#$% great. What is going to be even more thrilling for me is the first footage from Red that I will actually get to see in 4k will be my own!!

[hungry]

very exciting! that bit looks really GREAT!

sorry if this has been asked a million times...but are you guys ever planning on releasing the whole thing? or release the full-res version?

i have an amazon S3 hosting account that does free bittorrent...which would makes bandwidth a non-issue...i'd be happy to host it or PM me and i can tell your guys how to set it up...it's really easy.

also, any way we might be able to get a few RAW frames to check out as well?

very...very...exciting.
-hungry

[Andreas Fernbrant]

It's amazing. Really nice work guys!

I'd love to the it all in 2K!

[hungry]

torrent mirror
http://superhungry.com/crossing1.mov.torrent

[Steven M. Bailey]

I live in the mountains and only get dial-up
this thing is going to eat all my bandwidth for 12-14 hours
I can't wait

[PaulClements]

I live in the mountains and only get dial-up
this thing is going to eat all my bandwidth for 12-14 hours
I can't wait

At least you have a nice view to look out too :)

[MikeHedge]

@Jarred Why is there a TELECINE credit in the credits?

[Jarred Land]

@Jarred Why is there a TELECINE credit in the credits?

gotta give the telecine guy some love you know...

[iSpork]

Here's another (nice and fast) mirror for you :)

http://rapidshare.com/files/27645774/crossing1.mov

[Direwolf]

ooooooooh

Just got to 100% and had three customers walk into my shop. I made them all wait while i watched it four times with headphones on. I'm so gonna loose my job.....

Gotta love the exchange rate - RED is only gonna cost me 16K with the zoom and all the add-ons i need! That's why they call it GREAT Britain.

David M Reynolds

Realm Pictures

[Stephen Gentle]

Thanks guys, you rock!

A lot more people worked on this than I thought!

[zzz]

Hello. For a european mirror you can try this one: http://zzz.ch/crossing1.mov Cheers ;) z

[WesVasher]

There's a certain reality in this footage that I don't feel even in film. It looks good, I'm sure the 4K projection would have been scary good. It's like you are actually there. Of course there isn't an obnoxious grade on it either.

[Zk2007]

The footage looks fantastic. 4k is really going to be something.
But is anybody going to post something about the sheer pointed by Obin and others?

[Fix]

There's a certain reality in this footage that I don't feel even in film. It looks good, I'm sure the 4K projection would have been scary good. It's like you are actually there. Of course there isn't an obnoxious grade on it either.

Ahh the new era of film making Ill say. Collateral, Michael Mann's Vipercam heavy movie was something like it. The big difference is that Collateral screams digital video while this footage of red is something totally different and something new. Love the look. Im pretty sure you can "fake" the look of most movies out there with this camera. If you have the skills that is.

[WesVasher]

Ahh the new era of film making Ill say. Collateral, Michael Mann's Vipercam heavy movie was something like it. The big difference is that Collateral screams digital video while this footage of red is something totally different and something new. Love the look. Im pretty sure you can "fake" the look of most movies out there with this camera. If you have the skills that is.

I loved Collateral and the HD didn't bother me one bit (the story distracted me) so a 4K aquired Mann film would be pretty sweet I think.

[Fix]

so a 4K aquired Mann film would be pretty sweet I think.

That I truly agree to. I was quite sad when Mann went to the digital world, Thats because I love the 35mm analog look and I dont think Viper can stand up to it. Than again I strongly belive Red will do a much better job. Only after whatching the stills and the footage by now im quite sure of it. I know bold statement. :matrix:

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Collateral, Michael Mann's Vipercam heavy movie was something like it. The big difference is that Collateral screams digital video while this footage of red is something totally different and something new. Love the look.

Viper was only one of four cameras used in Collateral and it wasn't used as much as you believe. I think what screams video in Collateral might me the use of the F900 Cinealta.

[calypse]

here is another mirror located in Italy (maybe faster for europeans)

http://www.dominiox.com/red/crossing1.mov

[Euripedes]

Astounding footage! I feel vindicated in tying up the line for nearly an hour to watch 23 seconds of moving pictures.

I agree the shake is wrong, but I think I know why. Back in the 80s I had the rare privilege to shoot events at the Canadian Army Trophy held in Germany. This is a tanker competition, with the main guns going off all the time, and even from a distance you felt the cuncussion. Our camera (an old Ikegami, used primarily for ENG work) was firmly mounted on a tripod, and sandbagged for stability. Even so, it jumped every time the guns went off.

Motion blur was missing, as has been noted earlier, but the angle of the shake was wrong. On hand held footage (we had a lot of this) the camera jumps up and down, it does not zoom in and out (at least not much) like was shown in the PJ short.

Another missing element is that the actors should react to a near impact. Concusive force pushes the players off the ground slightly, and then they recover their equilibrium. I know this from bitter experience; while sitting in a concrete bunker while a remotely detonated 50 lbs shell was set off (about 150 meters away), and I lost my footing. I can only imagine what the trenches at Verdun where like, but the men in the trenches must have been falling all over themselves due the ground's constant bombardment.

Even if we cannot articulate it, we can look at the footage an know some element is missing in these hastily added post effects. The audience at large would probably never notice it, but here we have a forum of DPs and Videographers which get paid well for having a fine attention to detail.

Personally, for the time PJ was alloted for this little project, I think he and his team did an outstanding job. As a "proof of concept" it soars beyond my wildest dreams. Red has raised the bar in digital cinema; everyone else has to catch up, and they have a long way to go. This camera is going to define a whole generation of movie making, and redefine the expected level of quality.

I welcome this future. It is truely going to be amazing.

Bob

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Dang, I knew this was going to happen....I leave AGAIN from the computer and this goes up. Downloading now. I need to be on reduser every second now. There's always something new coming out.

[marcusgfunk]

Wow great footage, but where the heck is the rest???
Why are there not more videoclips of other stuff considering
the camera is coming out soon?

As to the camera shake...does it really matter?!?!

[Gregory Karydis]

Camera shake was added in post. Some argue it's unnecessary, that's all.

More footage to come.
But RED doesn't need much footage to convince peope or companies to take the plunge.

[RocketDigitalPro]

so last night I'm all trying to look at the details in the stills posted from the PJ footage. And I was all like WOW! Then this morning Gizmodo informs me that I haven't been paying enough attention to REDuser.net because THE PJ footage is up! OMG it looks flipping incredible. I can't wait to get my grimy hands all over one of these. I am dying to see the full show, torrent, stream I don't care but get it out soon please?

[planet e]

thank you so much for the clip. it's outstanding. i know everybody gets all worked up over shallow DOF, but what stood out for me, personally was the amazing deep focus on that shot in the trenches. phenomenal! move over, Citizen Kane! this is really exciting. i can't believe the clarity of the deep focus shot. it's fantastic, really.

i just wish peter jackson would find a new subject. LOTR had enough war in it to last the rest of his career. how about revisiting some different subject matter? one of my all-time favorite films ever is his early mockumentary, FORGOTTEN SILVER. loved it loved it loved it. how about another film about film? using RED for a film about film would be a fitting and loving tribute to both media in PJ's hands.....

still and all, i guess this footage really does a good job of showcasing what RED can do, puts it through its paces nicely.

