Plans To Fix The Motion?

[googleboyboy]

IMO There's something off about the milkgirls and the 10 seconds of that Peter Jackson thing. I know there's been a lot of discussion of film vs. red already but I want to throw it out there and see who thinks there's something just a bit off about the RED one motion in the few clips we've seen. I think whatever method of capturing images at 24p the red team has developed is something rather... let's say unique. What I really want from a RED camera is the ability to exactly replicate the motion of film, the way things move on 35mm /16mm 8mm films on screen and on dvd, that's what I want out of the RED camera. The red one looks to have great res and range but I'm a bit worried about the motion. It is very digital to my eyes... very videolike to me which is not what I'm after. The peter jackson footage evoked a discovery channel special rather than a film to me. I understand that most of the clips were shot at a shutter angle of 180 degrees but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it. IMO I think the most important aspect the red team should focus on is getting the motion to look less digital and videolike and more filmic. I don't know too much about pulldowns and what have you, I just know what I see. Looks to be a great camera, but the motion could/shoud/needs to be better. Maybe it was just those clips. Let's start a petition, let's have Jim release some new clips at different shutter speeds and angles. Let's see the different way things can move. What do you guys think?

[ChristopherKenworthy]

We've been told that these are Alpha tests, and that more is coming with different shutter speeds and angles. It's always seemed to me that Red is for those with imagination. I imagine this will all work out fine. And so far, it looks like we're on track.

To say the motion is video-like is, to my eye, pretty weird. Can you direct me to any video clips that have this kind of motion?

[Graeme Nattress]

Didn't look video-like to me. Quite frankly, what it did look like was that beautiful 65mm stuff in 4k, like Mystic India.

Graeme

[donatello b]

i think you got to be looking at a different image then i saw at NAB ..
if you want exact like film - then rent/buy a film camera ...
at NAB the PJ short look good to me ..
plane dog fight motion was execellent ..

24fps is not that good on motion PERIOD ( even on film) - IMO it was a speed choice based on economic's not the beauty of motion ....
i didn't see any vidoish images on the big screen at NAB ..
i never heard any person at NAB describe the RED image as "videoish" .. the most comment i heard was " i prefer it to have a little grain "...
were you sitting very 1st row at the screening ?

as REDs ships and individuals start testing & posting perphaps you'll see something you like .. IMO in "general" the image is not going to change that much ... in the end it could be the RED image is not for you ...
perhaps it's just comes down to you prefer a FILM image over a DIGITAL image ..

[Bret Weeks]

Discovery Channel Special? You must be joking. (Or trolling.)

bw

[yevlar]

In all the Red clips that have thusfar been posted, I haven't noticed any weirdness in the motion either. People have said the same things about 24p recording on the Panasonic DVX and HVX cameras, but if you make direct comparisons between 24p recordings on the Red or on the aformentioned cameras, you will see that any weirdness in motion also occurs in 35mm film.

An interesting test could be to compare the clip from "Crossing The Line" with a Storming the Trenches scene from "A Very Long Engagement," purely as a comparison of 24fps motion artifacting. I think you'll find that they are very close. If, in turn, you want to compare with 24fps footage that very clearly DOES look like video, pop in a night scene from "Scary Movie 4" (shot on the Panavision Genesis,) and many misconceptions about the Red will disappear. ;-)

[Lucas Wilson]

...I know there's been a lot of discussion of film vs. red already but I want to throw it out there and see who thinks there's something just a bit off about the RED one motion in the few clips we've seen....

I am not a cinematographer and I'll admit my eye is not the best. But two points:

1) It was the first real shoot ever. Pretty soon, there will be several hundred cameras out there doing all kinds of work and you'll see what the camera is and is not capable of. The NZ crew's choices may not be yours...

2) The only motion in the film at NAB that really pulled me out of the story was the camera shake on the explosions. It looked like a quickly done DVE in post rather than natural camera shake. After talking to RED, turns out that was exactly what it was. But if that's the worst I can say about a movie with this kind of post schedule... : )

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Vincent Rice]

What do you guys think?

I think you are wrong.

[Graeme Nattress]

Vinney, that's the best answer so far :-)

[Gunleik Groven]

I liked the understatement from Lucas, too -;)

Gunleik

[Kjetil Haugen]

What do you guys think?

I think there was nothing video about that clip. Like someone said to Jim at NAB: This footage is the only thing I have seen that feels right!! I think when people glue their faces to the monitors to find mistakes, they're seening stuff that's not there...

[Ace]

The NZ crew's choices may not be yours..

Absoloutely, we were seeing RED through the eyes of PJ and his crew for that particular movie. Just because LOTR or King Kong had a certain aesthetic, doesnt mean we should have expected the same for CTL. Id like to think film makers are story tellers and not stylists. Lets see what Fincher could do with this, Lets see what the thousands of red users out there will do with this.


I think there was nothing video about that clip. Like someone said to Jim at NAB: This footage is the only thing I have seen that feels right!! I think when people glue their faces to the monitors to find mistakes, they're seening stuff that's not there...

I think RED should do a double blind placebo study to see if there is psychological stigma associated with digital. Get some red footage, grit it up, add grain, apply S curves and project side by side with film.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Pepsi_Challenge.jpg

[Justin Kirchhoff]

This is sickening, same old comments or complaints about the RED without the people doing ANY research on the matter.

Just take it for what it's worth.....don't buy the camera if you don't like how it looks, it's pretty simple.

[James T Mather]

I agree - the backlash has started - the footage looked like 35mm film to me - but sitting at a monitor geekishly replaying a one minute clip can convince people of anything.

Bottom line : Get out into the world and experience something or by the time the camera arrives your script will be about a guy sitting on the net waiting for a camera.

[Vincent Rice]

... or by the time the camera arrives your script will be about a guy sitting on the net waiting for a camera.

Damn! That's another idea down the pan. :shifty:

[Obin Olson]

"Videoish"? I take it you have never really made of study of the VIDEO look vs film or you would not be saying what you are.

And NO I am not a die hard RED lover.

It is what it is, a grain free digital images, at super high resolution.

