I was wrrr...wrrrrong. [Archive]

Jannard

09-27-2007, 08:09 PM

Jaime Vallés

09-27-2007, 08:13 PM

Nice. Thanks for the feedback! In your opinion, would intercutting between 4K and windowed 2k slo-mo be too jarring, as far as image quality, texture, etc.?

60p is now officially old hat. ;)

Babu Kantamneni

09-27-2007, 08:16 PM

What do you mean Jim?
We are not 4K or it liiks better in 2K for now while you are tweeking some more?
Babu

Pol Turrents

09-27-2007, 08:19 PM

I would love to see some stuff at 2k 72fps!
Post it Jim!

Joe Aurili

09-27-2007, 08:19 PM

So, are you saying that 18mm on the short zoom will not be in focus with 2K mode?

Alex Boothby

09-27-2007, 08:20 PM

3. You can use all your 35mm PL mount lenses, except at the wide end due to the focal length factor. You'll need a wide S16 lens or two to cover all the bases.
Jim

Could someone explain this for us dummies (uh, me...) Is this a back focus issue? I was under the impression that I could always use 35mm glass to shoot 2K windowed (thus capturing the center portion of the full s35 lens)?

ChrisLyon

09-27-2007, 08:20 PM

no, 4k is okay. he once stated that he would always shoot 4k and 4k only. Now he is seeing characteristics of 2k that validate it's use to him.

Jaime Vallés

09-27-2007, 08:20 PM

So, are you saying that 18mm on the short zoom will not be in focus with 2K mode?
I think he means that you're going to want something wider than 18mm in 2K windowed mode. When you shoot 2K windowed, it crops the center of the image, so it's not as wide. Having a 10mm or 12mm lens for 2K windowed will probably be very advisable.

Jarred Land

09-27-2007, 08:22 PM

I would love to see some stuff at 2k 72fps!
Post it Jim!

mmm.. thats a good idea :meh:

Evan Owen

09-27-2007, 08:24 PM

mmm.. thats a good idea :meh:

A very good idea. I've been waiting to see high-speed RED footage forever... :matrix:

Alex Boothby

09-27-2007, 08:26 PM

I think he means that you're going to want something wider than 18mm in 2K windowed mode. When you shoot 2K windowed, it crops the center of the image, so it's not as wide. Having a 10mm or 12mm lens for 2K windowed will probably be very advisable.

Thanks for clarifying Jaime. I was planning on getting a cheap 8mm Peleng for just that purpose. The fisheye distortion is crazy but not too bad in the center of the lens.

Jarred Land

09-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Nice. Thanks for the feedback! In your opinion, would intercutting between 4K and windowed 2k slo-mo be too jarring, as far as image quality, texture, etc.?

60p is now officially old hat. ;)

depends.. if your scaling down that 4k to 2k and intercutting the 2k you will be able to get buy.. but trying to scale up 2k to 4k isnt gonna look very good.

Jeff Kilgroe

09-27-2007, 08:29 PM

I think he means that you're going to want something wider than 18mm in 2K windowed mode. When you shoot 2K windowed, it crops the center of the image, so it's not as wide. Having a 10mm or 12mm lens for 2K windowed will probably be very advisable.

That's exactly it. In 2K windowed mode, you're seeing 1/4 of the entire 4K image area cropped out of the middle. It has a 2X zooming effect. You will want a wide s16mm lens to handle the wide end of things. an 18mm s35mm lens on the camera would be like a 36mm when shooting in 2K windowed mode.

Jim Arthurs

09-27-2007, 09:19 PM

The Canon 10-22mm and Birger will be perfect for most 2K windowed work on the slightly wider side. 10mm is very acceptable wide angle for S16mm coverage.

C.H.Haskell

09-27-2007, 09:30 PM

Great news about this 2k...I look at it this way, my clients are happy with my current 720p footage so I can really see this 2k being useful in many scenarios.

Tom Lowe

09-27-2007, 09:31 PM

heh, the efs 10-22... my favorite lens... ever.

Matt Uhry

09-27-2007, 09:34 PM

Cool I'm glad that the features are coming on line. I could not help but think as we were shooting last week with #8 and #13 that It's Cinematography Year Zero.

Banzai !

***** Oops read the answer to this further down the list, Apologies *******

I see many situations that would benefit from using 2k scaled Raw, how's it going with that ? Is it still on the table for the medium near future ?

******

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Steve Freebairn

09-27-2007, 10:17 PM

I love that we have a choice, 2k or 4k! It's funny that 2k is suddenly not good enough :) for some. I know there are cases, but unless it's getting projected, I think 2k is going to look mighty fine on 1080p tvs. I'm way excited to have overcranking on 2k material.

Jannard

09-27-2007, 10:36 PM

Just a reminder, 2k is about 10% more resolution than 1080P... in case you forgot.

Jim

Sanjin Jukic

09-27-2007, 10:41 PM

Thanks Jim.

Great news.

dvpixl

09-27-2007, 10:41 PM

in the beginning I thought 2K was theatrical.

Shawn Nelson

09-27-2007, 10:43 PM

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 10:48 PM

In terms of depth of field, though, I see one advantage here to 2K windowed -- overcranking from 24 fps to 72 fps is nearly a 2-stop exposure loss, and normally you'd open-up the iris to compensate... but switching to 2K windowed for the 72 fps shot and therefore using a shorter focal length almost compensates and keeps your depth of field similar to the 4K 24 fps shot.

Sanjin Jukic

09-27-2007, 10:49 PM

After that experience, I am completely fine with 2k :-)

And the most indie productions could afford 2K pipeline. 4K post is still for big guys, Hollywood budget etc...

jbeale

09-27-2007, 11:37 PM

When I was at Red HQ, Jim showed us raw footage from PJ's Crossing the Line at 2k resolution. I stood so close to the projection that my eyes could not hold the screen in focus, and I still could not see pixels.
Just to be pedantic, might that have been 2k scaled down from a 4k original, as opposed to a 2k crop? In theory, the scaled version should be cleaner than a crop... I don't know how much real difference is visible though. With the new firmware updates I guess we'll all be finding out out soon enough!

Brandon Fraley

09-28-2007, 12:10 AM

PJ shot 4k, so it was scaled down. Shawn's point still stand though. I cant wait :)

Álex Montoya

09-28-2007, 12:15 AM

Is the CMOS readout faster in this mode?

Things like gun muzzles could benefit from it.

Rob Lohman

09-28-2007, 03:03 AM

Is the CMOS readout faster in this mode?

Things like gun muzzles could benefit from it.

Yes. The full sensor is max 60 fps, in 2K mode this goes up to 120 fps. The plan is to do 100 fps to compact flash...

REDHKSC

09-28-2007, 04:52 AM

OK. I have to eat crow. I admit it. I won't just shoot 4K.

Shooting 2K windowed is a completely valid option.

1. Even windowed from 4K, the 2K sensor portion is larger than 2/3", better DOF characteristics than an F23, HDCAM or Viper.

2. Having 72fps (for now) at this frame size is better than HDCAM-SR 4:4:4, which now shoots 60fps at 1080P.

3. You can use all your 35mm PL mount lenses, except at the wide end due to the focal length factor. You'll need a wide S16 lens or two to cover all the bases.

4. The record time to 8GB CF is over 20 minutes.

5. Pushing the data through the pipeline is much easier.

And best of all, the image looks great.

I still will shoot most of my stuff 4K, but I won't hesitate to shoot 2K windowed if necessary.

Jim

Why not 2K ? , and there are many 2K D-Cinemas outthere. Check this out at
http://www.christiedigital.com/NR/rdonlyres/56A1EDC4-17BE-4DAC-AB0B-938CC39569C9/0/christieDigitalCinemaTheatres.pdf

If Sony want to know how to sell their 4K projectors at FULL price, and they should build a 4K Digital Cinema Camera as a Digital Cinemea package in 4K to anything. Otherwise, may I suggest them just to sell their 4K Projector at the HD price. Film based scanning source to project from their 4K is different issue.

Where is our RED Digital Cinema ? Will RED build more RED Digital Cinemas for our RED one owners / content creators in 4K ?

Stewart

Stewart

Jamon Lewis

09-28-2007, 05:39 AM

Guess this is a dumb question or rather has been explain and discussed on a thread (i'll take the link to the thread...) but i'll ask it anyway... What are the advantages of 2K windowed over strait 2k? tanks

Stephen Williams

09-28-2007, 05:41 AM

Higher frame rates possible.