[JSCravalho]

thats friggen sweet.

I think that the camera shake and impact effect are cool. its a good demonstration of what you can do in post without any adverse effect to the quality of the picture.

[Corrado Silveri]

Many many many many thanks to all the Red Team..

[Kevin Lang]

Man I wish they would just post the damn thing instead of this tease they always like to do!

[Shawn Bannon]

Awesome footage. Glad to see it in motion, showed it to a bunch of colleagues and they all loved it. No worries here!

[Kjetil Haugen]

Speechless!!! Jim and team! You had me at hello!

[Paul Hazlett]

I dont believe this clip should be viewed as anything else than a small
glimpse at what the camera has to offer. Any kind of critique of the cinematic
technique belongs somewhere else IMO.

[Weston Ford]

I think it looks good...but whats the deal then with the artifacts and the non global shutter and whatnot. What does that mean...

Everything shot with the red camera will or might do this?

[Zk2007]

I think it looks good...but whats the deal then with the artifacts and the non global shutter and whatnot. What does that mean...

Everything shot with the red camera will or might do this?

That's what I'm thinking. Even thought this is test footage, unless they replace the sensor with a global shutter sensor, it seems we will always have this shear problem. Once I saw the problem on the P.J. clip I remembered I have a friend who has a CMOS camera and it has the rolling shutter. I met with him yesterday and we shot some tests to try to produced the shear “defeact”. It was quite easy to produce it. If you pan, unless you do it extremely slow, it's there and it’s not hard to see it. Also, if things cross the frame in a fast fashion, it produces the shear too. Now I'm not comparing a consumer camera to the RED ONE, not at all. But a rolling shutter sensor is a rolling shutter sensor and they all behave the same when it comes to shear.
However I trust the RED team. Let's see what they do. But I'm pretty sure they can't completely eliminate it without replacing the sensor, which this late on the game I don't think they will. It seems it will be a limitation of the camera that users will have to learn how to work with and shoot around it. The sad thing is that this will become just one more thing for the film guys to pick on. Even if the camera seems to be “perfect” otherwise (at least it seems perfect to me). Wait till the people from that other site (you know the one) finds out about this shear.

[Zane Roach]

The sad thing is that this will become just one more thing for the film guys to pick on. Even if the camera seems to be “perfect” otherwise (at least it seems perfect to me). Wait till the people from that other site (you know the one) finds out about this shear.

I don't think this artifact is one that the film guys can pick on. The mechanical shutter in a film camera tears (shears) the image, visible in panning shots is you freeze frame and probably affecting the look of the motion slightly.

So the CMOS sensor in Red has an artifact that makes it look like film? Damn!

I know it can make some visual fx work tricky, but seriously the Red examples being posted lately are under more scrutiny than people put on 35mm film! :blink:

[Joe Vinson]

Beautiful footage! I can understand why some people don't like "the shake," but the thing that distracted me was the uncentered title at the beginning. (My graphic designer roots are showing.)

I'd love to see P.J. make a feature with the RED. What are the Braindead/Dead-Alive folks up to these days? Me gusta Paquita!

[Álex Montoya]

He expressed that he wanted to do a cheapo feature again, a la Braindead. The RED would be the perfect tool for that, that's for sure.

[garageman]

He expressed that he wanted to do a cheapo feature again, a la Braindead. The RED would be the perfect tool for that, that's for sure.

...are you suggesting the RED is cheap?:clown2:

[Zk2007]

I don't think this artifact is one that the film guys can pick on. The mechanical shutter in a film camera tears (shears) the image, visible in panning shots is you freeze frame and probably affecting the look of the motion slightly.

So the CMOS sensor in Red has an artifact that makes it look like film? Damn!



The effect is not really the same though.

[Álex Montoya]

Well, yeah, compared to 35mm workflow I can't imagine a better adjective than CHEAP

[Zane Roach]

The effect is not really the same though.

You may be right. We don't have Red cameras to test yet.

The posted footage looks good to me. I did some freeze framing and couldn't really find any tearing. For me, it's really a "who cares?" artifact. Especially as it will go unnoticed by anyone not freeze framing the clip to look for it. Sorry visual fx guys, but wanted to post because I think its coming across as a bigger problem than it is.

Footage looks great = no probs.

[Zane Roach]

He expressed that he wanted to do a cheapo feature again, a la Braindead.

I still think that's his best film. :biggrin:

[Nick Shaw]

How about Bad Taste? To me that's DIY film-making of the finest kind. If you watch the making of on the DVD and see how much effort PJ went to, pretty much entirely on his own, it's quite astonishing. It made me realize how lame my amateur film projects at the time were, and inspired me to get into the industry.

[Zane Roach]

Good taste made Bad taste. I've watched that making of many times. It's great because it was made not long after Bad Taste, so its not about Peter Jackson, the guy who made the Lord of the Rings and Kong... It's about Peter Jackson, the guy who made Bad Taste!

He took a gamble, spent four years shooting, a lot of his own money on a movie with wooden machine guns and wooden acting... Who'd have guessed it would pay off?

Zane
(quits day job and starts carving wooden machine gun)

[Weston Ford]

I don't think this artifact is one that the film guys can pick on. The mechanical shutter in a film camera tears (shears) the image, visible in panning shots is you freeze frame and probably affecting the look of the motion slightly.

So the CMOS sensor in Red has an artifact that makes it look like film? Damn!

I know it can make some visual fx work tricky, but seriously the Red examples being posted lately are under more scrutiny than people put on 35mm film! :blink:

i can't imagine how anyone would find this shear thing acceptable. I've never even seen it before in a film...so I don't see how it can be called film-like.

And i'm not a celluoid lover at all. I really think digital is the way....thats why this worries me.

[Zane Roach]

i can't imagine how anyone would find this shear thing acceptable. I've never even seen it before in a film...so I don't see how it can be called film-like.

And i'm not a celluoid lover at all. I really think digital is the way....thats why this worries me.

Okay, I had another look at the clip and can spot it on straight vertical objects during pans. I have seen tearing in films, but only when freeze framing and looking for it. It may be more pronounced here, so I'll quiet down on the topic.

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

This rolling shutter discussion is interesting, as is the posted clip, because i cant recall seeing this artifact when I saw the movie projected at NAB. I spent much of the screening leaning and squinting at the screen looking for imperfections, especially cmos-related ones (banding noise, rolling shutter artifacts, dynamic range limitations, etc.) Perhaps it was partly difficult to notice because of the fake camera shake (which if it were real might result in vertical compression or horizontal wobble because of the rolling shutter). I definitely noticed the banding noise in one of the shots, but it was later mentioned that that shot may have been pushed 3-4 stops in post.
I'm not sure what to think. Did anyone else notice this effect in the screening?