[tj williams]

All 24P seems to move differently from projected film. In about 1937 film projectors started to use an innovation called the butterfly shutter. This effectively shows each frame twice. as although you have 24 FPS you see 48 images. This smooths the motion somewhat. Most movies are shot around 180 degree shutter which of course yields a 48th of a second so I don't think that will cause movement different from film. I wonder how the 4K Sony digital projector works? do we see only the 24 images? This after all is why early movies were called "The flicks"
RED footage printed to release on 35m should move the exact way that film does.

[Sean]

The only thing that might be perceived as video-ish is how the PJ clip employs a very deep depth of field. But 35mm film can have an equally deep depth of field. It depends on the choices made by the cinematographer and director. These shots might send some people the message that they're video-ish only because video typically is limited ONLY to a deep depth of field, while film has a range of shallow and deep. But when you see the detail in the shadows in Peter Jackson's short, as well as the over-all detail when magnifying the image, I feel I'm getting something that is much like film and not like video at all. Certainly compared to any stills from video footage I've looked at up close, this footage looks filmic to me. And ironically, most of us will actually be struggling to keep Red in focus with a very very shallow--and yes very filmic--depth of field.

[Stephen Gentle]

2) The only motion in the film at NAB that really pulled me out of the story was the camera shake on the explosions. It looked like a quickly done DVE in post rather than natural camera shake. After talking to RED, turns out that was exactly what it was. But if that's the worst I can say about a movie with this kind of post schedule... : )

Yeah, that really annoyed me too. When I showed my brother the clip, that was the first thing that he said as well.

[Graeme Nattress]

TJ, the showing of each image twice is to avoid large area flicker, and quite equivalent to how some computer monitors will run at 72hz and show a 24p frame 3 times before moving on. I don't think it has much to do with motion characteristic.

Graeme

[Andrew M.]

IMO There's something off about the milkgirls and the 10 seconds of that Peter Jackson thing.

The first thing I will ask here, what kind of monitor did you watch the footage on?
Also, what was the refresh rate and make of the monitor?

[jaadgy akanni]

IMO There's something off about the milkgirls and the 10 seconds of that Peter Jackson thing. I know there's been a lot of discussion of film vs. red already but I want to throw it out there and see who thinks there's something just a bit off about the RED one motion in the few clips we've seen. I think whatever method of capturing images at 24p the red team has developed is something rather... let's say unique. What I really want from a RED camera is the ability to exactly replicate the motion of film, the way things move on 35mm /16mm 8mm films on screen and on dvd, that's what I want out of the RED camera. The red one looks to have great res and range but I'm a bit worried about the motion. It is very digital to my eyes... very videolike to me which is not what I'm after. The peter jackson footage evoked a discovery channel special rather than a film to me. I understand that most of the clips were shot at a shutter angle of 180 degrees but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it. IMO I think the most important aspect the red team should focus on is getting the motion to look less digital and videolike and more filmic. I don't know too much about pulldowns and what have you, I just know what I see. Looks to be a great camera, but the motion could/shoud/needs to be better. Maybe it was just those clips. Let's start a petition, let's have Jim release some new clips at different shutter speeds and angles. Let's see the different way things can move. What do you guys think?

You're not alone on this. I posted somewhat similar thread a few days ago http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2021
I perceive the motion as faster than the 24fps we're used to on film. But hey, maybe it's just I.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Well, gooogleboyboy never responded to any of the replies, ergo, there's nothing wrong with the motion and nothing that needs fixing.

[tj williams]

Graeme:
RED FILM
Frame speed 24 fps 24
Shutter 180 equiv. Shutter 180
(so individual frame blur is the same in both.)

So if they are shown by the same means... ie butterfly shutter projector they will look the same as to the way motion is portrayed.

If they could both be shown by electronic projection at the same frame rate and the film brought in without pull down then they will look the same as far as motion is concerend.

imho Therefore any differences in motion between RED 24P footage and 35mm film as regards the appearance of the motion and motion artifacts is in fact an
artifact of the way in which the footage is shown ie Monitor scan rates, projector frame or scan rates etc. I believe the most fair test is to transfer the footage to 35mm film and run it in a theatre, as far as judging if there is any difference in the way you will see motion. In fact there will be no difference in that aspect of the test.

This of course begs the question about how "filmic" the footage will appear. This will be primarily a matter of "looks" Grain, lighting, camera moves etc that make up the appearance of film. Having sat in the third row of the NAB projection I don't think you will have a problem.

[Graeme Nattress]

I think you pretty much said it there TJ :-) (was great to meet you at NAB BTW).

Graeme

[I Bloom]

Graeme,

In your plans for a projector have you guys thought about whether the image could flicker just like a film projector does.

I remmember going to a Sony screening of HD material on one of their high end projectors (don't think it was 4K) and my director friend felt like the image was putting him to sleep. We both felt something was lost by the continuous light. What would be awesome is a 4K projector with the option to flicker.

Otherwise I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this percieved motion problem. I don't see it and I'm wondering are the talking about Motion Blur, Frame rate. Maybe its the cadence of the pulldown from film to 29.97 video that they are missing, as I believe the quicktime is running straight 24. It's just interesting to me to understand what they are refering too.

IB

[Graeme Nattress]

Nice idea, but I think flicker is one aspect I'd want to move away from myself. However, with my DLP projector at home, I don't find it wants to put me to sleep.... (as he nods off)

Graeme

[T. Singh]

TJ, the showing of each image twice is to avoid large area flicker, and quite equivalent to how some computer monitors will run at 72hz and show a 24p frame 3 times before moving on. I don't think it has much to do with motion characteristic.

Graeme

Showing an image more than once interferes with eye-tracking of moving objects. When a frame is projected after a brief period of darkness, your eye is expecting the moving object to be at some particular spot. If each frame is projected once it will be at the expected spot, otherwise not.

Projecting each image once at 24fps will flicker very badly, but will allow you to track moving objects quite well. Projecting it twice or thrice will cut down flicker at the expense of tracking.

[Thom Steinhoff]

Showing an image more than once interferes with eye-tracking of moving objects. When a frame is projected after a brief period of darkness, your eye is expecting the moving object to be at some particular spot. If each frame is projected once it will be at the expected spot, otherwise not.