Stephen

mezmo

09-28-2007, 05:45 AM

So, are you saying that 18mm on the short zoom will not be in focus with 2K mode?
Hi jlaurili,
18mm on the short zoom would have about a 36mm field of view.
you would need a 7-64mm cannonS16 Cine zoom to get a similar
field of view on 2K windowed or a Zeiss 11-110 (slighty longer) but
better build quality.
Big bucks for this glass around 15-20$K U.S.
Wide angle Primes are also expensive as things get critical around the
6-8mm range, just like HD wide angle primes.
A better and cheaper plan would be to get Red running faster @ 4K,
over to you Jim. Or 2K scaled with 35mm DOF.
Sorry to be negative here guys but I think this is really important for
Red to make it, Big Time.
Jim's asking a lot of people to spend big bucks on S16 or B4 glass
while they wait for 2K scaled. Hmmmmm.
Hope this helps. Mezmo

TimPipher

09-28-2007, 06:32 AM

Hi jlaurili,
18mm on the short zoom would have about a 36mm field of view.
you would need a 7-64mm cannonS16 Cine zoom to get a similar
field of view on 2K windowed or a Zeiss 11-110 (slighty longer) but
better build quality.
Big bucks for this glass around 15-20$K U.S.
Wide angle Primes are also expensive as things get critical around the
6-8mm range, just like HD wide angle primes.
A better and cheaper plan would be to get Red running faster @ 4K,
over to you Jim. Or 2K scaled with 35mm DOF.
Sorry to be negative here guys but I think this is really important for
Red to make it, Big Time.
Jim's asking a lot of people to spend big bucks on S16 or B4 glass
while they wait for 2K scaled. Hmmmmm.
Hope this helps. Mezmo

Is 2K scaled with 35mm DOF in the works? If so, what's the ETA? Also, I assume that would give the same recording time on the CF cards as 2K windowed, correct?

JD Holloway

09-28-2007, 06:42 AM

mezmo

09-28-2007, 06:12 PM

Hi Tim,
Yes 2K scaled with 35mm DOF @ around 75fps is in the works.
ETA? At the moment 4k with 35mm DOF @ 30fps to flash is the only option
or windowed with S16 DOF at hopefully 75 fps (for those in 50 cycle
countries) is the high speed option. The camera has been tested at
72fps windowed to flash, (3x24fps). Recording time at 2K scaled ?
I think it can get to 60fps thru the data port and that would mean 120fps
at 2K scaled thru the data port, need to check this.
The way it is now the average feature film shoot would need two lens sets.
S16 zoom and primes, 35mm format Zoom and primes. A producers nightmare. Or you would have to hire in a dedicated digital high speed camera.
Or shoot high speed on 35mm film.
Sort of gets expensive for indie filmakers like me. Not a problem for the
big guys.
I was hoping that Red would crack it here, come out with a digital 35mm
DOF camera with a decent high speed frame rate to flash. It may be some time coming and it makes it hard to sell this system NOW to directors who love 35mm
DOF and shoot a lot of things off speed.
I'll go now, just a little depressed. Mezmo

Joe Aurili

09-28-2007, 06:21 PM

Too rich for me to get wide angles in 2K. I was wanting to get even wider in 4K, but once again to rich for me :)

Hi jlaurili,
18mm on the short zoom would have about a 36mm field of view.
you would need a 7-64mm cannonS16 Cine zoom to get a similar
field of view on 2K windowed or a Zeiss 11-110 (slighty longer) but
better build quality.
Big bucks for this glass around 15-20$K U.S.
Wide angle Primes are also expensive as things get critical around the
6-8mm range, just like HD wide angle primes.
A better and cheaper plan would be to get Red running faster @ 4K,
over to you Jim. Or 2K scaled with 35mm DOF.
Sorry to be negative here guys but I think this is really important for
Red to make it, Big Time.
Jim's asking a lot of people to spend big bucks on S16 or B4 glass
while they wait for 2K scaled. Hmmmmm.
Hope this helps. Mezmo

Rocco Schult

09-28-2007, 06:55 PM

First of all, great you guys managed to do the 72 fps, thats really great news.

Jim's asking a lot of people to spend big bucks on S16 or B4 glass while they wait for 2K scaled. Hmmmmm.

Yes 2K scaled with 35mm DOF @ around 75fps is in the works....It may be some time coming and it makes it hard to sell this system NOW to directors who love 35mm

Though I must asmit, that Mezmo is kinda right. As we know the 2k scaled is in the works -somehow and sometime- we want more. Its not greed. Its just, if we know it can be done, its truly the better choice.

Nonetheless, thanks for the feature!

Häakon

09-28-2007, 07:12 PM

Hi Tim,
Yes 2K scaled with 35mm DOF @ around 75fps is in the works.
Hi,

2K scaled will never shoot faster than 60fps because it is scaled from the full 4K sensor which has a max framerate of 60p. This is a hardware limitation and cannot be upgraded through firmware.

Best,

Häakon

Joe Aurili

09-28-2007, 07:57 PM

Or, I guess, I can always get free and low distortion wide angle in 2K or 4K, by moving back the camera.

TimPipher

09-28-2007, 08:02 PM

TimPipher

09-28-2007, 08:31 PM

Would it make any difference recording in a studio set-up to an external deck (say HDCAM SR or Wafian 2 at 1080P) -- would the Red 18-50 mm zoom offer 35 mm DOF in that situation? If not, what lens would be necessary?

Alexander Black

09-28-2007, 09:26 PM

hi Tim,

No, it wouldn't - it's a function of the sensor which will not do full raster at more than 60fps.

Pixar records 1.5k to their release prints, which are all made in emeryville if I remember right - they tested up to insane resolutions (I think as high as 6k) and decided that 1.5k was about right. Tells you a lot. Frankly I'd be just as happy with red if it was 2k+ (~3609px x 1536, 2.35:1), same size as the current chip, and up to 120fps.

4k is very cool, and projected it _is_ amazing, but I do see the problem of shooting what is effectively S16 high speed.

But, we are also talking about something which happily shoots 4k for ~40k with glass, and that alone is completely insane. ;)

_a

Michael Lindsay

09-29-2007, 05:09 AM

The HS windowed option is a great option!!!

To make good and easy use of this feature I intend to augment the two zooms and the set of Primes with a couple of these (or some S16 mrk 11 Super speeds)

www.cinematechnic.com/products/optar_illumina_lenses.html

This is not an expensive option and on any shoot there are compromises. I'm a little confused by peoples 'aghh if it can't do exactly ******* we're f**ked' attitude..

It wood be great if we get scaled 2k sooner than later but at the moment I'm just desperate to get my cameras.. And I say that as somebody whose day job always includes slowmo...

regards

Michael

ps I will probably replace(or compliment) the Red 15mm T3 with a T1.9 Zeiss UP 16mm as well. T3 S16 is a little fat to match up when using the centre for cropped work..

Mark L. Pederson

09-29-2007, 05:20 AM

We are looking very forward to testing film record out tests of 2K vs 4K on RED - which we will be doing during the month of October on at least three different film recorders.

I actually suspect that 2K is going to look pretty damn good. The questions is, how much better does 4K look?

The short-term reality of film-record out from 4K is WAY beyond any indies budget level - that will change eventually as 4K records outs become ... competitive (who would have thought?)

The thing that we keep thinking of is long term archive of camera original data (you know ... "negative") - and the ability to pull print elements (stills) from any frame - and those two reason alone make a HUGE argument for shooting 4K over 2K on the Red.

The reality is - for Offhollywood, if our clients cut in proxy extractions from 4K .r3d material over a SAN, and we grade in Scratch from 4K .r3d - the ONLY difference in cost/price point for our clients on 2K vs 4K is:

1) amount of RAID storage (and redundant off-site LTO3 back-up)
2) amount of time to RENDER FINAL out of Scratch. One price for 2K render, one price for 4K render.
3) obviously the storage required for render out (see #2) - but this could be short-term RENTAL storage that just transports to film lab for record out. Client just keeps .r3d on LTO3's.

So in the case of working with us - there would be VERY little price difference between finishing in 2K vs 4K. We are still working on those numbers as we are testing so many things - but at the moment, speaking as a producer (which I also am) I would have to STRONGLY suggest shooting 4K on the Red for maximum long term market value and flexibility.

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 06:49 AM

Fergus Meiklejohn

09-29-2007, 07:19 AM

Well Done Off-Hollywood!

So an indie film production would finish in Scratch, render out 2K for a filmout and HDCAM (?) master for festivals, then save the project file in order to go back to it to easily create a 4K filmout or 4K Digital Projection master if a Distributor is found who wants to pay for it.

Path of least resistance eh.. that's a mini revolution in itself :-)

For indie indie indie productions would it be useful if Scratch could translate and convert Apple's color app project files?