Unfortunately, what worries me is that RED hasnt come out and said "yes we have a great sensor that captures very true images without any distortion or artifacts" they only say something like "just trust us, it will *look* great, it wont necessarily look like film or like cmos with rolling shutter" i appreciate the need for secrecy, but its tough to make purchasing decisions and it's tough for those who already put down money when simple things like this arent addressed directly, especially for those of us in VFX...

[Joe Vinson]

I remember the Bad Taste making-of doc. Didn't P.J. make his own steadicam from scratch? Amazing guy!

[garageman]

It was more a "stabiliser" not a steadicam, big difference.

[Robert Jackson]

It was more a "stabiliser" not a steadicam, big difference.

Heh...wasn't it some kind of screen door hinge or something? I seem to remember it actually looking more like something he associated with a Steadicam than actually being a functional device.

[Steve Connor]

This rolling shutter discussion is interesting, as is the posted clip, because i cant recall seeing this artifact when I saw the movie projected at NAB. I spent much of the screening leaning and squinting at the screen looking for imperfections, especially cmos-related ones (banding noise, rolling shutter artifacts, dynamic range limitations, etc.) Perhaps it was partly difficult to notice because of the fake camera shake (which if it were real might result in vertical compression or horizontal wobble because of the rolling shutter).

From what I can gather no-one spotted it, so If no-one saw it on a projected 4K Film then how come it's been spotted on a compressed for the web clip? Does common sense not say it's in the web encode that the problem lies.

[garageman]

From what I can gather no-one spotted it, so If no-one saw it on a projected 4K Film then how come it's been spotted on a compressed for the web clip? Does common sense not say it's in the web encode that the problem lies.


..because people weren't going through the 4K clip frame by frame like they could at home with the 1K. A codec wouldn't cause this characteristic, it doesn't bother me too much anyway.

[Simon Blackledge]

As long as you can track, auto or by eye.. something centre frame on a pan, and you know the rate of distortion it should be possible to get a warper to match composited elements. Slower less, faster more. Not an easy task but very doable compared to some tricks plugin makers are doing these days.

Actually you could rebuild the pan to take the distortion out from previous frames.

Lots of "yeah but's.." like you have to start a pan so you get the plates/frames .. need to film more to one side to begin with etc... but just a thought. There's always options...

s

[Zk2007]

From what I can gather no-one spotted it, so If no-one saw it on a projected 4K Film then how come it's been spotted on a compressed for the web clip? Does common sense not say it's in the web encode that the problem lies.

So why RED doesn't come out and put this all to rest and say there's no problem with the real footage and it' being cause by the compression? I would love to hear that.


As long as you can track, auto or by eye.. something centre frame on a pan, and you know the rate of distortion it should be possible to get a warper to match composited elements. Slower less, faster more. Not an easy task but very doable compared to some tricks plugin makers are doing these days.

Actually you could rebuild the pan to take the distortion out from previous frames.

Lots of "yeah but's.." like you have to start a pan so you get the plates/frames .. need to film more to one side to begin with etc... but just a thought. There's always options...

s

Yeah but we are talking about painful workarounds and I was hoping workarounds wouldn’t be in RED’s dictionary. I was hoping it would just work. We have been going through workarounds for years with the low end stuff.
I just wonder the reason they designed the sensor that way. A global shutter is undoable at this size and or pixel count or what’s the reason?

[Robert Jackson]

So why RED doesn't come out and put this all to rest and say there's no problem with the real footage and it' being cause by the compression? I would love to hear that.

Would you? Cause that isn't an artifact that can be caused by any kind of compression I've ever seen. It's pretty easy to fix something like that, though. Calm down. It's not the end of the world. I'm sure the RED team are checking out the sensor thoroughly so they can make an authoritative statement on the issue when they break the silence.

[jbeale]

about the motion shear; remember that any motion picture film camera that has a physically moving or rotating shutter (I think that's all of them) has essentially the same behavior. So it's not a "new" problem. It's pretty much just the same behavior as we've always had, although it is actually easier to fix the Red-type shear in post, than the more complex behavior of a rotating shutter as used in 16mm or 35mm cameras.

[Álex Montoya]

That's a frame grab of the 1920*816 trailer of Bourne Ultimatum.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/2928/thebourneultimatumteasegf2.th.jpg (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thebourneultimatumteasegf2.jpg)

Jus in case anyone is losing perspective here.

[Ace]

Concrete,

That says it all.

And thats probably downsampled too..

[Frank Jonen]

shutter or not, could these effects stem from the lens as well?

[Robert Jackson]

shutter or not, could these effects stem from the lens as well?

Nope.

[Jason Rodriguez]

I just wonder the reason they designed the sensor that way. A global shutter is undoable at this size and or pixel count or what’s the reason?

A FIT or IT CCD which we're all used to, has the read-out column next to the pixel, so it's only a one-pixel transfer to a light-blocked "storage" area, and the charge can be transfered globally to this pixel storage area, allowing the pixel to reset and start integration again on a global scale. While integration is happening on the now globally reset active pixels, the storage areas are emptied and read-out. So basically read-out and integration can happen at the same time because of the storage area on a FIT or IT CCD. Other CCD architectures that do not have the storage area on-chip, like Frame-Transfer and Full-Frame require shutters to shield the imager as the pixels are read-out (or else you end up with really bad smearing).

CMOS architectures are a lot different than a FIT CCD. The most common CMOS architecture is a 3-transistor APS architecture (3T), and there is no capacity in this design for a "storage pool" like an IT or FIT CCD has. Therefore a pixel value cannot be integrating and read out at the same time. Instead, in a 3T design, a row must be read out, reset, and then it can begin integrating again. This happens on a row-by-row basis all the way down the chip, hence the "rolling shutter". The rolling shutter "skew" results because the top and bottom line of the chip are starting integration on a given frame too far apart. For instance, if the last row of the chip is reset and begins integrating 1/60th of a second after the first row of the chip, then there is not a lot of skew, because objects at the top of the frame are only going to be offset by 1/60th of a second. If it takes 1/24th of a second to scan from top to bottom of the chip, then the skew will be much greater because any moving objects at the top of the frame are offset 1/24th of a second in time from objects at the bottom of the frame . . . hence the "skew".

Global shutters are possible with CMOS designs, but they require more transistors per pixel. For instance, Fill Factory and Micron make 4T and 6T pixel designs which are commonly used in those high-speed cameras. The extra transistors allow for a temporary storage pool so that the pixel can offload it's charge and begin integrating again, while the storage pool is read-out . . . similar to the FIT CCD. The problem with 6T designs is that they take up more area on chip (transistors have size), so for a given pixel size your sensitivity is reduced as light senstive area is reduced and taken up by more transistors, and every transistor in a pixel adds noise and fixed pattern noise to the image . . . so you get reduced dynamic range. So in the end it could theoretically be done, but not at the same image quality.