Projecting each image once at 24fps will flicker very badly, but will allow you to track moving objects quite well. Projecting it twice or thrice will cut down flicker at the expense of tracking.

I agree. I think the difference is that, correct me if I am wrong, with projected film there are really 48fps: 24/48 as motion and 24/48 as darkness. Your eye needs this to connect the motion.

I think a true digital cinema projector should take this into account and not arbitrarily double the frames just to give continuous image at the expense of continuity of motion.

[vanguy]

Film projectors project each image twice to avoid flicker.

But this actually creates an annoying motion artifact on medium-speed pans: an apparent double-image.

If you wanted to replicate this projection system, you could set your video card to 48p, and I'd think it would do it fairly exactly with 24p material. But I think you'd find it annoying.

It's possible with digital projectors to project 24p without any flicker, since LCD and DLP need no off cycle (to move the film). It's the equivalent of a 360 degree shutter. I've seen footage like this, and it looks "too slick".

[donatello b]

i thought most film projectors had 3 bladed shutters = 72 flickers per second not 48 flickers ??? .... and old film chains ( to tape) had 5 bladed shutters ?

[vanguy]

i thought most film projectors had 3 bladed shutters = 72 flickers per second not 48 flickers ??? .... and old film chains ( to tape) had 5 bladed shutters ?

You might be right on triple bladed shutters. But I do know old film chains had 5 bladed shutter to allow for 3:2 pulldown. They would rotate 180 degrees per frame, instead of 360. So one half of the shutter had 3 blades, the other 2, pulling the film down between them, hence "3:2 pulldown".

[Ace]

I know some people are speaking of flicker as a negative thing.. But in cinema, flicker (I feel) is one of those things that creates the magic of the experience, and is part of the fascination with cinema IMO. Theres something about that flicker which induces all sorts of hypnotic and romantic notions in the human perceptual system.. not sure how to describe it. I think digijectors going the "smoother" direction would put me off personally.

[vanguy]

In any case, you can still see the double-image artifact on modern projectors on medium speed pans.
which is why there's not so many long medium speed pans in movies.
If you're looking for it, it's fairly frequent, but on short clips, as DPs and editors try to minimize it.

[Ace]

You can even see it on DVD's though.. Take a look at Cliffhanger, plenty of motion stuttering there, at least when I watched it on dvd. I think its a lovely part of the film aesthetic to be honest. Thats why I wasnt too worried about any artifacting previously talked about in the motion charecteristics of the PJ footage.. To me and audiences it would simply become another idiosyncratic charm.

[Stokestack]

Back to the original topic, several people remarked on a strobe-like effect with the milkgirls footage weeks ago, and it turned out that a bunch of us noticed it but hadn't bothered to post a question about it. The consensus was, of course, wait and see.

I looked for this effect in the PJ short but didn't notice it. So who knows?

I disagree with the "videoish" assertion too, but to those couple of people like to attack anyone who raises concerns: That's no way to participate in a forum.

[dave_garcia]

Hi,

I know I'll get accused of trolling, but I'd like to say I've been following RED since I first heard about it on DVXUSER.COM. I checked it out at NAB last year, and it was the first booth I went to this year. I think it looks like a great product that I can't wait to use. I actually turned my (exclusively ENG shooting) friend on to it at NAB this year and he put his money down on one. I'm putting money down as soon as my company finishes paying for a recent studio buildout.

OK.. Watching the Peter Jackson short at NAB, I too noticed some "hyper-smooth" motion on some of the scenes. I suppose it could have been the Sony projector. But it was unmistakable on some shots. It was just really smooth. Almost looked like 60p off of one of my HVXs. Now personally, I feel like the resolution and the PL mount is reason enough to use this camera, even if it only shot 60i. (not really, I'm just saying that.) But I really only noticed it on some of the shots. I feel like it was when the motion was faster. I guess I can always run it through Natress Film Effects.
(irony intended.)

I've never shot film before, but I've probably shot 50 commercials in the last year and make my living emulating a film look. I just came to the industry in an era that I consider to be largely post-film. I'm not really worried about the motion, but I just wanted to chime in and say I did see this, and yes it was in 4k at NAB.

By the way, thanks to the RED team for what looks like it's going to be a great camera. I'm psyched about it and telling everyone I know about it.

OK...flame on if you must...

[jaadgy akanni]

OK.. Watching the Peter Jackson short at NAB, I too noticed some "hyper-smooth" motion on some of the scenes.
Yes! Hypersmooth is the word I've been looking for to describe what I see too. It's just like film, without the grain, and with a less perceptible stutter, I think. Thank you Dave.

[Brook Willard]

I have to imagine that they've changed an awful lot from the milk girls/Frankie days... and whatever it is that they've been doing, I like it. It certainly looks pretty darn good to me... and knowing what we've seen so far, I bet they're not done yet. :)

[Graeme Nattress]

No, I don't think we're done yet....

Graeme

[casey warren]

No, I don't think we're done yet....

Graeme

A perfect motto :biggrin:

[casey warren]

I actually prefer the look of the hypersmooth motion over the shuttery look of some films I've seen. Hypersmooth, in a sense, makes it seem like watching reality.

[Brook Willard]

I actually prefer the look of the hypersmooth motion over the shuttery look of some films I've seen. Hypersmooth, in a sense, makes it seem like watching reality.

Then shoot 60p! :devil:

I kid, I kid... :)

[C.H.Haskell]

Shoot your feature in RED 4k and release on Film...perhaps the best of both worlds?

[casey warren]

haha, yeah....


but then again, the look of the RED footage doesnt look like 60p....I cant explain it but its different. Real life doesnt look like 60p either.

[casey warren]

I would say that 60p looks like "digital" real life....whereas RED looks like reality.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Back to the original topic, several people remarked on a strobe-like effect with the milkgirls footage weeks ago . . . I looked for this effect in the PJ short but didn't notice it.
I noticed it on a leftward pan of the cockpit interior (I think as the pilot was entering) of the Peter Jackson short. Never saw "Milk Girls" projected.