Craig W. Bickerstaff

09-29-2007, 07:31 AM

Personally I would prefer to have Apple's color in a state where I wouldn't need to purchase Scratch to finalize my project you may as well skip Color all together at that point.

M Most

09-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Yes 2K scaled with 35mm DOF @ around 75fps is in the works.
ETA? At the moment 4k with 35mm DOF @ 30fps to flash is the only option
or windowed with S16 DOF at hopefully 75 fps (for those in 50 cycle
countries) is the high speed option.

Depth of field has nothing to do with the sensor. It has to do with the lens choice and the aperture. If you shoot the same field of view with the same lens at the same stop, you have the same depth of field. What that means is that if you frame something using, say, a 25mm lens on a 35mm camera, and shoot at, say, a 2.8, then put a 25mm lens on a 16mm camera and moved back to keep the same field of view and used the same stop, the depth of field would be identical. Depth of field is something a cinematographer can control. The key is knowing how to control it and having the physical space to do so.

Antoine Baumann

09-29-2007, 08:47 AM

Yeah dof will be the same but not the perspective, as you moved back with the 16mm camera. Physical space is a thing, but you might not want this "more far away from the subject" perspective.

To be able to switch from "digital 16mm" to "digital 35mm" on the same camera body is great.

antoine.

Matt Uhry

09-29-2007, 08:56 AM

I'm all for 4k cameras.

But lets remember 4k does not mean all your shots will be sharp, it means that under ideal conditions they have the potential to resolve something around 4k.

Any lens issues, missed focus, motion blur... and you are well below the 4k target. We're shooting movies here, not test charts.

Shooting, or processing at a lower resolution may make your film feel a little more visually coherent, less of a difference between the frames where all the stars aligned and you got high resolution and the ones that did not. At least that will be true in the case of 2k scaled.

Anyway just a thought. Like I said in the beginning I'm all for 4k cameras !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 09:20 AM

Personally I would prefer to have Apple's color in a state where I wouldn't need to purchase Scratch to finalize my project you may as well skip Color all together at that point.

Craig,

I have found that color works well when there is only one source. If you have a cuts and dissolves based feature narative, then you can get in and our of color relatively painlessly.

I think that REDCINE might render Color obsolete for RED footage as what might happen is you could cut proxies and then do final pass in REDCINE. I think REDCINE is going to be a much more impressive program than we expect.

This is just a hunch but I hope there is a workflow for REDCINE where we could take a media managed version of the 4K files (AFTER CUTTING THE PROXIE) and then open the files in REDCINE and do more than the one pass CC, do the final grade and relink to the FCP sequence, using an AJA card to send the footage back out to tape sources or QT to render out 2K TIFF sequences for filmouts. THAT would be a revolution.

Who knows what is going on at a pixel level with REDCODE better than RED. They could do a lot to revolutionize post workflows with REDCINE instead of depending on other expensive third party software and push the AJA and APPLE relationships. (two big players)

Big question? Will REDCINE have a V-OUT and use GPU processing to be able to grade on moving footage and not just based on still frames?

Anyone?

Graeme, Is this just Pie in the sky thinking or can REDCIEN be taken to this level?

David

Mark L. Pederson

09-29-2007, 10:12 AM

Are you compressing the LTO-3 or leaving it uncompressed at half the capacity?

David

we are about to EVAL a new LTO3 unit - so we are just starting down that road - I feel a little better not compressing - just doing 400G per LTO3 tape - but I need to get a little more insight and opinion on that - I just feel like at about $50 a tape - why compress - keep it clean - again, just about to start down the LTO3 road - I welcome opinions from folks with heavy LTO3 experience -

Jay A. Kelley

09-29-2007, 10:44 AM

FYI:

We picked up an LTO-4 Drive about 2 months ago in prep for RED.. We're VERY happy with it. We went with the LTO-4 since we're looking at 800gb uncompressed and the cost factor was not that bad.

The tapes cost a little more, but I am very impressed with how well they are built. Like Tanks!

Jay

Chris Kenny

09-29-2007, 10:46 AM

Craig,
I think that REDCINE might render Color obsolete for RED footage as what might happen is you could cut proxies and then do final pass in REDCINE. I think REDCINE is going to be a much more impressive program than we expect.

I doubt REDCINE will have secondaries.

LEON

09-29-2007, 11:13 AM

FYI:

We picked up an LTO-4 Drive about 2 months ago in prep for RED.. We're VERY happy with it. We went with the LTO-4 since we're looking at 800gb uncompressed and the cost factor was not that bad.

Do you mind telling what LTO is it ?
Thank you
Jean Luc Leon

Dan Blanchett

09-29-2007, 11:19 AM

Do you mind telling what LTO is it ?
Thank you
Jean Luc Leon

From Wikipedia:

Linear Tape-Open (or LTO) is a magnetic tape data storage technology developed as an open alternative to the proprietary Digital Linear Tape (DLT). The technology was developed and initiated by Seagate, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM. The standard form-factor of LTO technology goes by the name "Ultrium".

LEON

09-29-2007, 11:23 AM

From Wikipedia:

Linear Tape-Open (or LTO) is a magnetic tape data storage technology developed as an open alternative to the proprietary Digital Linear Tape (DLT). The technology was developed and initiated by Seagate, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM. The standard form-factor of LTO technology goes by the name "Ultrium".

Thank you but please understand me, i am not asking what is LTO but rather which is the one he found solid as a tank,
Thanks anyway for enlighting people who did not know.

Dan Blanchett

09-29-2007, 11:25 AM

Thank you but please understand me, i am not asking what is LTO but rather which is the one he found solid as a tank,
Thanks anyway for enlighting people who did not know.

Ah.... my mistake. :blush:

I'd like to know too.

Joe VanDalsem

09-29-2007, 11:47 AM

can't wait to see this high speed stuff. Wondering how Revisionfx's Twixtor will handle it in after effects. Has anybody tested? Drools over possibilities.

Mark L. Pederson

09-29-2007, 11:54 AM

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 12:53 PM

we are about to EVAL a new LTO3 unit - so we are just starting down that road - I feel a little better not compressing - just doing 400G per LTO3 tape - but I need to get a little more insight and opinion on that - I just feel like at about $50 a tape - why compress - keep it clean - again, just about to start down the LTO3 road - I welcome opinions from folks with heavy LTO3 experience -

Yeah. I hear ya.

That means roughly one LTO per 320 GIG REDDRIVE so that can keep things pretty clean. Best of all the client loves that there is something on the shelf. Going with an LTO-4 could be a very cool thing too as the REDDRIVE will only get higher capacities.

David

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 12:56 PM

I doubt REDCINE will have secondaries.

Chris. Excellent point.

If the Color workflow ever gets sorted out it might be a very cost effective package, but nothing is a substitute for a professional colorist doing shot for shot grading and cleanups.

I'm more speculating on what "could" evolve rather than what is the best way of doing things. I look at it in terms of workflow efficiency.

David

Antoine Baumann

09-29-2007, 01:39 PM

as far as I know, REDDCINE has always been designed as a photo labs and telecine (or scan) but it won't replace color grading tools.

antoine.

number6

09-29-2007, 01:57 PM

OK. I have to eat crow. I admit it. I won't just shoot 4K.

Jim

Jim, it takes a big man to admit when they are wrong. Lose some weight!

edit: on reflection, you being the keeper of the numbers (camera shipping numbers) let me to rephrase that to "lose some weight, if you want to, or if not then don't." Either way, you will always be a big man in the camera building bidness.

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 02:34 PM

as far as I know, REDDCINE has always been designed as a photo labs and telecine (or scan) but it won't replace color grading tools.

antoine.

Yes. I understand that to be the case, but if RED ALERT is giving such pleasing images then and it's doing the "quick and dirty" work what is REDCINE being created for at all?

I think it's going to be a program that lets you get pretty deep into the image and we could see new workflows emerging because of the technology. Working in RAW may mean less need for "traditional" Color Correction workflows. Who knows, mabe things like secodaries become less important when with REDCINE you have access to every pixel recorded before a single thing has been done to it.

David

Joe Carney

09-29-2007, 03:53 PM

2K 60p is making the RED one heck of a camera for syndicated sports shows.
Even when outputting to 1080i, it will be the best looking 1080i out there.
I'll bet even NFL films is interested in this now.

M Most

09-29-2007, 04:46 PM

Yes. I understand that to be the case, but if RED ALERT is giving such pleasing images then and it's doing the "quick and dirty" work what is REDCINE being created for at all?