Now of course more transistors does not necessarily mean reduced image quality . . . i.e., a 4T pixel is not necessarily worse than a 3T pixel depending on what you are using the extra transistor to-do. But in general, increasing the number of transistors on a pixel (and for a global shutter you typically need around 5-6 transistors) adds noise (especially fixed pattern noise), and reduces dynamic range, unless you enlarge the pixel allowing for a larger well capacity which increase the amount of electrons the pixel can gather . . . if you look at some of the global shutter sensors on the market, you'll see they have pixel sizes at 12um and larger.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Lots of "yeah but's.." like you have to start a pan so you get the plates/frames .. need to film more to one side to begin with etc... but just a thought. There's always options...


Yeah but... you're assuming a static scene which is highly improbable. Someone walking through frame will experience the same distortion but you would need to isolate the walker. Rebuild a clean plate. Figure out exactly what the velocity of each pixel was and figure out whether the knee should have been one line higher etc and on and on and on.

I think people are just going to need to learn to live with it. Fancy correction plugins could be used if you need to correct the static elements for camera tracking (I suppose you're already rotoing out people in an auto 3d track anyway). But I doubt your finished product will be corrected for the effect.

[david farland]

Thanks very much for that Jason...excellent description

Bringing up the old HDR chestnut there was talk of using pairs of frames for HDR. I think Stuart English said it could be done whilst RED was controlled by laptop.
Say the frame rate is 30fps. First frames may expose at 1/1000 sec at the end of it's frame and then at the beginning of the second frame, it exposes at 1/100 sec. Now forgetting for a moment how you 'combine' these frames, do you see any problem regarding the sensor characteristics of these two 'takes', i.e pixel well/other transistors i/o tranfer characteristics which may prevent this HDR approach from being feasible?

Also I read a bunch of hardware techniques for getting HDR out of a sensors which involved sampling at different cmos/ccd bias levels. didn't read much into it. don't know if RED could do this with firmware change?

Cheers,

[Zk2007]

Yeah but... you're assuming a static scene which is highly improbable. Someone walking through frame will experience the same distortion but you would need to isolate the walker. Rebuild a clean plate. Figure out exactly what the velocity of each pixel was and figure out whether the knee should have been one line higher etc and on and on and on.

I think people are just going to need to learn to live with it. Fancy correction plugins could be used if you need to correct the static elements for camera tracking (I suppose you're already rotoing out people in an auto 3d track anyway). But I doubt your finished product will be corrected for the effect.


I see all this headache being something that will seriously concern producers and DOPs of FX heavy movies and make them not choose RED for their project, specially big budget Hollywood movies where they can just shoot film or used a CCD camera for fx like they have been doing. I doubt they would make their lives harder if they can afford anything. The ones who will have to learn how to live with it are just poor suckers who can't afford anything else, like myself.
Well, it seems there are still place for cameras like the Viper in the market and the Genesis may still be the best option for FX heavy movies because it has a CCD and it's a 12.4MP one. Although it is limited to the 1080p from the HDCAM SR it can go up if another recording system is developed. But even down sampling to 1080p it still looks much sharper than the plain 1080p stuff from the F900 or F950 because the detail of the 12.4MP 35mm sized sensor is still there.
And I thought Sony’s release of the F23 was way too late in the game. I can see now where it will have it’s application. It’s a CCD camera too.

[Robert Jackson]

The ones who will have to learn how to live with it are just poor suckers who can't afford anything else, like myself.

Yeah, having to make due with the RED will be a burden that's almost too much for you to bear.

[peter koller]

Hi guys,

it has not directly to do with the Red, but does anyone have an idea what's the focal length of the lens Peter Jackson is using most of the time? He frequently uses a certain focal length in his movies and also in "Crossing the line", but I can't figure out what it is.

Anyone knows what his favorite length is?

Cheers, Peter

[Zk2007]

Yeah, having to make due with the RED will be a burden that's almost too much for you to bear.

You completely misunderstood the point of my post. I was just pointing out that if this limitation indeed makes into the production models that it could be a reason for fx heavy productions avoid using RED. Not sure why your turned it into a whole " RED is not good enough" post. That's not what I said at all. Don't be so sensitive.
I think RED is a great advance and has surely raised the bar. I’m very happy to be able to get that level of quality for such a low price. But that doesn’t mean I will turn a blind eye to any limitations that may surface.

[Jannard]

I see all this headache being something that will seriously concern producers and DOPs of FX heavy movies and make them not choose RED for their project, specially big budget Hollywood movies where they can just shoot film or used a CCD camera for fx like they have been doing.

Timur and his cinematographer have chosen RED for VFX shots. And "Wanted" is considered a big budget Hollywood film. Again... you are making assumptions based on footage you are seeing from an Alpha prototype.

Jim

[Daniel Reichenbach]

This are great news Jim, congratulations....

[cyllon]

I am new here and basicly dont understand any of the jargon. So i will ask like i am movie impared. What is special about this clip. I have read every post. I have to admitt i dont understand most. But i would love to know what makes it special. I cant see that it is a very clear immage. Is the clip special cause of the cameras used or what? I am sorry if i offend anyone, i just dont know what the fuss is about. Chop it up to ignorance and not rude. I am very interested in understanding the clip. I think one post even said that a normal joe would not be able to see it, well here i am. LOL PLease educated the uneducated.

[Steve Connor]

Timur and his cinematographer have chosen RED for VFX shots. And "Wanted" is considered a big budget Hollywood film. Again... you are making assumptions based on footage you are seeing from an Alpha prototype.

Jim

This whole thread has demonstrated that it's a good idea to not post the rest of the footage, can you imagine Sony releasing footage from an Alpha prototype?

Some 4k frame grabs would be nice though :)

[Jannard]

Steve... you are reading my mind.

Jim

[Álex Montoya]

Steve... you are reading my mind.

Jim

Regarding the grabs?

[Andrew M.]

The most common CMOS architecture which the Mysterium is currently using, is a 3-transistor APS architecture (3T.

Are you presuming that Misterium is 3T design or someone mentioned somewhere that Misterium is in fact 3T design?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Steve... you are reading my mind.

Jim

As much as I'd love to see the short in its entirety, it may be best to not post it at this time. Also I have to agree with Steve's other statement... Some 4K frame grabs would be excellent. 16bit TIFF or DPX or some such format...

But then again, we would still be looking at images with potential issues from a pre-release camera.

[Adrian T.]

As much I'd like to see the whole PJ short, it's probably best not to post it now because of all those naysayers and nitpickers who don't know anything about the process of an engineering project.

But I really hope that you will release it sometime in the future, maybe after the first cams have been shipped.

[Brandon Rice]

As much techy talk that has been posted here, I just want to say I've watched the clip many times, and from my objective opinion this is a very clean image, almost too clean compared to film, but then again, I honestly don't think the public is going to care... look at Blair Witch, it made millions, and it was shot on a home video camera! I think the bottom line is the story, and the media blitz. Either way, Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job on this short, and I look forward to seeing it in it's entirety!! :)

[Rob Lohman]

Are you presuming that Misterium is 3T design or someone mentioned somewhere that Misterium is in fact 3T design?