I disagree with the "videoish" assertion too, but to those couple of people like to attack anyone who raises concerns: That's no way to participate in a forum.
Agreed. So few detractors post here anymore. I believe that skeptics should be more welcomed here. Posting dissenting opinions here can only make the product better.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Graeme:
RED FILM
Frame speed 24 fps 24
Shutter 180 equiv. Shutter 180
(so individual frame blur is the same in both.)

So if they are shown by the same means... ie butterfly shutter projector they will look the same as to the way motion is portrayed.

If they could both be shown by electronic projection at the same frame rate and the film brought in without pull down then they will look the same as far as motion is concerend.

imho Therefore any differences in motion between RED 24P footage and 35mm film as regards the appearance of the motion and motion artifacts is in fact an
artifact of the way in which the footage is shown ie Monitor scan rates, projector frame or scan rates etc. I believe the most fair test is to transfer the footage to 35mm film and run it in a theatre, as far as judging if there is any difference in the way you will see motion. In fact there will be no difference in that aspect of the test.

This of course begs the question about how "filmic" the footage will appear. This will be primarily a matter of "looks" Grain, lighting, camera moves etc that make up the appearance of film. Having sat in the third row of the NAB projection I don't think you will have a problem.
I thought the primary reason for the difference in apparent motion characteristics (all other things being equal) between the two media was the way a film shutter "revealed" exposure to the film emulsion, as opposed to the way a CMOS or CCD is exposed.

[Teague Kennedy]

I actually prefer the look of the hypersmooth motion over the shuttery look of some films I've seen. Hypersmooth, in a sense, makes it seem like watching reality.

Film does not look like reality. That's why we like it. Video looks more like reality, really -- at 60i.... We make movies because reality just won't cut it! For reality sit on your porch swing. If you do that, I'd recommend a beer, and then reality is out the window again.

[Steve Gibby]

When I direct, long before we ever go on location, I analyze what format and frame rate will best illustrate the shots we will be shooting - what will help make the end product believable to the viewer. I don't produce/direct narrative cinema, but I do just about every other cine-style and EFP style you can name. Thus I'm not hung up on a "film look and 24fps or nothing" mindset. If I think film or a filmic look, and 24fps will best illustrate a particular sequence, we shoot it that way. If I think another medium, format, and/or frame rate will best depict the next sequence, we shoot it that way. In a production of any kind, rarely does every segment or scene call for the exact same production values. For instance, when shooting HDTV adventure travel, nature, action sports programs, I usually have the creative b-roll for the opening montage, closing montage, various lookback mini-segments, and inbumps/outbumps shot in 24fps, or sometimes 30fps, then faster action like sports movement, etc, in the body of the program, is shot in 60fps to smooth out the motion, and give me the smooth slo-mos in post production.

RED One is designed for a lot more genres than narrative cinema, and a lot more frame rates than 24fps. There is a time to overcrank and a time to undercrank. My eye doesn't like projects that look like the director and DP stubbornly stuck with 24fps, when several of the sequences naturally called for lower or higher frame rates to effectively imprint the message upon the viewer.

Having worked a lot in both a TV/video and film workflow, I have a respect for both production values, and a balanced sense of when to use each medium, format, and variable frame rates to illustrate what I want to say to the viewers. To me, the bottom line is: "What will most effectively tell this portion of the story to the viewers?"

The smoothness of the Crossing the Line piece in 4k was very pleasing to my eye and though I always have a 2-track mind when watching footage (enjoying story + analyzing production values) I didn't feel the smoothness distracted from the storytelling of the piece in the slightest. It was all shot at 24fps, but they made it work. If there were bits of sheer, it didn’t distract me while viewing the piece. As RED has posted recently, the motion values of the camera are still a work in progress.

[I Bloom]

I thought the primary reason for the difference in apparent motion characteristics (all other things being equal) between the two media was the way a film shutter "revealed" exposure to the film emulsion, as opposed to the way a CMOS or CCD is exposed.

Just for clarity sake, by reveal you are refering to the slight shutter distortion when the mechanical shutter rotates infront of the film? The extreme version being this image (though a sliding shutter not a rotating one in this case.)

http://ianbloom.com/shutterdistortion.jpg

Do you think this is really perceptible?

[jaadgy akanni]

I actually prefer the look of the hypersmooth motion over the shuttery look of some films I've seen. Hypersmooth, in a sense, makes it seem like watching reality.

Reality is what we are running away from when we use 24fps. We're looking for the stuff dreams are made of, that thing that makes suspension of disbelief possible...the fabric of illusion, if you will.

[Steve Gibby]

Film does not look like reality. That's why we like it. Video looks more like reality, really -- at 60i....

OK...RED One doesn't shoot film, RED One footage doesn't look exactly like film, and RED One's technology is most closely related to that of DSLRs, followed by video technology - not the mechanical technology of film cameras. Who's "we"? This board is full of people with backgrounds in film, video, and still photography. A collective "we" isn't appropriate any more than assuming everyone's aesthetic and professional tastes are the same.



We make movies because reality just won't cut it!

Again, who's "we"? There are many crossover professionals on this forum that produce movies, reality, and a long list of other genres. RED One was designed as a digital cinema camera that can be re-lensed and re-accessorized for an extensive list of cine-style and EFP style production genres. If someone chooses to just do movies, fine, but they should also realize there will be tons of others of us who will use RED One in all the genres it is capable of. My ego (or bank account) won’t be bruised in the slightest by producing/directing a D-cinema feature with RED One – and then following that up immediately with a reality television series. If someone’s is, then they’re missing some key design intentions of RED One, namely flexibility, adaptability, and utility.

[Steve Gibby]

Reality is what we are running away from when we use 24fps. We're looking for the stuff dreams are made of, that thing that makes suspension of disbelief possible...the fabric of illusion, if you will.

True...but RED One was designed with frames rates that vary from 1 to 120fps in 720p, 1 to 60fps in 1080p, 1 to 120fps in 2k, 1 to 60fps in 4k (RAW port), and 1 to 60fps in 2540p. So, was all this overcrank and undercrank ability incorporated just for window dressing, because we should shoot everything at 24fps? No. Was 720p, 1080p, and output ability from REDCINE of 1080i incorporated to not be used for television production, because everything with RED One should be 24fps filmic production? No.