Things that many of us need for efficient use of Red files - like batch processing, EDL ingest/pull list processing, file organization, and a number of other things.
Neither tool was designed for color correction. They were both designed for basic setting of parameters for file conversions. Besides, color correction needs to be done at the end of the editorial process, not prior to it. Without continuity, you can't do meaningful color correction, and you certainly can't match angles and provide creative interpretation of the image based on the story and how it is being told.

David Battistella

09-29-2007, 05:14 PM

Besides, color correction needs to be done at the end of the editorial process, not prior to it. Without continuity, you can't do meaningful color correction, and you certainly can't match angles and provide creative interpretation of the image based on the story and how it is being told.

Yes. I completely understand this, but I was wrapping my brain around a workflow that could potentially see Redcine doing some post editorial color work. If you think about it it really can be done post editorial with REDCINE.

But if it's just a combination of a ONE LIGHT plus Compressor bathcing capabilities that's fine. I think it can be a lot more.

David

mezmo

09-29-2007, 05:21 PM

Depth of field has nothing to do with the sensor. It has to do with the lens choice and the aperture. If you shoot the same field of view with the same lens at the same stop, you have the same depth of field. What that means is that if you frame something using, say, a 25mm lens on a 35mm camera, and shoot at, say, a 2.8, then put a 25mm lens on a 16mm camera and moved back to keep the same field of view and used the same stop, the depth of field would be identical. Depth of field is something a cinematographer can control. The key is knowing how to control it and having the physical space to do so.
Hi Mike,
Yes your right about DOF as apposed to FOV. 35mm Depth of field seems
to be more commonly used here to describe field of view, which is why
I use it. This seems to have come from people who make and use 35mm
cine lens adapters. Thanks for the correction. Mezmo

mezmo

09-29-2007, 05:39 PM

Hi,

2K scaled will never shoot faster than 60fps because it is scaled from the full 4K sensor which has a max framerate of 60p. This is a hardware limitation and cannot be upgraded through firmware.

Best,

Häakon
Hi Haakon,
I stand corrected here with 2K scaled maxing out at 60fps using a
35mm FOV/DOF. Anything faster than that will have to be 35mm film.
So Rob Loham is refering to 2K windowed with S16mm FOV/DOF when he talks about 120fps and 100fps on flash.
Bummer, I'm getting even more depressed. Mezmo

Evan Owen

09-29-2007, 05:51 PM

...
Bummer, I'm getting even more depressed. Mezmo

Depressed? I'm still getting over how excited I am that RED is shooting 2K 72fps NOW.

High-speed digital 2K (let alone 4K) options were pretty limited pre-RED... :)

Häakon

09-29-2007, 06:08 PM

Depth of field has nothing to do with the sensor. It has to do with the lens choice and the aperture.
While it's the lens and aperture that directly control the DOF range, the sensor absolutely plays a part in the equation because it dictates what range of lenses you can use. In order to achieve the same FOV on a larger sensor, you need a longer lens to cover the increased sensor area. Longer lenses compress space and shrink your DOF range, which is why 1/3" chip cameras display vastly wider DOF than a 2/3" or even s35mm sized-sensor at a given FOV, and why you get much shallower DOF with RED than most of its competitors. In essence, it's all about the sensor. :-)

mezmo

09-29-2007, 06:10 PM

Hey Haakon,
Do you know if Red will be capable of 60fps @ 2K scaled, 35mm FOV/DOF
recorded to flash, this might cheer me up a little.
Mezmo

Häakon

09-29-2007, 06:18 PM

Hey Haakon,
Do you know if Red will be capable of 60fps @ 2K scaled, 35mm FOV/DOF
recorded to flash, this might cheer me up a little.
Mezmo
My guess would be yes, though I couldn't tell you personally what their limitations are. Scaled recording has been on their list of recording formats long before the camera was released, but Jim has just recently said that it will "be awhile" before that feature is implemented. Plus, things are always changing, so your guess is as good as mine. The scaled formats used to be 720 and 1080 from the full 4K sensor; it's now scheduled to be 2K (for now). The other big difference is that apparently the camera will be scaling while still in RAW mode - and while we don't know how exactly that will affect picture quality, it should dramatically reduce the bandwidth needed to store the data as opposed to scaling RGB. So with that in mind, I would guess that, yes, 2K/60p scaled from the full 4K sensor (35mm DOF) should be a realistic shooting mode for RED - even onto compact flash - but I certainly can't guarantee any such thing!

That being said, I wouldn't hold my breath on a release date for such a feature - they have a lot of cameras to build, test, and get running - and a whole lot of other things to get working before they get to that point. Believe me, you're not the only one chomping at the bit! :)

mezmo

09-29-2007, 06:30 PM

Depressed? I'm still getting over how excited I am that RED is shooting 2K 72fps NOW.

High-speed digital 2K (let alone 4K) options were pretty limited pre-RED... :)
Hi Scienceguy.
I'm happy for you that your happy with 72fps windowed with a Super 16mm
FOV/DOF I'm sure a lot of other people here will be too.
We all have different requirements, I should explain, I'm looking at Red as
an alternative to shooting 35mm film on low budget features.
Off speed/high sped cinematography is never a problem on film. the sort
of films I do, require it everyday, for ramping a lot of scenes are shot at 100-150fps .
Your right, having Red run around 100fps is exciting but at S16mm FOV/
DOF and possible loss in picture quality, that's a little depressing.
Mezmo.

mezmo

09-29-2007, 06:33 PM

Hi Haakon,
Thanks I'm feeling a little better,
Mezmo

tj williams

09-30-2007, 01:52 AM

So has someone described the RED speed ramp system
can shutter angle be made to vary with speed or what?

I'm pretty excited about 2K windowed and scaled as it will give the Dp choices about depth
of field which we have not had before as we mix the 2K acquisition method according to our Dof
requirement. It's not just for over-cranking

Ramesh Jai

09-30-2007, 02:09 AM

I need to describe 2k windowed and 2k scaled 'visually' to somebody. Does anybody have examples? Thanks.

Häakon

09-30-2007, 05:14 AM

I need to describe 2k windowed and 2k scaled 'visually' to somebody. Does anybody have examples? Thanks.
Here's a quick visual for you:

http://www.haakondazs.com/reduser/scaledmode.jpg

albert rudnicki

09-30-2007, 05:59 AM

Here is another one.

albert rudnicki

09-30-2007, 06:14 AM

They are multiple reasons for scaled over cropped:

-Better overall resolution (sharpness)
-Reduced noise
-Easier inter-cuts between "normal" and "cropped" frame
-wide angle
-Better picture quality, when blown back to 4K (?)
-Easier to hide mistakes (soft focus)
-less visible compression issues (if any:))
I am not a TechWiz, and may be wrong on some of the points.
Cheers

Darwin

09-30-2007, 06:24 AM

Here's a quick visual for you:

http://www.haakondazs.com/reduser/scaledmode.jpg
Häakon,
Very well laid out...nice visual....

albert rudnicki

09-30-2007, 06:32 AM

The truth is that as much I love the idea of 4K, I will do a 99% of my work in 2K.
Indy features, commercial, video clips, documentaries and live shows will not require from me to finish in 4K. Also the realistic workflow I can afford will be in 2K.
"Today" I will use a 4K only for CGI, still frames and special request...
I thing REDONE will benefit a great deal when the 2K scaled is enabled.
It will feel completed.

My two cents

Jay A. Kelley

09-30-2007, 06:43 AM

I think it was David Mullen that said 99% of today's features are D.I.'d in 2k

Jay

Alex Boothby

09-30-2007, 07:15 AM

Yes - usually 2048 X 1536 or 2048 X 1556. That is 4 perf 'full aperture'.

M Most

09-30-2007, 07:56 AM

While it's the lens and aperture that directly control the DOF range, the sensor absolutely plays a part in the equation because it dictates what range of lenses you can use...... In essence, it's all about the sensor. :-)

No, it's not. You're assuming the camera is going to stay in the same place. It doesn't have to, unless there are physical limitations, as I noted. My point it that DOF field is controllable by the cameraman if he/she is wiling to use that control. In many practical situations, what you say is true because the camera location is dictated by that situation. But it is not technically true, and that was what I was pointing out.

But I'm not going to argue.

Stephen Williams

09-30-2007, 09:26 AM

Hi Häakon,

I may be missing something but the DOF is identical in all 3 examples you posted.

Stephen

Here's a quick visual for you:

http://www.haakondazs.com/reduser/scaledmode.jpg

laguun

09-30-2007, 09:28 AM

S16 DOF can be pretty helpful on those fastmoving steadicam-action shots.

laguun

09-30-2007, 09:29 AM

Hi Häakon,

I may be missing something but the DOF is identical in all 3 examples you posted.