Jason has not seen the Mysterium sensor design. So he (nor I) know what it is.

[Andrew M.]

So this is how rumors are created.

Here is another rumor:
CMOS could be 6T and more without loosing any coverage of the surface when using multi layer technology. So the sensor is all on top covering almost 100% of the surface and transistors are underneath.
See attached. Maybe Misterium is like that?

[Steve Connor]

I know the RED Team have been open with us but...........

[Ace]

Yeah, like, its not called Mysterium for nothing and all..

[Brook Willard]

Mysterium is actually magic. That's why they're playing it so close to the vest. They discovered and empirically proven the existence of magic.

I’ve said too much already…

[Jason Rodriguez]

Are you presuming that Misterium is 3T design or someone mentioned somewhere that Misterium is in fact 3T design?


Jason has not seen the Mysterium sensor design. So he (nor I) know what it is.

My apologies to the RED team, I'm not trying to spread FUD . . . someone asked why you just can't make a sensor with a global shutter if it wasn't designed with one in the first place, but explaining that the Mysterium was based on a 3T pixel design (which typically requires some form of rolling shutter since you can't read-out and integrate at the same time) was not the best idea since I was not privy to that information . . . I falsely based this assumption of the Mysterium design on the fact that people were commenting on rolling shutter in the PJ video, and rolling shutters are typically intrinsic to 3T designs.

I'm actually going to go back and see if I can edit that post so that it doesn't turn into a rumor . . .

Again, my apologies . . .

[Koa M. Stone]

Seeing what's already been done with other "hd cams," looks pretty damn good to me :)

~Koa

[mtnz]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

[Steve Connor]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Well I think you actually summed up the main advantages quite well there!

[Steve Gibby]

Ho hum...another 1st post troll...

[Robert Jackson]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away.

Really? So you have access to a lot of cameras that can provide similar results?

This kind of stuff is almost comical. Now we've got a wave of people posting stuff like, "Well, if you're strictly limited by budget I suppose you can get by using a RED." That's the new spin, apparently. Gotta find some way to equate its low cost with low quality.

[Andrew M.]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Did you see past stills?

So if it is not better than film then you should buy a better reference screen to look at it.
You can always spend 6.5K on high speed port and get RAW RAW data out of RED and it will look like any other 12PM shot frame by frame. Hay!! You can even apply your own deBayer algorithm to make it perfect.
BTW What reference monitor do you have there?

[gcaussade]

Hmmm, I'm a bit surprised by that comment. OK, "different than film", I can understand, and someone can easily argue that if you have the money, you could use both, and also that there is a place for film...

But to say that without giving the RED credit for price/performance is misleading IMHO.

And, I'm curious to see over the next few years (month!) what kind of post-processing will be available to be able to do a lot more with the RED output!

Man, I guess someone could invent a teleportation device, and some people would complain that you'd miss seeing all the sights while moving from place to place, while completely missing the point of the technology!

(Does the RED do teleportation? :biggrin: )


-Jerry

[Brook Willard]

No need to get too upset about mtnz's post, guys... he's entitled to his opinion just as we are. He was respectful and presented his opinion as he saw it.

[wshultz]

Actually a dramatic interior would be much easier to produce than making the harsh New Zealand sun look good.

[James T Mather]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Interesting that this is your first post though mr, Mtnz.

[Kenn Christenson]

Maybe mtnz is the Noms de Web of one of those fun Cinematography. com contributers. This bashing seems a little too conveenient.

[Brook Willard]

Guys... it's reactions like this that cause problems. If you don't agree with him, fine, that's cool. There's no need to call him a troll or make any negative assumptions about him. Let's stay cool... :)

[david farland]

I wouldn't read too much into mtnz's guys.
Okay he came across at bit ill informed and 'young' to what's happening but he shouldn't be bashed for that.
What I'm trying to say is his opinion (trying not to look too much behind his comments) was within the range of reasonable public comment.

Okay he strolled into the wrong neighbourhood to say it.

We've got to keep some perspective on how others may look at it and not just discount these comments as subversive!

as brook said, he simply said respectively what he saw.

thanks,

[I Bloom]

My favorite Island in the Bahamas is Eleuthera and they have a great slogan "Eluethera it's not for everyone". Not everyone is going to see the advantages of this camera or what's good about this footage. I think there are enough smart people who have been studying this problem (how to shoot movies digitally) for a long enough time that all you had to say was that RED has a single Bayer pattern chip, Super 35mm in size, more than 11 stops DR and it compresses with Wavelet transform prior to demosaicing, and the people who know what's up are going to say holy shizzle, FINALLY. Likewise people who look at this quicktime and poke holes in it are missing the point, that the camera I just described went into the field and successfully completed a film.

Its just a fact of life that when you put yourself out there some people are going to find fault, that's true in every part of life, and especially in the film industry. I say put it out there. People who judge this film like its a camera test, don't get it. People who expect RED to be perfect from the get go are also missing what it seems to me is the spirit of the company.

So Jim I hope you go ahead and just put it out there, show those of us that couldn't go to NAB, just exactly what you guys were able to accomplish.

In the mean time here is my suggestion for a RED theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMFj0sWpIAI

Don't you see the big chain
Don't you see the big rims
Wonder who they hatin' on lately
Baby it's him candy paint,
Gator skin seats call me Dun Dee
Pull up in your hood I'm the one that you wanna be
Haters wish they could feel the wood in my '83
Ridin' with no tint so the motherf*!@$%$#s know it's me

Jus bought a [Red]...THROW SOME D'S ON THAT [camera]!

IB

[RocketDigitalPro]

I personally thought it looked terrific. I also am glad that there are dissenting views; if no one was negative (it does not matter if they are with/without merit) would you believe your fellow "kool-aid" drinkers?
This is my dream camera (cost effective, superior image acquisition, you could actually have more than one). I freely admit that I buy into it.
But I would love to see the 4k displayed so that I could see what it REALLY looks like. But since there aren't a lot of those available, I am plenty happy to view the Quicktime footage. I am dying to see the whole thing. But none of us that have only seen the QT footage can really say anything about the camera. It's been through post, it's no longer the original zeros and ones, without watching the RAW footage we really don't know what it can do. We just know what THEY DID with it.

[Corey Culp]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Okay. I'll bite. Your opinion is what it is. But how do you think "the price is just too good" if you're not impressed with the image? And if you're NOT happy with the picture quality, WHY would you want one?

[Samscad]

I have to say, I think mtnz is sharing an opinion you will see more and more as this technology spreads to a wider audience.

Why?