Who's "we"? There are times when I'm after a 24fps, filmic, dreamy mood in a piece or segment, and conversely there are times when I'm after 60fps or 120fps smoothness of motion for a sports special, including slo-mos.

RED One can be used in a wide variety of cine style and EFP style productions, and was designed for a diverse array of professionals to use. "We" can and will achieve just about any kind of look and production values with RED One we want for each particular project at hand.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Film has sparkle. Literally and in large quantities. A low noise digital still life scene will look like a still photo. A film scene will sparkle and shimmer. This is what people are missing who complain about the video look.

It's that subconscious stillness where you feel like something should be there but isn't. Every pixel in film changes from frame to frame, the image is always in motion.

So yes the RED camera isn't very grain-ic.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I noticed it on a leftward pan of the cockpit interior (I think as the pilot was entering) of the Peter Jackson short. Never saw "Milk Girls" projected.
Now don't get me wrong . . . I got so engossed in watching "Crossing the Line," I repeatedly forgot that I was studying it for technical and critical review. This happened several times. I just wondered if anyone else noticed this one small motion characteristic in that shot, or if it was only me.

[Brook Willard]

I only noticed this motion characteristic once it was brought up on the forums and I analyzed the released clip over and over again.

Having not spent much time considering it and looking for it, this motion characteristic was the very characteristic that I requested in my "shutter smear" thread last week. Whether it's perfect or not, it is a partly inevitable result of using a 180˚ shutter. It's something that my eyes have become accustomed to over time and it's something that I suspect I subconsciously associate with film projection. I understand that the characteristic is now quite subdued on modern film cameras, but it's still one of those little things that makes something feel "right" or "wrong."

That said, I haven't really put much thought or analysis into it. My desire to see the effect mostly came from me sitting around and considering the differences between a digital shutter and a mirror shutter. I thought about how motion would blur in certain areas at certain times during the exposure at certain points in a camera move.

So as a disclaimer, I haven't really thought out whether I want this characteristic or not... whether it's a good thing or a bad thing and whether it adds to or detracts from an image's "right" look in moderation. I also don't know if the guys at RED have implemented such a thing or if they're fighting it or if the topic isn't approached at all. I'll leave that to the magic pixies.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to whip out my DVD collection and see if I can't find this characteristic in some of my favorite movies. :)

[casey warren]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to whip out my DVD collection and see if I can't find this characteristic in some of my favorite movies. :)

Thats exactly what I was thinking of doing too. There has got to be some evidence of it somewhere.

[Deanan]

Nice idea, but I think flicker is one aspect I'd want to move away from myself.

Graeme

Graeme's lying.
We currently have patents pending for applying digital gate sway
and weave to a 4k projected image. The initial tests look exactly
like film!


Deanan

[Deanan]

I thought the primary reason for the difference in apparent motion characteristics (all other things being equal) between the two media was the way a film shutter "revealed" exposure to the film emulsion, as opposed to the way a CMOS or CCD is exposed.

On film cameras with spinning mirrors, how the frame is revealed changes considerably from camera to camera depending on the diameter
of the mirror, shutter angle, format dimensions and location of the
gate (upper/lower or left/right). For instance, 2 perf with the gate
at the top of the shutter could take 4 times as long to reveal from
left to right as a gate positioned on the right (bottom to top revel or vice
versa).

Filmic is very broad and vague definition that means different things
to different people depending on what they're familiar with. Same for video.

Deanan

[Steve Connor]

One day we will rid ourselves of the notion of 24 frames, grain etc and move into the 21st century. I'm not a big fan of interlace but I'm certainly not a fan of 24 frames because quite simply 24 frames ain't enough!

My biggest hope for RED is that in will give forward thinking DOP's and Directors a chance to create a new look, something with the "un-reality" of film but utilizing the new technology to make the images better.

Don't get me wrong, I love working with film, but to be honest I think it's time to move on.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Filmic is very broad and vague definition that means different thingsto different people depending on what they're familiar with. Same for video.
Yes. Thanks for that elaboration. I only mentioned that one shot, because it was the only moment where I thought, "Aha--I'm not watching film." I mean, aside from the completely noiseless, grainless picture, and slightly inhibited color space. As an aside, I was thoroughly impressed (and satisfied) with the displayed dynamic range, although not being on-set, I don't know how much each scene was supplemented by 18K HMIs to narrow the ratios (I expect not much). Still, I remember only seeing some loss of detail in the helmuts in direct sun (which could have easily exceeded film's exposure range as well). But certainly, I'm just picking nits here.

[mike70]

Ralph--I noticed it, not in the cockpit, but in a left to right pan in a medium trench shot.

[donatello b]

"One day we will rid ourselves of the notion of 24 frames"

i'm hoping to move to 30p but i see from the new spec's for digital projection for movie theaters it only states 24fps ( not even 25fps) ... i know just about all new digital projectors can run 24p, 25p, 30p, 60i ...

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, the move has got to be to user-choice frame rates. Sticking to 24fps is limiting and backwards thinking.

Graeme

[Steve Gibby]

If I was a betting man, I'd feel real good about betting that the 4k projectors that RED develops will feature a wide variety of user-selectable frame rates.

[Fix]

Why get rid of 24fps? People love it dont they? I, for one, dont belive that most people want to watch somthing that reminds them about the tv news when they go to the cinema.

There been made all kinds of great movies in 24fps... why should we stop now? Michael mann seem pretty interested in the new digital era, and thats great! But he fails with the new motion look IMHO. Like Miami Vice, some of the "videoish" shoots in that movie gave me the chill down the spine (NOT in that good way), if it was shoot in 60fps it would be even worse as I see it.. Best movie he ever made, minding the looks, was HEAT. And that was pure 24fps film.

I think RED one can manage to simulate that feel in 24fps. Go 30fps+ and you get something look like shoot on a Viper cam (without the res of course :)).