Stephen

That why he wrote - illustrative purposes only, i suppose.

David Mullen ASC

09-30-2007, 09:34 AM

But with REDCODE compression, is it that hard to shoot in 4K and just downrez it to 2K later? There may be some advantages to having a 4K original recording that you can go back to someday, even if you finish the project in 2K.

Just because the majority of D.I.'s are done at 2K, doesn't mean I think that's a good thing.

Also, consider that often they are scanning 35mm neg these days at 4K and then downrezzing to 2K for post on a D.I. -- again, this suggests that it would be better to capture in 4K on the RED and downrez it to 2K if desired.

And also remember that a 2K window-mode crop is a 2K Bayer-filtered RAW image that has to be converted to 2K RGB. You'd get better results starting out with a 4K Bayer-filtered RAW image to get down to 2K RGB.

tj williams

09-30-2007, 09:45 AM

Hi David

1. Of course 4K bayer raw will be better, than 2K raw when either is re-sampled to RGB such as HDCam or Cineon, since I have not seen an example yet will it be better in a way the audience can see in a theatre? Especially will they notice the difference on their home HD screen?

2. I cannot find anything about capability to correct for exposure differences while ramping recording speeds or for that matter an ability to ramp recording speeds. Is this in the pipeline?

3. Will capturing 4K on the RED and downrezzing to 2K involve a lot more rendering time than, recording in 2K to start with. Since final cut will put the raw on the timeline rendering to Rgb for editing will be a bit resource intensive imo? So if one wants to edit on 2K raw they will have to render twice?

Hi Albert.

"albert rudnicki"

"There are multiple reasons for scaled over cropped:

-Better overall resolution (sharpness)
-Reduced noise
-Easier inter-cuts between "normal" and "cropped" frame
-wide angle
-Better picture quality, when blown back to 4K (?)"

I sure agree about the dof part of course, how do you know yet that the quoted above quality differences between scaled and cropped are true? given that they are technically true, how do you know they will be noticeable?

Häakon

09-30-2007, 02:06 PM

Hi Häakon,

I may be missing something but the DOF is identical in all 3 examples you posted.

Stephen
Stephen,

Yes it is - but the "windowed" image has a much narrower FOV. In order to get your shot to look like the 4K or scaled images, you have to use a much wider lens - and this will affect your DOF.

One could get a 2/3" chip camera to display the same DOF characteristics a camera with a 35mm sensor if certain conditions were met, but the point is that these conditions are inconvenient and sometimes not even possible. The reason that most lower-res cameras have expanded DOF is because they are using wider lenses in the first place. If it was possible to attach a 35mm lens directly to a DVX (I'm not talking about the "cine adapters" which require you to shoot through two pieces of glass), your FOV would be so narrow that the camera would be completely useless. But yes - you would have 35mm DOF. :-)

Some might say about the windowed mode, "use the same lens, just back up!" but this is extremely inconvenient in many situations and simply impossible in others. If you're shooting any kind of interior work on location (a pretty standard scenario), there's often no way to "back the camera up" as far as you would need in order to maintain the same FOV. Even outside, such a distance may present other shooting difficulties not worth the tradeoff.

I think the point I was trying to get across was that none of the three solutions is the "holy grail;" they all have one sort of tradeoff or another. 4K at 60p onboard would probably be that apex for a whole lot of people, but that's not feasible for the near future, so one must decide how they want to deal with overcranked footage. Shoot in 4K for everything but offspeed stuff and then use scaled when you want to go faster? Shoot everything in 2K windowed so that the image characteristics match seamlessly throughout the entire picture? There are a bunch of combinations; it's just important to know exactly what the different options are and how they function so that you can make the best choice for your particular project.

I think the windowed option definitely has its merits (the expanded DOF may actually be a lifesaving help in certain situations), but I do think that once all of the features are enabled we will see more people choose to shoot scaled for their cine-type projects; 60p will be sufficient for most work, and this mode will maintain the best picture quality for the final output.

Best,

Häakon

David Mullen ASC

09-30-2007, 02:53 PM

Hi David
1. Of course 4K bayer raw will be better, than 2K raw when either is re-sampled to RGB such as HDCam or Cineon, since I have not seen an example yet will it be better in a way the audience can see in a theatre?

Can an average audience member tell 200T stock from 500T stock?

I don't like to get into "what's good enough to getaway with" types of discussions when it comes to theatrical presentation. That sort of thinking led a lot of people into believing that 1080P HDCAM was the future for theatrical movies.

Also, I don't like generalizing too often about what an "audience" can see -- I can see the difference between a Cooke S4 and a Primo lens in a movie theater (usually) and I can tell HDCAM-to-35mm versus 35mm, I can even tell HDCAM photography on standard def TV sets... and I consider myself an audience member who's opinion on theatrical presentations matter.

I certainly don't want to see us all choosing to work at the lowest quality level we think we can get past the least discriminating viewer. I still cherish my own viewing experiences in a movie theater -- I'm selfish!

And as artists, we work to our own standards, which tend to always be higher than the average consumer/viewer. Ultimately, the only satisfaction in our line of work is pleasing our own aesthetic sensibility and struggling to improve our skills to meet our high standards. So I really don't care if the "average" viewer notices or cares whether I used a double-net flag to darken a bookshelf behind some actor's head, or if I raised the camera two more inches for a more flattering close-up. The devil is in the details. Audiences (generally) expect movies to be made by professionals who know more than they do about moviemaking. When I go to see a doctor, I hope they care more about medical learning and knowledge than I do. I hope the guy who built my house has higher standards for construction than I do.

So my guess is that 2K RAW to 2K RGB will look "fine" on the big screen, probably in the ballpark of 1080P Panavision Genesis photography, sharpness-wise, maybe slightly better, which I consider sort of acceptable... but not preferable unless you want a certain softness for creative reasons (period movie or romantic comedy or fantasy.)

There are other 2K-ish single-sensor cameras on the market, but besides the Dalsa, the RED is the only practical 4K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera on the market, so it's my general feeling that one should try and get the maximum quality/resolution possible out of the camera except when you have a good reason not to (shooting for HDTV broadcast, needing a slo-mo shot, etc.)

I'm not stuck on that concept though because I know there are a lot of practical reasons to work in 2K, but my hope is that if I get to shoot a project on the RED, I'd work in 4K RAW for the capture even if everything after that is 2K RGB.

(I don't mean to lecture you in particular, it's just that the whole issue of what's "good enough" always sets me off... Obviously the RED team is working to ridiculously high standards.)

Ruairi Robinson

09-30-2007, 03:25 PM

Can an average audience member tell 200T stock from 500T stock?

I don't like to get into "what's good enough to getaway with" types of discussions when it comes to theatrical presentation. That sort of thinking led a lot of people into believing that 1080P HDCAM was the future for theatrical movies.

Also, I don't like generalizing too often about what an "audience" can see -- I can see the difference between a Cooke S4 and a Primo lens in a movie theater (usually) and I can tell HDCAM-to-35mm versus 35mm, I can even tell HDCAM photography on standard def TV sets... and I consider myself an audience member who's opinion on theatrical presentations matter.

I certainly don't want to see us all choosing to work at the lowest quality level we think we can get past the least discriminating viewer. I still cherish my own viewing experiences in a movie theater -- I'm selfish!

And as artists, we work to our own standards, which tend to always be higher than the average consumer/viewer. Ultimately, the only satisfaction in our line of work is pleasing our own aesthetic sensibility and struggling to improve our skills to meet our high standards. So I really don't care if the "average" viewer notices or cares whether I used a double-net flag to darken a bookshelf behind some actor's head, or if I raised the camera two more inches for a more flattering close-up. The devil is in the details. Audiences (generally) expect movies to be made by professionals who know more than they do about moviemaking. When I go to see a doctor, I hope they care more about medical learning and knowledge than I do. I hope the guy who built my house has higher standards for construction than I do.

So my guess is that 2K RAW to 2K RGB will look "fine" on the big screen, probably in the ballpark of 1080P Panavision Genesis photography, sharpness-wise, maybe slightly better, which I consider sort of acceptable... but not preferable unless you want a certain softness for creative reasons (period movie or romantic comedy or fantasy.)

There are other 2K-ish single-sensor cameras on the market, but besides the Dalsa, the RED is the only practical 4K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera on the market, so it's my general feeling that one should try and get the maximum quality/resolution possible out of the camera except when you have a good reason not to (shooting for HDTV broadcast, needing a slo-mo shot, etc.)

I'm not stuck on that concept though because I know there are a lot of practical reasons to work in 2K, but my hope is that if I get to shoot a project on the RED, I'd work in 4K RAW for the capture even if everything after that is 2K RGB.

