Quick dirty look at some of the files from last night.

[Mike Prevette]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1066/1296467025_34d88fc0a1_o.jpg



I played with a couple of the images from last night, and I have a few small questions. Overall the images look great, especially considering the conditions, and time constraints. Not to mention the adrenaline that must have been pumping. Hell I was shaking here in Seattle just hitting refresh all night.

_mike

[Dexter Gregoire]

That analysis you gave is great Mike. I also notice blue pixels on the shirt of the bottom picture.

I plan to light the scene for a specific shot and the effect I'm looking for, and only brighten the scene in post by 10% maximum. That way I know I'll be safe or at least I hope.

So to me those shots look Beautiful and I can't wait to receive my camera.
Everyone who received must be having a fun time.

[PappasArts]

First I appreciate your good detailed analysis like you have done mike; I do it my self to the very very extreme. However......

I equate this analysis to taking the hottest Playboy playmate you can find, and going over her with a magnifying glass under a 2000 watt lamp looking for imperfections. Yes, Red in the " D-Cinema camera world ", is equal to hottest Playboy playmate you can find at present in the human world!

I have been watching Red's development since day one quietly in the back of the room and only the other day signed up here. Red is absolutely awesome, and all at Red have done an amazing job! It boggles my mind to see this analyzation at such a revolutionary system so quickly the day after it shipped. If you look at the best DSLRs or quarter of million dollar approximate costing D-Cinema systems like Sony's, Dalsa, D20 etc and even the rentable Panavision. They all exhibit something if you bully the friggin image to death.

Hell, squeeze a rock hard enough, im sure your get a billionth of a drop of water out of it.

However that's just my opinion..........

SInce I have not ever seen the RED system yet, Im looking forward to that day....



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

[Roberto B]

hey pappas, when there's a new camera.. here you are.. from silent to talkie i.e. alive..

edit
btw, me likes playmates analogies.. ehehehehe same pappas..

[Mike Prevette]

The point of my post was not to be contrary, but to merely start understanding the qualities of the RED's image. That is a huge part of my job as a cinematographer. Ever day new lens camera combo's are thrown at you, and every job is different. So understanding the minute details associated with each combo can become the difference between getting hired again, or getting badmouthed in the edit or color session.

Your analogy fails to mention what POV I view the picture from. Am I the photographer? Model? Makeup artist? Printer? paper supplier? all these people should be pouring over that image with a fine tooth comb because its THEIR JOB TO DO SO!

If this camera shows signifigant electron bleed that smeers the image to the right of any highlight I NEED to know about it. Imagine a scenario where your shooting macro shots of some jewelry for a highend client, You have a diamond ring on a turntable with black duvie in the background. The highlights on the ring the client loves so much cause a frame or two worth of flare stretching across the whole frame. No one notices with the on set monitors but it becomes painfully obvious in the edit or color session. Then they have to pay a flame op a few grand to paint it out. All of a sudden your long time client walks away from you, and the agency producer tells all their buddies that you can't shoot jewelry worth a damn. End of story. It's a dog eat dog world and you have to know the idiosyncrasies of your tools.

_mike

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Keep tearing it apart.

That being said. I just spent some time seeing what it would take to put it back together (since that's my job. ;))

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n134/im_thatoneguy/Brook_DeGrain_CC2.jpg

HOLY MOTHER of God! 1600 ISO!

Edit: HOLY MOTHER of God! 6000 ISO!

[Mike Prevette]

Amazing. It looks really cool in BW as well.

[Adrian T.]

HOLY MOTHER of God! 1600 ISO!

Not! 6000 ISO!
Here's the post:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=75732&postcount=260 (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=75732&postcount=260)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

And it still looks like 500 ASA film!

[Jim Arthurs]

Your analogy fails to mention what POV I view the picture from. Am I the photographer? Model? Makeup artist? Printer? paper supplier? all these people should be pouring over that image with a fine tooth comb because its THEIR JOB TO DO SO!

It's a dog eat dog world and you have to know the idiosyncrasies of your tools.

_mike

Couldn't agree more... it's no slam to the camera, shooters, programmers, or anything personal to point out what you see and ask questions about it.

These aren't prototypes, these new images from these new cameras are fair game for that kind of analysis. God bless these guys doing the testing and sharing... If I need to say that louder, then I do so now. Thank you!

A couple years ago I was critical of the HVX200 on several issues and wanted clarification. I wanted the camera for green screen work and simply needed to know the limitations of the tool... Under what conditions produced the most noise? What exactly was the resolution difference between the way it recorded 720p and 1080? For the most part, I had to wait until I actually had it in hand to answer these questions to my satisfaction and therefore use it to its full potential for my application and know the work-arounds.

I'm certainly not going to be less critical of the RED than I was of the HVX.

[LighthouseMEdia]

Dats right bring the heat!!! Red delivered the good and now its time to put them through the fiery test to push it to the limits and find the breaking points.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I have seen a pretty fair amount of footage fly off my camera in the last 24 hours. It is far from perfect, but it looks soooo damn good.

I wouldn't determine that the camera smears to the right off highlights from one image.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

No but I would determine that it smears vertically slightly. :)

[Steve Sherrick]

It is far from perfect, but it looks soooo damn good.
Hmmm....looking forward to hearing more from you Blair. When you say far from perfect, do you mean yu are seeing a lot of problems right out of the gate, or do you mean your footage is far from perfect based on how you exposed it, etc

Thanks,
Steve

[Brook Willard]

The little dot in the first pic is a reflection, don't worry.

The blue streak in the second pic is an optical flare.

The random pixels at the top are a mystery... didn't notice those.

[Karl H]

Keep tearing it apart.

That being said. I just spent some time seeing what it would take to put it back together (since that's my job. ;))

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n134/im_thatoneguy/Brook_DeGrain_CC2.jpg

HOLY MOTHER of God! 1600 ISO!

Edit: HOLY MOTHER of God! 6000 ISO!

Hi Gavin,

What did you use to reduce the noise and the blue pixels here?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

My most favoritest of de-noiser plugins. Neat Image: http://www.neatimage.com/

[Simon Blackledge]

:-) neat image rocks..

..and all you Premiere kids out there.. there's a video version.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

or VirtualDub people.

[Karl H]

thanks gavin, I was aware of some NR plugins, but wondered what you used here. thanks a lot. If it works in Prem, even better.