[Steve Gibby]

Fix,

Your post assumes that projected feature movies are the only production genre that RED One was developed for. If you review the specifications for RED One, you'll find resolutions of 2540p, 4k, 2k, 1080p, 720p (and 1080i via REDCINE extraction), lens use options of S35mm, 35mm still, S16, and B4 2/3", and variable frame rates enabled from 1 to 120fps depending on shooting format. All of these formats, lens choices, frame rates, and accessory options are there for a reason - to enable a wide variety of production and delivery options to RED adopters, way beyond projected feature movies. IMO vast amounts of EFP productions, especially television programming, will be produced using RED One. Some of it will be 24p originated, but a huge portion of it will be acquired at variable frame rates. Then it will be televised in various rates, including 1080i, 720p, 576i, and 480i.

A myopic, "24fps or nothing" approach to RED One simply limits us professionally and financially - while our more open-minded competition progressively learns more and earns more.

24fps is fine for some projects, but severely limiting for other genres the RED One will be used in. With media convergence, people with film backgrounds tend to favor their comfort zones of 24fps/filmic expression, but I think if they will open their eyes to the realities and possibilities of the marketplace, and the capabilities of RED One, they’ll realize that there’s a big, new world of potential out there.

[Graeme Nattress]

Fix, we're not getting rid of 24p, but to think that 24p is the frame rate of the future is not forwards thinking. Sure, support it, embrace it, work with it, but it's not and never has been the be-all and end-all.

Graeme

[jbeale]

My grandmother made 16mm home movies in the 1950s with a hand-cranked Cine-Kodak camera. It ran 16 fps, more or less- having a mechanical regulator. Playback speed on the projector was continually adjustable, down to a freeze frame. That projector was old enough to have power switch for AC or Edison type DC power. Now in the 21st century, maybe we will once more have a projector allowing variable frame rates.

[wshultz]

I used to try freeze frames in the projector but they'd only last 3 seconds before a big brown hole burned through.

[Fix]

Fix,

Your post assumes that projected feature movies are the only production genre that RED One was developed for.


This is not want I meant at all... I think Red One can be used in many differnet situations, in fact I think its range of use is somehow unlimited. Movies, tv shows, advertisement, news... hell even web tv etc. The list goes on.

My point was strictly minding cinema feature movies. Typical movies like Heat by Michael Mann. I really dont see any good arguments shooting higher fps (normal speed) dealing with that? I do think though that you can make a good dokumentary doing so. Absolutely!

Now I have seen many movies shoot on DV/HDV. One common factor is that they are all deinterlaced to either 23.96 or 25fps. Now interlaced 50i/60i stuff that I know of is basicly used in everything else than movies. If you shoot 60fps progressive on your Red One you going to have that same motion feel to it. You will aslo get a much better picture. And thats great if you want to shoot something like...sports. So dont get me wrong I dont limit the Red One to a "only feature movie camera". Im yust saying that feature movies are made in 24fps because people love it, and they still will. So why change it?



If you review the specifications for RED One, you'll find resolutions of 2540p, 4k, 2k, 1080p, 720p (and 1080i via REDCINE extraction), lens use options of S35mm, 35mm still, S16, and B4 2/3", and variable frame rates enabled from 1 to 120fps depending on shooting format. All of these formats, lens choices, frame rates, and accessory options are there for a reason - to enable a wide variety of production and delivery options to RED adopters, way beyond projected feature movies. IMO vast amounts of EFP productions, especially television programming, will be produced using RED One. Some of it will be 24p originated, but a huge portion of it will be acquired at variable frame rates. Then it will be televised in various rates, including 1080i, 720p, 576i, and 480i.


I really dont need to comment this. But I want to say for future application.
I have been following Red since the begining, reading anything that I can find about this camera. I have done my homework, trust me :-)



A myopic, "24fps or nothing" approach to RED One simply limits us professionally and financially - while our more open-minded competition progressively learns more and earns more.


Well my only comment to that is. 100% true.



24fps is fine for some projects, but severely limiting for other genres the RED One will be used in. With media convergence, people with film backgrounds tend to favor their comfort zones of 24fps/filmic expression, but I think if they will open their eyes to the realities and possibilities of the marketplace, and the capabilities of RED One, they’ll realize that there’s a big, new world of potential out there.


Again absolutely! Couldent agree more.

[Fix]

Fix, we're not getting rid of 24p, but to think that 24p is the frame rate of the future is not forwards thinking. Sure, support it, embrace it, work with it, but it's not and never has been the be-all and end-all.

Graeme

Yo Graeme, Im very open minded for new consepts. Maybe its my bad English and im sorry for that. Because Im definitely not saying that we cant do a lot with this camera or any camera for that reason. I do belive, in a non predicted future, that we may see 60fps movies (not slowmotion). But right now I cant find any good arguments for going even 30fps on the new blockbuster, people wouldent say "thats about time!".

[redhead]

This is not want I meant at all... I think Red One can be used in many differnet situations, in fact I think its range of use is somehow unlimited. Movies, tv shows, advertisement, news... hell even web tv etc. The list goes on.
I would love to see the ability of shooting at two different rates at the same time, such as 24 and 60 fps, and having them both stored in the same file with the ability to extract them separately later on. There would be some overlap, where 12 frames would belong to both, the 24 fps and 60 fps version, while 12 would only belong to the 24 fps version and 48 only to the 60 fps version. That would require taking 72 frames in a second, but not spaced equally at 72 fps, but according to two separate clocks, one running at 24 fps, the other at 60 fps (or any other combination desired).

That way, we could make a film version at 24 fps and a TV version at 60 fps from the same digital data. Even an NLE could be fixed to deal with the double-rate data, so both versions could be edited at the same time and only then separated into a 24 fps and 60 fps version.

[Peter McCully]

The faster the action in a film and the tighter lens and the cutting, the less 24p appeals to me. Maybe it's just my age but I find my eyes just don't keep up sometimes. I think there's some appeal in a digital version of Trumbull's "Showscan" process which was 70mm shot and projected at 60fps. The one film I have seen in this still had all the snap and richness of film but with much reduced grain, higher contrast owing to a suped up light output and hardly perceptible gate flicker. The possibility of a similar Red system...?

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, changing from 24p to 30p doesn't make much visual difference. But going up to 50p or 60p does, and the Japanese love that look for drama, and all drama in the UK used to be on video and people liked that also.