(I don't mean to lecture you in particular, it's just that the whole issue of what's "good enough" always sets me off... Obviously the RED team is working to ridiculously high standards.)

I've nothing to add, I'm just quoting your entire post for agreement :)

David Mullen ASC

09-30-2007, 03:47 PM

Also, 2K window-mode crop does beg the question as to whether a 3-CCD camera with 2MP per color would be similar in resolution (not to mention, depth of field characteristics), whereas a 4K Bayer-filter camera seems to be delivering superior resolution over a 3-CCD HD camera.

In other words, in 4K mode, the RED camera is rather unique (dare I use the term... "revolutionary"?), but in 2K windowed-mode, it starts to seem less unique (to me). We've been seeing HD & 2K quality for years and 2/3" CCD depth of field -- but 4K photography, hopefully combined with 4K projection, with 35mm depth of field, that seems something to get excited about.

Surely there must have been a good reason for the RED team to choose to make the camera 4K rather than 2K. If 2K is "good enough" for almost every application you can think of short of IMAX, then what's the point of 4K? I think the point really is similar to why we use 35mm for high-end TV work -- i.e. oversampling works. And for theatrical work, it's a chance to stop the dropping of standards over the years and reverse the trend.

Gunleik Groven

09-30-2007, 03:55 PM

David.

You just summed up why I did not order SI...
(besides Graeme, of course -;)

But I can see a lot of use for 2k scaled (in-camera from 4k)

Not for Cinematic stuff, but commercials and material with a shorter production time-span, smaller crew, less funding.

You will (theoretically) get a superior full-raster 2k image with the 35mmm carracteristics (if you so wish), but still an easier workflow where you eliminate much of the transcoding time.

I can see the use for that.

Cheers!

Gunleik

Häakon

09-30-2007, 03:57 PM

In other words, in 4K mode, the RED camera is rather unique (dare I use the term... "revolutionary"?), but in 2K windowed-mode, it starts to seem less unique (to me). We've been seeing HD & 2K quality for years -- but 4K photography, hopefully combined with 4K projection, with 35mm depth of field, that seems something to get excited about.
Absolutely agree. And I think oversampling is the key as well. I can't imagine I will be shooting anything but 4K with the camera - with the notable exception of offspeed shots, and we just have to personally decide what mode gives us the best footage in those circumstances.

Also, 2K windowed mode - even if it's of comparible quality to other 3CCD HD cameras on the market - does afford some extra flexibility for the documentary shooter who benefits from the expanded depth of field, or for the event shooter who needs absolutely as much recording time as possible and where 4K oversampled quality isn't the absolute top priority. Someday we'll get the 4K (or more) camera with 60p (or more) onboard, and then we'll find something new to nit pick. :-) But until then, it seems that RED ONE offers arguably the nicest array of format options, choices, and quality of any other camera in its class - unarguably any others at this price point.

David Mullen ASC

09-30-2007, 04:12 PM

Obviously I'm just speaking from my own perspective, bias, prejudice, whatnot, towards theatrical presentation.

Now from a practical standpoint, obviously there are a lot of good arguments for working below 4K, especially for projects not designed for a theatrical presentation. My general rule has always been to shoot for the worst potential (i.e. most critical) distribution scenario (theatrical, next to that, HDTV broadcast), not the most typical or likely one (i.e. straight to DVD, NTSC broadcast). But that's something you have to decide project-by-project.

albert rudnicki

09-30-2007, 06:35 PM

Hi David
"There are multiple reasons for scaled over cropped:

-Better overall resolution (sharpness)
-Reduced noise
-Easier inter-cuts between "normal" and "cropped" frame
-wide angle
-Better picture quality, when blown back to 4K (?)"

I sure agree about the dof part of course, how do you know yet that the quoted above quality differences between scaled and cropped are true? given that they are technically true, how do you know they will be noticeable?

I am saying it based on my experience with HD and finishing in SD (mostly for commercial work).
The process was done in post, so I had a lot more control over it.
I guess in case of RED, everything has to be done in real time and IN-CAM; that's a lot of data to process!

David Battistella

09-30-2007, 10:36 PM

I really want to see some filmouts. I wonder how much difference we are going to see between the 4k shots and the 2K shots when they have been scanned by a 2K FILM SCANNER.

We know that the digital files will contain "more information" but do we actually have a 2K test written to film to see the acquisition differences.

I am for scaled because the idea of loosing the DOF is a big drag. Let's face it, we want the lens DOF to look the same between 4K and 2K. Sure, I'll loose the DOF and the f-stops when recording over cranked shots in 2K, but I'd rather have the full field of view that 2K scaled has to offer. Wouldn't that maximize what I get out of the 18-50 zoom.

David

tj williams

09-30-2007, 10:47 PM

David Mullen.....

Cooke S4 vs Primo lenses......
without shutter artifacts fm Pana certainly a difficult distinction.

Viper or HD orig. vs 35m film certainly a pretty evident distinction.

Sorry to have excited you with the "good enough" thought

There are going to be new choices where we use 35mm size sensor on one side and windowed on the reverse to get similiar dof. moving to windowed for tough focus action shots or where we need to see the background more
clearly.

I'm seeing a lot of folks getting ready to shoot the whole show in 4K except for the slomo action stuff etc. I'm thinking maybe better from a consistent image perspective to shoot all in 2k or downconvert 4k immediately in red cine to 2K.

Do you feel changing from 4K to 2K in a sequence is more like switching between cookes/Primos in the same sequence or more like using an HD camera to get some of the shots in a 35mm sequence?

David Mullen ASC

09-30-2007, 11:36 PM

There are arguments both ways... (like the argument for shooting a whole movie on a zoom lens with 500T stock because some shots will be done that way) but generally slow-motion shots make up much less than 50% of the total running time of a finished feature, so why lower the overall quality of the project to match the quality of material that only takes up a small percentage? At least, that's my theory.

Also, I tend to feel that slow-motion shots have their own look in a sense and what the viewer really is looking at is the slowed-down motion, so the fact that it is 2K instead of 4K might not matter.

Besides, we've had plenty of 2K efx in non-D.I. or 4K D.I. movies (such as "Spiderman 2 and 3") so viewers have been seeing 2K mixed into movies for years.

But it really depends on how often you plan on using slow-motion; if a lot of the movie will be like that, then yes, maybe it makes sense just to do the whole movie in 2K to match.

I've done some 1080P movies where the slow-motion shots were done in 1080/60i and converted to 60 fps, so essentially the vertical resolution went from 1080 to 540 lines -- and they don't stick out really as being noticably softer. Like I said, the viewer is often looking at the slow-motion effect so may be distracted from the drop in resolution.

mezmo

10-01-2007, 08:50 AM

Hi David,
I think you have a typo there with your 50%, maybe 5%?
I know what your saying about the viewer watching the slow motion
effect, but for scenes that need ramping (starting at 20fps then slowing
the action down to 100 fps) ofen in wide shot with the players close to camera including green screen/ VFX/wire removal, acquisition image quality soon becomes an issue.
I dont think Red 2K windowed is going to cut it for this type of shot.
Keeping in mind how sharp and crisp things have to be going down post and
intermediate film paths prior to release printing.
We seem to be loosing a lot of Red potential to do this kind of HS work.
This type of shot's common in many martial arts and action adv.movies.
I don't think at the moment Red has a viable high speed or ramping solution
for this type of feature drama work. The only option, 35mm film with 35 FOV.
I know I'm being totally unreasonable here as Red comes in at a much lower cost than anything else on the market and I would still save money
shooting Red for lower frame rates and film for high speed.
I would much rather drag a 35mm film camera on set to shoot highspeed than suffer image quality loss and S16mm FOV or similar (small chip) FOV on a highspeed digital camera. That's just me.
I know you do a lot of good work with smaller 3/4" chip HD cameras but I just can't get the hang of the dang things, and I really hate those Digiprimes. I love 35mm FOV.
Sorry, off topic, anyway.
Perhaps Red scaled 2K @ 60fps or even 4K @ 60fps would help me here, shoot 10-50fps for this type of shot and mutiframe it in post, I don't know.
I do know that high speed cinematoghaphy will become a major issue as
digital attempts to get it's frame rates and image quality (at those frame rates) up to that of film, while retaining 35mm FOV.
Cheers Mezmo

tj williams

10-01-2007, 09:02 PM

Hlo Mezmo
Hey at least the box isn't plastic like the Sony!
35mm FOV? Aren't we talking about just using equivalent field of view lenses when using a different size target and desiring for instance the look of an 85mm FOV in 35mm.
I mean the chart is in ACM eh? As for DOF just a stop and a bit open on the windowed sensor and we're back! to 35mm depth of field equivalent?