Because this camera is being compared to the best possible image quality we are seeing anywhere from any format in existence. mtnz's comment sounds negative, but in fact it's a victory. This demo RED footage really does stand up to 35mm, no question. Does it look better than 35mm when seen in 1k? Perhaps not. I actually think it is technically better. But I can see how the average viewer might not be aware of that. But you can bet the average viewer was aware of those soft fuzzy shots in 28 days later. The RED team just changed cinema history, (or at least accelrated it) and people are already taking it for granted. That's just human nature. Jim will probably have to make do with being a billionaire second time around, but the avearage guy on the street won't ever really appreciate what he's done.

[gcaussade]

I agree, people can have their opinions.

I would love to hear more specifics about what wasn't so good about the image. And...this isn't being dowloaded in 4K either!

Trolling, to me, is making a comment just to get a negative response out of the audience. I usually spot it because thers is no detail.

But, we should invite new people and make them feel welcome, even if they appear negative. (Hmmm, I haven't posted much here, my posts have been DVXuser...)

I'm getting a Red in about a year...

Samscad, I agree with your comments.

I suspect within 4 years much of the features of Red will be available for under $5K, which is even more mind-blowing to me. We live in good times, and the Red team is at the center of the revolution!

-Jerry

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I see all this headache being something that will seriously concern producers and DOPs of FX heavy movies and make them not choose RED for their project, specially big budget Hollywood movies where they can just shoot film or used a CCD camera for fx like they have been doing. I doubt they would make their lives harder if they can afford anything. The ones who will have to learn how to live with it are just poor suckers who can't afford anything else, like myself.

Actually you misinterpreted my conclusions as well. Compensating for a rolling shutter when doing a match move is very very possible. We already compensate for each individual lens (part of the Cooke i technology is to keep a database of lens distortions) this'll just be one more distortion to keep track of, one which actually wouldn't be that hard to analyze compared to many of the other problems people face. With this distortion correction like Flameop mentioned you should be able to easily do a matchmove. Then when you apply the same inverse distortion to the 3D elements they'll match the non-global shutter.

So what I meant was analyzing it is one thing, removing it is another but adding the same effect to new footage is trivial. If for instance it's just a green screen shot with motion control and you use a RED camera for the live action plate and the green screen footage you'll get the "effect" for free and the two will perfectly match. They'll both be distorted but they'll both be distorted in the same way and that's what's important.


Timur and his cinematographer have chosen RED for VFX shots. And "Wanted" is considered a big budget Hollywood film. Again... you are making assumptions based on footage you are seeing from an Alpha prototype.

Jim

Jim it's comments like this which aren't actually helpful in any way. While the comment you were responding to was inaccurate, as I just pointed out, simply saying "you are making assumptions based on alpha footage" doesn't clarify the situation at hand and is the kind of comment which simply keeps the debate running.

If the rolling shutter will be minimized in the release cameras say so. Nebulous "The final cameras will be different" doesn't tell me anything about the current topic of discussion and if the camera does have a rolling shutter in the final product you'll have just opened yourself to accusations of dishonesty for implying it wasn't reflective of the final product.

I'm sure Timur and his cinematographer were also looking at pre-release products and I'm hoping they consulted with their vfx supervisor to see if the rolling shutter would be an issue. And I'm sure you were helpful and cooperative in answering questions like "will the final product have a rolling shutter and should we check to see if this will cause any problems on our end?" Part of the advantage of showing pre-release footage is we can start to think about what we'll need to do to work with RED. If this is one item that is in the final product VFX people will have to take a look at this and evaluate the consequences. If RED keeps their collective mouth's shut on every single concern raised about pre-release footage it shouldn't have been released. I'm not saying the footage shouldn't have been released, I'm saying simple short concise answers are in order any time you show footage.

Will there be a rolling shutter:
"Live with it/It'll be better/No"

Was the Peter Jackson footage run through a pretty heavy noise reduction filter or are the artifact we're seeing the result of REDCode:
"Noise Filter/Redcode/Other"

If Redcode is that indicative of the final redcode compression:
"Yes/No/We're trying to make it better but we'll see."

Those are the three questions that are floating around on this topic and dragging it out to 20 pages. All 3 have importanat consequences "Will we be ablet o shoot VFX on REDCode, should we look into an uncompressed workflow, will we need to find a way to correct for a rolling shutter in our tracks. Any sensible vfx supervisor, producer or cinematographer can overlook mistakes if we *know* to overlook these mistakes.

It's like showing off a new screwdriver at a tool trade show. It's a philips head screwdriver and a repairman walks up to you and asks "Is the final screw driver going to be a philips head?". You reply "It's not the final design." So the repairman thinks "huh so I'll take that as a no" and buys a box of flat head screws. The final tool comes out and it's a philips head and the repairman is angry. You said it wasn't reflective of the final design! "It's not, we changed the handle."

[Tony Lorentzen]

Posting footage from an unfinished camera WILL undoubtedly cause a lot of questions from current re(d)servation holders and future buyers. We're very fortunate that RED has decided to be so open about their development but they should accept (and welcome) any just critique as well as any suggestions and valuable feedback that this community gives them. It's a yin-yan thing as I see it.

[jbeale]

re Gavin G's comment: it seems to me that if you can't live with you've seen to date, and you don't trust Red to provide a satisfactory solution to it, then you should not order the camera until you have whatever info you need. Jim has provided some info along the way, but I don't think ultimately he owes anything except for a refund if you decide to cancel a reservation.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If RED provides me an answer to a question about their product I trust it will be honest to the best of their knowledge. Some people might not and that's their judgement call.

In the case of a rolling shutter I don't think it is likely it will be corrected through any software means and I think Jim's statement that we shouldn't make assumptions based on an alpha camera was as a result disengenuous. He was implying the effect would be resolved in the final camera. If he outright says "it will [be reduced/not be/be] in retail cameras" then I'll believe him.

He's indirectly made a claim. I wanted to alert him to this fact in case he wants to retract it if it's not true.

RED right now is for the first time starting to actually play some pretty unfair marketing games with the Peter Jackson footage. IF they posted it and said "This is just for shits and giggles don't interpret it to be reflective of RED quality" then I would just watch it for fun and dream of all the things RED will be able to do some day. But the *expressed* purpose of posting the Peter Jackson footage was to *market* the quality of RED. When RED says "Check out this footage it's badass". They've decided to endorse it. They endorsed it at NAB and were perfectly happy to take all of the compliments it received.

So then they opened their doors to the internet and upon further reflection the 'badass' footage had a few little quibbles they're obligated to take criticism.

You're assuming RED *can* fix every problem. That's a false assumption. They can't fix everything despite the marketing of "no compromises" compromises are always taken. If they had made a 2k chip they might have been able to coax out some more sensitivity, but they compromised sensitivity for resolution. RED could have made a super badass Black and White camera but they sacrificed a bit of resolution for color. The rolling shutter is no different. It's a compromise to deliver a higher quality image. And it's not a question of "do I trust RED to fix it." It's a question of "Can RED fix it or should I just be aware of it?"

[Andrew M.]