I think 50p or 60p at 4k would be an utterly amazing experience that would draw you into the movie like nothing else.

However, it may not be to some tastes...

But, look at Wizard of Oz with it's mix of black and white and colour for effect. You could do the same with fps, or like the Matrix with it's green look. Opening up frame rate to artistic control could bring new wonders to the screen, and that's something I'm all for.

Graeme

[Teague Kennedy]

OK...RED One doesn't shoot film, RED One footage doesn't look exactly like film, and RED One's technology is most closely related to that of DSLRs, followed by video technology - not the mechanical technology of film cameras. Who's "we"? This board is full of people with backgrounds in film, video, and still photography. A collective "we" isn't appropriate any more than assuming everyone's aesthetic and professional tastes are the same.




Again, who's "we"? There are many crossover professionals on this forum that produce movies, reality, and a long list of other genres. RED One was designed as a digital cinema camera that can be re-lensed and re-accessorized for an extensive list of cine-style and EFP style production genres. If someone chooses to just do movies, fine, but they should also realize there will be tons of others of us who will use RED One in all the genres it is capable of. My ego (or bank account) won’t be bruised in the slightest by producing/directing a D-cinema feature with RED One – and then following that up immediately with a reality television series. If someone’s is, then they’re missing some key design intentions of RED One, namely flexibility, adaptability, and utility.

Gibby, sorry you were worried you would be included in "we" but I don't think I need a caveat in every thing I say that goes like this....."'we' meaning those who are in agreeance." "We" could mean all the people of the world, or the people sitting in the room with me while I type. If you disagree with the point I make, then say so, but you don't need to be worried that I picked you for a team you don't want to be a part of.

I was not talking about reality television (which I work on all the time, and I hope to shoot with Red) or whatever else needs to be "real." I was talking about narrative storytelling. And no, "I" don't care for it to look or feel like reality at all. I want it to be a whole different place.... and I'm not the only one. And those people are "we."

[IAN SUN]

Well, changing from 24p to 30p doesn't make much visual difference. But going up to 50p or 60p does, and the Japanese love that look for drama, and all drama in the UK used to be on video and people liked that also.

I think 50p or 60p at 4k would be an utterly amazing experience that would draw you into the movie like nothing else.

However, it may not be to some tastes...

But, look at Wizard of Oz with it's mix of black and white and colour for effect. You could do the same with fps, or like the Matrix with it's green look. Opening up frame rate to artistic control could bring new wonders to the screen, and that's something I'm all for.

Graeme

I totally hear that Graeme, refer back to my earlier post on an in movie, variable framerate RED projector.

Variable framerate playback (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2084&highlight=Variable+framerate)

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby, sorry you were worried you would be included in "we" but I don't think I need a caveat in every thing I say that goes like this....."'we' meaning those who are in agreeance." "We" could mean all the people of the world, or the people sitting in the room with me while I type. If you disagree with the point I make, then say so, but you don't need to be worried that I picked you for a team you don't want to be a part of.

Let’s look back at your post #49 and your use of “we”:

““Film does not look like reality. That's why we like it. Video looks more like reality, really -- at 60i.... We make movies because reality just won't cut it!”

In my post #53 I disagreed with your opinion in your post #49 and wanted this forum to know that when you used the word “we” I wasn’t included in that group, plain and simple. If you want to avoid misunderstandings on that, why don’t your say “I”, or "IMO" if it’s your opinion, or if it’s a group, then simply define who the group is? Since NAB there are several hundred more visitors to this site each day. A false notion that everyone here is totally film-centric and anti video is the wrong impression for visitors to get. I did disagree with the point you made – and I said so.



I was not talking about reality television (which I work on all the time, and I hope to shoot with Red) or whatever else needs to be "real." I was talking about narrative storytelling. And no, "I" don't care for it to look or feel like reality at all. I want it to be a whole different place.... and I'm not the only one. And those people are "we."

So why didn’t you simply say you were just talking about narrative storytelling? Again, if you had said “I”, rather than “we” I probably wouldn’t have taken exception with your post. I think it would be a better idea to let those other people speak for themselves.

Frankly, what you like or don’t like is your rightful opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you’ll get questioned on it a lot less if you state it as such, your opinion, and not tag it as a “we”, so readers are clear on who you’re talking about.

[Fix]

Well, changing from 24p to 30p doesn't make much visual difference. But going up to 50p or 60p does, and the Japanese love that look for drama, and all drama in the UK used to be on video and people liked that also.

I think 50p or 60p at 4k would be an utterly amazing experience that would draw you into the movie like nothing else.

However, it may not be to some tastes...

But, look at Wizard of Oz with it's mix of black and white and colour for effect. You could do the same with fps, or like the Matrix with it's green look. Opening up frame rate to artistic control could bring new wonders to the screen, and that's something I'm all for.

Graeme

Yup its the same in Norway, we got drama in 50p and some of it have made great success regards tv. Im sure we going to see alot more of that also in the future. Maybe also in the cinema. Now it would be interesting to watch "Matrix" in 50fps. But I think thats a whole different thing than do a green tint in post. We take up this discussion when the first 50fps+ (maybe 4k) movie hits the big screen :)

[Teague Kennedy]

Let’s look back at your post #49 and your use of “we”:

““Film does not look like reality. That's why we like it. Video looks more like reality, really -- at 60i.... We make movies because reality just won't cut it!”

In my post #53 I disagreed with your opinion in your post #49 and wanted this forum to know that when you used the word “we” I wasn’t included in that group, plain and simple. If you want to avoid misunderstandings on that, why don’t your say “I”, or "IMO" if it’s your opinion, or if it’s a group, then simply define who the group is? Since NAB there are several hundred more visitors to this site each day. A false notion that everyone here is totally film-centric and anti video is the wrong impression for visitors to get. I did disagree with the point you made – and I said so.




So why didn’t you simply say you were just talking about narrative storytelling? Again, if you had said “I”, rather than “we” I probably wouldn’t have taken exception with your post. I think it would be a better idea to let those other people speak for themselves.