I really agree about the ramping! no information no reply fm RED team, looks like there is currently no ramping?
I'm hoping the red will ramp and the trusty Birger folks will make the iris corrections....

mezmo

10-02-2007, 06:12 AM

Hi TJ
One of the main things I like about 35mm FOV and subsequent DOF is lens choice. Zeiss make roughly 10mm12mm14mm16mm18mm
20mm24mm27mm28mm32mm35mm40mm50mm60mm75mm85mm100mm
135mm180mm200m30om.I'm sure Iv'e left out a few. All very good glass,
excellent coatings. Red make a cheaper selection for use with 35mm FOV.
Last time I looked they don't make anything in S16/B4 for shootind 2K windowed.?. The S16 selection from zeiss is roughly 9mm,12mm16mm24mm 50mm.Zooms from Zeiss and Cannon 7-64 and 11-110 may help, but if your shooting 2.35:1, I'd steer clear, resolving issues for such a wide screen format. So you've got a grand selection of 5-6 prime lenses for use as a matched set when shooting 2K windowed on Red if you want max optical resolution for 2.35:1 super 35 cinematography in that FOV format. So finding that S16 Lens to match a 35mm DOF equivalent
is a little difficult if not impossible unless you use a S16/B4 zoom. I just don't think these zooms will resolve well enough for Super 35mm (digital) cinematography at 2.35/40:1.
You could use Digiprimes with the adapter, but again these lenses are designed for B4 HD cameras and can't resolve thru the adapter like 35mm FOV glass
I hear people say here you can use Red 35 FOV lenses for a longer lens selection, but mixing Zeiss S16 super Speed lenses with Red 35 FOV lenses
would be a worry,a workaround,a mess, and nothing like the luxury of shooting
35mmFOV with a full set of 35mm lenses designed for the job.
Resolution issues may only become a real problem when going to film-out
and after an intermediate has been stuck and you are producing multiple
prints. Then it's too late. and egg on face time, producers start looking for
someone to blame, and that's one movie I don't wanna be in.
Cheers Mezmo

mezmo

10-02-2007, 06:28 AM

Hi TJ again,
With ramping on film, we do it all in post. Shoot 120fps on set, frames
are pulled for speedchange at the directos/editors request.
If Red could get up to 60fps @ 4K or 2K scaled, something similar may be
possible with digital, while retaining 35mmFOV/DOF.
mezmo

Damien Molineaux

10-02-2007, 06:41 AM

I think it was David Mullen that said 99% of today's features are D.I.'d in 2k

Jay

Yes but...

Those films that are D.I.'d in 2k are sometimes scanned at higher resolutions (ie 4k or even 6k), and even if they are scanned in 2k, it is 2k RGB ! Which is much higher resolution than 2k raw. According to Graeme, the Red 4k sensor outputs an RGB image with a 3k "measured" resolution (according to Adam Wilt's quick and dirty tests, according to him, he will do better tests when possible, show a 2.5k measured resolution). So in the best case scenario, 2k raw will result in images with 1.5k measured resolution.

It seems some people here are confused about this. 2k Red raw is not comparable to a 2k scan (in a best case scenario) or to Genesis, F23, D20, Viper footage. However, 4k Red raw is anther story.

Cheers,
Damien

Bruce Allen

10-02-2007, 07:07 AM

Mezmo

If you are prepared to accept T2.8 for your 35mm lens set, you could add the Ultra Prime 8R (T2.8) to that list? Although I admit it's not the cheapest lens.

Also, if you were going for an ultra-wide shot, maybe still camera lenses would be an option? Their ergonomic disabilities become less of a problem (you're probably not doing fancy shallow DOF rack focus or adjusting iris in slow-mo ultra-wide shot?).

You have a great point that you want optimum quality especially in slow-mo VFX. Unless your actor is extending past the frame boundaries, perhaps you could do the usual trick of zooming in on the element you're shooting against green screen and doing a repo / scale down to change to a wider angle in post?

RE: S16 lenses, I'm surprised - surely a good S16 lens should be able to resolve well enough for a 2K sensor? Most lenses look fine on a 2K Bayer sensor still camera.

RE: only finding out the quality is too low later in the process - if you had someone reasonably smart looking at your dailies at full res I'm sure you'd be able to pretty quickly figure out if there were resolution issues.

I agree that shooting high-speed s35 is the best right now, but think the RED 2K stuff will be good enough for many uses. Combine that with the Phantom cam if you want to do higher frame rates and I think digital is almost there. I've done jobs for movies with big name actors where the footage they gave us was 2.35 letterboxed to HD - that's only 1920x817 res. And it flew (just) when printed to film.

RE: shooting 60fps and multi-framing to make a higher-fps shot in post: it is scary how content-dependent this technique is. That has the greatest chance of being an unexpected post nightmare that you only find out about 3 months later. If I wanted to avoid angry producers, I'd be more worried about getting the VFX team to sign off on those shots than I would about the resolution of the cropped ones.

Agree of course that shooting windowed is a compromise and since Jim is into filming drag cars and such, the Red Five will probably shoot 2000fps 6K... but also that Red One really should be sufficient for most stories we'd want to tell ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Clint Johnson

10-02-2007, 08:10 AM

Yes but...

Those films that are D.I.'d in 2k are sometimes scanned at higher resolutions (ie 4k or even 6k)

Cheers,
Damien

Just pointing out that 35mm film has its own resolution limits and scanning at much higher than about 3.5k... more often than not will just gives you greater detail on the film grain.

Michael Hastings

10-02-2007, 10:48 AM

Yes but...

It seems some people here are confused about this. 2k Red raw is not comparable to a 2k scan (in a best case scenario) or to Genesis, F23, D20, Viper footage. However, 4k Red raw is anther story.

Cheers,
Damien

I think this is an important, often understated or underappreciated point.

tj williams

10-03-2007, 01:29 AM

mesmo
really get your point about the number of available lenses in the Zeiss arsenal. Guess I've worked on too many cheap productions where the only primes were 18 25 35 50 85 set. and yea you did forget the Zeiss 25m speed lens. The zooms certainly are more problematic esp. in wider screen, although I've used some S16 lenses which were very sharp even at the edges until you had to open up.

I tried out the vision Research Phantom camera at last NAB they are currently doing 150fps in 4K perhaps if you want to be more consistent in recording similiar digital media this would be another option rather than a HS film camera.

I'm one of the people who really can't make sense out of the red raw 4K being equal to 3.5K RGB then the 2K raw is not as good as the D2 viper etc. So is the 2K Raw in the RED as good as the 2K SI camera? Is there any way to get a sense of how much difference we are talking about. Maybe I'm getting blind in my old age but I was pretty impressed by the look of the SI camera at last years NAB. I brought a commercial producer friend to their booth who also thought the footage the were showing looked quite nice. Any way of making more sense out of these comparisons will sure be appreciated!!!

mezmo

10-03-2007, 07:18 AM

Hi Bruce,
Stills lenses would have to be starting at about 6 or 7mm for
use with Red 2k windowed, thats a mega fisheye for a 35mm
SLR lens.
I should point out that resolution issues would not be a problem
for S16 zoom lenses if you intend to finish in HD, or if you only
plan on making a few prints from a burned 35mm neg to be shown
in small venues, 2K windowed may be OK.
Going the extra generation and making an intermediate/interpos and
then a another generation for a 2nd negative from which say, 200 prints
are struck requires a really sharp crisp clean original to stand up to this
kind of printing generation loss.
This is where things get interesting and you only see problems when
the first trial print is struck from the 2nd printing negative, that's about
$100-150K U.S. down the post road.
It's important to get the best possible quality from a camera like Red if
you plan on doing this kind of Super35 Digital 2.35:1 work.
Yes, shooting 60fps and multi-framing would not be ideal, Red 2 doing 120
fps at 4kRaw with a 35mm FOV would be my dream camera.
Mezmo

mezmo

10-03-2007, 07:47 AM

Hi TJ,
Yes, the Red image does look a bit sharper than the SI 2K.
The SI footage I've seen looks a tiny bit soft but very filmic.
They do have a 35mmFOV adapter from P&S, but this is again
another hunk of glass in the optical path.
We really need to test a lot of these cameras side by side
and take them thru a full multi generational post path to determine
the best box for this kind of 2.35:1 wide screen work.
I must say I find Red with it's big chip and 4K raw capture one of the
most interesting with perhaps the most potential.
At a guess Red 2k scaled (in the works) may look sharper than Viper/d20 footage.
One of the guys could test 2K windowed up against the Viper/d20 now.
I'd love to know the results . Mezmo

David Mullen ASC

10-03-2007, 09:19 AM

I can't say how RED's 2K window/crop mode looks compared to the Arri-D20 or SI camera or any HD camera... but consider that the RED has a 4520 x 2540 sensor (11.5MP), so in 2K window/crop mode, you only have 2260 x 1270 sites (2.9MP) from which to derive 2K RGB.