How do you know that Misterium is not 5T or 6T CMOS and Alfa was 3T.
Also you can correct a lot of imperfections on the CMOS itself or on the daughter board.
Also, if this CMOS is project in progress and RED owes the design rights, it could be changed or improved at any time.
Remember RED is modular, you can upgrade the CMOS as well.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

How do you know that Misterium is not 5T or 6T CMOS and Alfa was 3T.
Also you can correct a lot of imperfections on the CMOS itself or on the daughter board.
Also, if this CMOS is project in progress and RED owes the design rights, it could be changed or improved at any time.
Remember RED is modular, you can upgrade the CMOS as well.

Anything is possible but would you do all of your tests on a wildly different sensor design? That would seem to negate all of the testing prior and be a completely bone headed move and tack on another 6 months of development time. It would be a very safe wager to say the Mysterium design is almost 100% design locked at this point. If RED wanted to add 60fps 4k over REDCode and they managed to find a new DSP and RAM solution then sure they could delay it a few months and update that bit without very many design implications. Changing your sensor architecture.... that's RED Two.

[James T Mather]

Wow- I am staggered at the astounding nit picking going on. For years we have worked 4.2.2. in post pipelines and now people are worried about "rolling shutter" - defining it as an optical and post problem (?????) and even getting righteous about it?

The backlash, it would seem, has started. Everyone now wants the earth, moon and the stars for sixpence.

I tend to notice that the most technically uptight people on webgroups generally tend to make the worst films (usually as a result of an asberger's like inabilty to focus on the "larger picture"). Perhaps people should relax and be thankful for the fact that 1 year ago for the same cash, they could buy a 1/3 chip camera and now a viable alternative to 35mm film is available to them with 11.3 stops of latitude, 4.4.4. and a 35mm sized sensor.

Grow up for gods sake. If you don't want it don't buy it.

The camera works.

worry about the script.

the minutae is for the geeks.

[Zach Hilton]

Amen!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I tend to notice that the most technically uptight people on webgroups generally tend to make the worst films.

On behalf of technically gifted people everywhere, I'll try not to take that personally. It's sad that an open honest discussion of RED's imperfections elicits such an acerbic response from some redusers. Fine if rolling shutter and compression doesn't affect you, god speed in ignoring all discussions about it.

Seeing as this is a CAMERA forum and not a screenwriting forum I'm not going to discuss the implications of RED on my screenwriting abilities. So perhaps you have found yourself somewhere you did not intend to be. The camera obviously produces an image. If that's all you care about. Be gone with you.

[Munthe]

Hello guys,

first poster troll here - focusing completely on the big picture and the art of cinematography.

To me - everything I've seen coming from the Red camera in terms of stills and motion looks like 24fps DSLR. The magic isn't there for me (with all due respect) and it proves my own theory that resolution has very little to do with artistic quality. Even if I'm fully aware that Mr Jacksons clip was shot with the alpha prototype it's still a bit surprising that a crew of 150 couldn't create a more 35mm competitive end result.

I'm full of hope that the Red will introduce a workable 4K pipeline since I shoot a lot of green screen work but for location dramatic work I actually think what I've seen is too sharp. Too clean. I would be a bit affraid to give a name actor the 4K treatment. I would love to someway have Red integrate with Cineforms NEO 12-bit lossless codec.

I'm not here to upset anyone - just to post my opinion respectfully since I plan on using the Red.

[Rob Lohman]

Munthe:

1) Did you see the movie in our theater digitally projected at 4K?

2) Mr Jackson shot this in two days with 1.5 - 2 weeks of post. The footage was graded etc. to his liking. I sometimes don't like how certain movies look, it rarely if ever has something to do with the camera.

3) If it's too sharp or too clean you can easily add grain / noise / soften filters etc.

4) Why would you love for us to integrate with Cineforms NEO 12-bit lossless codec? We have our own 12-bit codec in both lossy and lossless forms.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hold up. Rob you just let something new slip. Mathematically lossless REDCode RAW? Do tell.

[Rob Lohman]

This is all about outputting to REDCODE. As it looks now you'll be able to set bitrate options including an archive option.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

This is all about outputting to REDCODE. As it looks now you'll be able to set bitrate options including an archive option.

OOooo! *teehee*

How will one be able to record said different bitrates? Will this be opened up as new faster HDDs and CF flash options become available.

[Anders Holck]

I believe what Rob is talking about is the Redcode quicktime codec. A VBR mathematically lossless option is very usefull as an intermediate codec.
Say you want to archive your 4k grade master. Currently there is only none16, microcosm or sheervideo that offers a RGB codec at above 8 bit per channel.

Or if you convert in Redcine there is currently no lossless intermediate codec that supports RGB at above 8 bit, besides the above options.

Also if you want to work in lossless RGB, there is currently no codec that can render in >8 bit inside FCP. Using a 12 or 16 bit bit RGB lossless Redcode allows you to use the 32 bit float render option inside FCP.

This is very very good news!

[Álex Montoya]

I'm sorry, Anders. I don't get it.

[Fix]

Even if I'm fully aware that Mr Jacksons clip was shot with the alpha prototype it's still a bit surprising that a crew of 150 couldn't create a more 35mm competitive end result.


Hello Munthe and welcome to the forum! Im a little confused about your post, where did you read that this was a 35mm vs Red test? I agree with you that It dident look like 35mm. But should it?

Put it this way. I dont think there is any problem making the tiny 1k clip to look like something coming from analog 35mm. I have done it myself and sure other can as well. Do mind that this is from a highly compresed file. Think what you can do with the raw footage... I really dont thing PJ intention was to make it "look like 35mm". He made it look like the way he wanted.

I dident like the grading of the clip. Thats my honest opinion. Though i do see tons of potensial for this camera only judging from photos and smal clips.

[Álex Montoya]

This is all about outputting to REDCODE. As it looks now you'll be able to set bitrate options including an archive option.


That's amazing news, but can the RED DRIVE save more than 27MB/s?

[Anders Holck]

Concrete,
Rob is talking about workflow on a computer, not about in camera recording.

Munthe asked:

I would love to someway have Red integrate with Cineforms NEO 12-bit lossless codec.

Rob answered:

We have our own 12-bit codec in both lossy and lossless forms.

So Munthe was talking about having a 12 bit lossless intermediate codec on his computer, Rob answered that the REDCODE RGB quicktime codec supports a lossless archive option.

[jbeale]

> This is all about outputting to REDCODE.

Maybe he means "output" from the NLE, and not "recording" from the camera?

[Alex Boothby]

...Rob answered that the REDCODE RGB quicktime codec supports a lossless archive option.

This is kinda big news. Is this discussed anywhere else in detail? First I've heard of it. :biggrin:

[Anders Holck]

No, it hasn't been discussed before to my knowledge. But I asked Graeme in another thread a while ago if they would consider doing a lossless mode in the Redcode RGB codec which he newer answered (Probably missed it)

This is indeed a missing piece for doing work in RGB, and it sounds real good to me. Especially if that 32 bit workaround inside FCP turns out to be a good solution.