Frankly, what you like or don’t like is your rightful opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you’ll get questioned on it a lot less if you state it as such, your opinion, and not tag it as a “we”, so readers are clear on who you’re talking about.

Gibby, most everything that is said on this board is opinion... Nobody is spelling that out you know.

I did not mean to imply that everyone on this board shares my opinion -- as it is obvious by reading threads that that is not true. Perhaps it was a poor choice of phrasing, but my post really was not about "we" or "I" it was about the look and feel of film and video.

I'm glad that this has become a discussion on the word "we" and not my point.

[Stephen Williams]

[QUOTE=Graeme Nattress;37897 and all drama in the UK used to be on video and people liked that also.

Graeme[/QUOTE]

Graeme,

I always thought most of the UK Drama used to be shot on film. All those Panavision 'Elaine's that got converted to S16mm with PL mount.

Stephen

[Stephen Webb]

I always thought most of the UK Drama used to be shot on film.

Do you not remember the 80's Stephen? That big push to shoot everything on video 'cause there was no need for film anymore?

Which ended up dying, 'cause people realised how awful video actually looked and Producer's flocked back to s16 in droves so that their productions didn't look fake and plastic.

Funny thing is, a lot of current drama in the UK has dabbled with HD and switched straight back to s16 as well...

[Fix]

Googleboyboy, I know what you're talking about. I was very excited to sit in the 20th showing of the Peter Jackson short, and was instantly disappointed at the shutter 'feeling' of the picture and it did look quite video-like. The picture was beautiful, as Graeme mentioned, but I was hoping the camera would be a great alternative to film, not a 'unique' alternative to film. It wasn't quite filmlike at all. Christopher Kenworthy may not have references to what you're talking about, but look at any nicely shot 35mm film transferred to 4k or even transferred down to HD and compare it to the PJ short and ChrisKenworthy might see the videolook we're talking about. I'm confident this will be addressed, however. I don't think you are wrong, I was thinking the exact same thing. It kinda bothered me to watch some of the short, however I'm still investing in this venture.

The ultimate question regards this issue would be. Can Red one produce convincing film like (shutter) motion? I haven’t seen the whole PJ movie yet, so it’s difficult for me to say anything on that behalf. Though the 20sec clip didn’t have that holy film like motion, which many of us want to obtain from this camera. I can’t say it was video like either, but maybe something unique as you put it. Now, am pretty confident that we will be able to obtain film like motion in that traditional 24fps 35mm aspect. The team behind this camera have made so much great stuff until now. Loosing fate now on what this camera can do would be impudent at this time. We haven’t seen anything yet. So again, I’m quite confident and I believe more people should also.

I don’t think PJ tried to make it look like 35mm, but maybe something even better than 35mm. Now if you want to revolutionise something you got to break some boundaries. Those boundaries can be hard to accept for many of us, me included.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

It wasn't quite filmlike at all. Christopher Kenworthy may not have references to what you're talking about, but look at any nicely shot 35mm film transferred to 4k or even transferred down to HD and compare it to the PJ short and ChrisKenworthy might see the videolook we're talking about.

Erm, yep, I've looked at plenty of 35mm at HD res, thanks very much. I know what it looks like. I also know what video looks like. The PJ footage does not look like video. It's certainly sharp, but so is a very fine-grain well-exposed film stock. The motion in the PJ footage does not look like video.

How I wish somebody would shoot the same subject (maybe a mouse going round in a wheel) on DV, HDV, HD, Red, 16mm and 35mm. Compress them all down to 1080p, or similar, and then we can really talk about what looks like video and what looks like film. Or just what looks best.

[Stephen Williams]

Do you not remember the 80's Stephen? That big push to shoot everything on video 'cause there was no need for film anymore?

Which ended up dying, 'cause people realised how awful video actually looked and Producer's flocked back to s16 in droves so that their productions didn't look fake and plastic.

Funny thing is, a lot of current drama in the UK has dabbled with HD and switched straight back to s16 as well...

Hi Stephen,

Most of the BBC Prime output I see probably is form the 1980's! I did not think much UK drama is video except 'Touchwood' enough to make anybody shoot film IMHO.

Stephen

[Graeme Nattress]

Even in the 70s you'd get mainly video, or video + film for OB. Just look at the wonderful Louie Jordan Dracula for instance.

Graeme

[Stephen Williams]

Even in the 70s you'd get mainly video, or video + film for OB. Just look at the wonderful Louie Jordan Dracula for instance.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

Are yes Fawlty Towers & To the Manor Born, now I understand. Interestingly enough that's when video looked good before 2/3 inch chip cameras arrived.

Stephen

[Graeme Nattress]

Back in the good old days of Tube+Quad, silky smooth video + comet trails on highlights - I love that look! It's so evocotive of that period.

Graeme

[Samscad]

Didn't look video-like to me. Quite frankly, what it did look like was that beautiful 65mm stuff in 4k, like Mystic India.

Graeme

I agree. I think it looks more like IMAX footage than 35mm. I think that's why some people might equate that with video, it's ultra sharp. I also think that's why the motion seems a little jarring at first. It's so sharp, that you see all that motion blur sharply, if that makes any sense. I still think it is technically superior to film therefore, despite what film lovers say, the next gen of film makers and the people on the street will ultimately prefer it.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

I agree. I think it looks more like IMAX footage than 35mm. I think that's why some people might equate that with video, it's ultra sharp. I also think that's why the motion seems a little jarring at first. It's so sharp, that you see all that motion blur sharply, if that makes any sense. I still think it is technically superior to film therefore, despite what film lovers say, the next gen of film makers and the people on the street will ultimately prefer it.

This is a good point. Red footage is ultra sharp (so long as we can all keep it on focus, that is). The real interest for me will be what Red footage looks like in the main delivery formats I'll be using; 35mm film for cinema projection, DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. I imagine it will be very film-like on 35mm, but may be sharper than most film appears on the other formats. Not such a bad thing. I remember going to see a popular Hollywood movie two days after the release, and the print was already wrecked from the countless screenings it had suffered. It was dull and scratchy. When I finally saw the same film on DVD, it looked sharp and colourful and I was happy. If Red looks sharp and clear on DVD, or other formats, I think the end-users will be happy.