For a basic lossless mode it could be pretty simple just skipping the wavelet transform, but still utilising the encoding for reduced size. But we all know Graeme and Rob might go even further...

[Munthe]

Hi Rob!


1) Did you see the movie in our theater digitally projected at 4K?

No I didn't. And I don't think that it's really essential since very few people in the coming years are going to watch RED output on 4K systems. There is no doubt in my mind that RED looks super sharp and super clean projected @ 4K. To me the only thing important is how it's going to look broadcast at 1080 och 720 (or even SD) or how it will look distributed Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.


2) Mr Jackson shot this in two days with 1.5 - 2 weeks of post. The footage was graded etc. to his liking. I sometimes don't like how certain movies look, it rarely if ever has something to do with the camera.

I agree on that one completely.


3) If it's too sharp or too clean you can easily add grain / noise / soften filters etc.

I don't think it's that easy to remove certain types of detail. Not without affecting overall focus. Removing detail in areas and keeping overall perception of sharpness could involve rotoscoping and that's not a great workflow. 65mm wrestles with this exakt problem too.


4) Why would you love for us to integrate with Cineforms NEO 12-bit lossless codec? We have our own 12-bit codec in both lossy and lossless forms.

My mistake. I thought it was 10-bit.

[Munthe]

Hello Munthe and welcome to the forum! Im a little confused about your post, where did you read that this was a 35mm vs Red test? I agree with you that It dident look like 35mm. But should it?

I didn't read that anywhere. And I don't have a hang up on 35mm. Digital is the future. Not a doubt in my mind. But since RED is focusing on beeing a filmmakers tool as opposed to an ENG alternative I do think cinematic magic is critical. What the camera delivers has got to connect to a cinematic tradition. 65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience. That may very well change. There are already films shot digital that has breached that barrier - but they are almost all heavy effect movies like Star Wars and Sin City.


I dident like the grading of the clip. Thats my honest opinion. Though i do see tons of potensial for this camera only judging from photos and smal clips.

I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.

[Fix]

I didn't read that anywhere. And I don't have a hang up on 35mm. Digital is the future. Not a doubt in my mind. But since RED is focusing on beeing a filmmakers tool as opposed to an ENG alternative I do think cinematic magic is critical. What the camera delivers has got to connect to a cinematic tradition. 65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience. That may very well change. There are already films shot digital that has breached that barrier - but they are almost all heavy effect movies like Star Wars and Sin City.



I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.

Well you clearly know more about 65mm film than I do. Interesting reading. I guess we just have to wait and see what this camera can do in low light conditions regard the focus. :)

[Munthe]

I'm referring to the mid close up shots in the RED gallery of course. I understand that they are prototype shots.

I wouldn't mind seeing Darius Khondji having a go with the prototype. Or better yet, Allen Daviau who is still responsible for the single best looking effort in the realm of digital cinematography with the short film Sweet he shot back in the 90's. And also considering he shot it with a Sony DVX1000.

Both those DP's are masters at interior drama lighting. :weight_lift:

[James T Mather]

65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience..

What about Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, 2001, Ryan's Daughter? I think the reason is that 65mm is too expensive - not because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience.



I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.

This doesn't seem accurate to me - T2.0 on a s35 sized gate will deliver the same depth of field regardless of uptake medium - in short, if you don't like the DOF at 2.0 - light your set to 2.8 or 4. The Red camera won't change the depth of field any more than a film camera will.

Further 65mm has half the DOF of 35mm (and therefore half the DOF of the RED (assuming you're shooting 35mm REDCINE sensor) - anamorphic has inherent focus issues of the kind you are describing (very shallow depth of field) and similarly has to be lit to T4 to ensure that the lenses bite. The problem you describe is not exclusive to RED but cameras and film in general.



In my experience exterior shooting (as is the kind exhibited) is the most problematic from the point of view of latitude - exteriors on sunny days frequently reach contrast ratios that exceed even film's limit as the shadow to highlight distance With interiors controlling the contrast range is no problem -

In short I'm saying that the footage we've seen is the tougher test of the camera. The Grade on the footage (something that the less experienced on the board seem to take exception to) has nothing to do with the look produced by the RED - the footage to me looks like clean, neutrally graded 35mmm film. I imagine if a post crush and desat had been applied there would have been a storm of concerned posts regarding shadow detail and colour rendition.

[tpressman]

Since RED is the future of acquisition, use the future of distribution to get your copy of the clip. Forget about bandwidth issues. The more the merrier.

http://www.vuze.com/details/C3OBBU6RGQTZ6DTFN5W2KDELQDIWZTHT.html

[GFOX]

Jarred, when we will be seeing new clips from Crossing the Line?

thanks!

[Ellie Nasaf]

Is there anyway to watch the whole thing?

[C.H.Haskell]

The million dollar question.

Its funny you should ask...I myself have never seen this film...yet it was this very footage that made my decision to move forward with the inevitable turns of time.

[Brandon Fraley]

Is there anyway to watch the whole thing?

nope, unfortunately

[Christian Edwards]

Is there anyway to watch the whole thing?
its a three step process,

1.Grab yourself a gun or two :gun:
2. Head down to weta :cold:

3. Demand to see it! :angry03:

[Ellie Nasaf]

its a three step process,

1.Grab yourself a gun or two :gun:
2. Head down to weta :cold:

3. Demand to see it! :angry03:

Weta! here I come :D

I'd buy it in a DVD if it's released! Peter Jackson is my film school and those clips of this short are what really got me excited about RED camera!

[Christian Edwards]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/3568_1230389898.jpg

http://www.broadcastpapers.com/contentUploadedByEWeb/Files/Content-Technology-September-October-AV-Group-2007.pdf

[Christian Edwards]

excerpt from article : Adding to the challenge was the fact that Jarred Land,the RED team authority on the actual operation of the camera, was stopped by US customs due to an expired passport and so didn’t make it to Wellington until the day the shoot started.

....Always letting the team down Jarred :)

The real concern here of course is not the fact they did'nt let him out of the country its the fact they let him in in the first place ! lol

[Ellie Nasaf]

Many thanks christian !

[Robin Balas]

This doesn't seem accurate to me - T2.0 on a s35 sized gate will deliver the same depth of field regardless of uptake medium - in short, if you don't like the DOF at 2.0 - light your set to 2.8 or 4. The Red camera won't change the depth of field any more than a film camera will.

Actually that is not entirely correct. If you crop away your frame (or use a smaller sensor on the same optics) you need to enlarge it accordingly to reproduce to the same screen size. That enlarging affects DOF, hence cropping a given format do affect DOF.
This is true for both stills and motion photography, and was the most debated issue some years ago when cheap dSLR's reached the masses. If you look up your CoC formulas, which is the sole parameter for DoF, you will see that one of the factors is enlargement factor, and smaller sensors needs more enlargement to reproduce the same as when using the full image circle.
Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
MHO.

[Christian Edwards]

Many thanks christian !
no probs. What better way to test a beta camera than in a Peter Jackson production