Whereas a 3-CCD HD camera like the F23 (forget the price issues for the moment) has separate 1920 x 1080 pixel sensors (2MP each) for each color.

The Arri-D20, in comparison to the RED in 2K window mode, has a 2.9K single sensor that is 35mm in size, versus RED's effective 2.3K sensor that is 16mm in size.

At least with 2K scaled, you'd have the benefits of oversampling and keep the 35mm depth of field. But at 2K windowed, it's hard to see why the RED image would be superior to a good 3-CCD 1080P HD camera. Of course, there is still the cost advantage and the ability to use your cine lenses.

Obviously I'm just throwing around meaningless numbers here and what matters is the actual performances of the cameras being questioned.

mezmo

10-03-2007, 05:40 PM

Hi David,
Thanks for the info, I think Jim was riiiiiii...riiiiiiight in the first
place, let's stick with getting the best possible pictures out of Red.
2K windowed or 2K raw as it is at the moment seems less than ideal
for higher end work and Jim seems to be cherry picking camera features
to make what could be considered a biased point.
Red's a good thing in 4K raw, it just needs that firmware/software upgrade
to get it running at faster frame rates.
I know all good things come to those who wait but having a camera out
there that's not performing to the best of it's ability seems like an odd
marketing ploy if it's to be tested up against other systems.
Cheers Mezmo

tj williams

10-03-2007, 05:51 PM

Good Cheap Fast choose any two...

Häakon

10-04-2007, 12:41 AM

Good Cheap Fast choose any two...
Actually, that's the very reason RED is so revolutionary - they're all three.

Joel Kaye

10-04-2007, 10:05 AM

Actually, that's the very reason RED is so revolutionary - they're all three.

I was listening some business audio cd recently and the guy said "fast, cheap, good..pick any two. That was 10 years ago. If you still think that way you're making a mistake because your competitor is figuring out how to deliver all three."

M Most

10-04-2007, 11:12 AM

I was listening some business audio cd recently and the guy said "fast, cheap, good..pick any two. That was 10 years ago. If you still think that way you're making a mistake because your competitor is figuring out how to deliver all three."

That terminology was never meant to apply to equipment. It does, however, still very much apply to anything that is being done by human beings, even if equipment happens to be involved, and has little to do with the technology used.

Stephen Williams

10-04-2007, 11:26 AM

Just pointing out that 35mm film has its own resolution limits and scanning at much higher than about 3.5k... more often than not will just gives you greater detail on the film grain.

Hi,

I tested using an Arri Scanner 6k down scaled to 4K, and 3K down scaled to 2 K, the images were then scanned back to film & projected. The 6/4k scans clearly had more resolution when sitting at the front , middle or back of the cinema.

Stephen

mezmo

10-04-2007, 05:21 PM

OK. I have to eat crow. I admit it. I won't just shoot 4K.

Shooting 2K windowed is a completely valid option.

1. Even windowed from 4K, the 2K sensor portion is larger than 2/3", better DOF characteristics than an F23, HDCAM or Viper.

2. Having 72fps (for now) at this frame size is better than HDCAM-SR 4:4:4, which now shoots 60fps at 1080P.

3. You can use all your 35mm PL mount lenses, except at the wide end due to the focal length factor. You'll need a wide S16 lens or two to cover all the bases.

4. The record time to 8GB CF is over 20 minutes.

5. Pushing the data through the pipeline is much easier.

And best of all, the image looks great.

I still will shoot most of my stuff 4K, but I won't hesitate to shoot 2K windowed if necessary.

Jim

O.K.
This is what I mean about cherry picking. See above.
1. This is probably not true. Yes you do get 35mm DOF that
part is correct but at the cost of image quality. the F23 will
produce much better pictures than Red in 2K windowed mode.
It has three 2/3" sensors.
2. 72fps at what cost? If picture quality is going to be less than
a D20 or F23 recording out to HDSR 444 that's no advantage.
3.Yes you can use your 35mm PL lenses but you'll have to fork
out megabucks for Zeiss wide primes and zoom. And have two lens
sets on the shoot.
4. I'd much rather have a 10 minute record time at 2K scaled.
1000' film mag is 10 minutes. This is never a problem.
5. That may be so, but again at what cost. This camera will be
used by some in 2K windowed mode to do high speed work for
a digital super35 2.35:1 feature production.
My concern here is that this footage, these frames, will look
like mush when intercut with 4k raw originated material in a
typical multi generational film finish.(not a high definition finish)

If nobody else here thinks this is a concern then I'll shut the F up
Have a nice day all. Yours, Mezmo

jbeale

10-04-2007, 05:30 PM

I doubt more words on the subject are very useful, the most reliable conclusion will come from testing it yourself.

Evan Owen

10-04-2007, 05:35 PM

...
My concern here is that this footage, these frames, will look
like mush when intercut with 4k raw originated material in a
typical multi generational film finish.(not a high definition finish)

If nobody else here thinks this is a concern then I'll shut the F up
Have a nice day all. Yours, Mezmo

I understand your concern Mezmo, but have you actually seen the 4K vs. 2K comparison? I've done a side-by-side from RED footage, and the difference is surprisingly small. If your focus is spot on, 4K has the advantage, but I doubt the 2K would look like mush even on a film finish. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem intercuting it at all...

Jeff Kilgroe

10-04-2007, 08:55 PM

O.K.
This is what I mean about cherry picking. See above.
1. This is probably not true. Yes you do get 35mm DOF that
part is correct but at the cost of image quality. the F23 will
produce much better pictures than Red in 2K windowed mode.
It has three 2/3" sensors.

Just because it has "3 sensors" doesn't mean it produces a superior image. 2/3" is a little smaller area than s16mm. 1080p is about 12% less resolution than 2K. Much of what goes into the image also depends on the abilities of the sensor block, its sensitivity range, the demosaic algorithms and image processing, etc.. The F23 recording out to uncompressed HDSDI 4:4:4 is still processed RGB. RED gives us unprocessed, only compressed, RAW image data to work with.

2. 72fps at what cost? If picture quality is going to be less than a D20 or F23 recording out to HDSR 444 that's no advantage.

Why do you assume the picture quality will be lower? The 72fps mode (and 100fps for that matter) will have the same quality as REDCODE shot at 24fps. REDCODE frames are encoded individually. As the frame rate increases, so does the data rate. If a frame at 24fps occupies 1.5MB of storage, a frame shot at 48fps also occupies 1.5MB. (simplistic example)

3.Yes you can use your 35mm PL lenses but you'll have to fork out megabucks for Zeiss wide primes and zoom. And have two lens sets on the shoot.

You're only going to have differing lens sets if you intend to shoot 4K or 2K scaled in addition to 2K windowed. How is that any different than if you have a F23 and wish to shoot with a lens adapter to use 35mm glass to augment your production with shallow DOF scenes? And even if you choose to shoot in multiple formats, you may not need additional lens sets.. It all depends on the production. You could need additional lens mounts and lens sets/options even if you're shooting all in 4K, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.

4. I'd much rather have a 10 minute record time at 2K scaled. 1000' film mag is 10 minutes. This is never a problem.

Not sure what you're getting at here. 2K scaled @ 60fps will probably give you around 7~8 minutes of record time onto an 8GB CF card. If you're talking about increasing the data rate for 2K @ 24fps so it still only allows 10 minutes or so on an 8GB CF card, that may not boost quality as much as you would hope. I know that RED is trying to find a "sweet spot" for the compression in terms of image quality and data size. With wavelet compression, there's a point where increasing the data rate has diminishing returns or does little to boost overall quality levels over lower data rate settings.

5. That may be so, but again at what cost. This camera will be used by some in 2K windowed mode to do high speed work for a digital super35 2.35:1 feature production. My concern here is that this footage, these frames, will look like mush when intercut with 4k raw originated material in a typical multi generational film finish.(not a high definition finish)

Possibly. Depends on the post process, output and delivery methods, etc.. I think this comes down to each individual film and the people working on them.

If nobody else here thinks this is a concern then I'll shut the F up Have a nice day all. Yours, Mezmo

I do think you have some valid concerns and a lot of this will be proven or disproven shortly as more cameras are delivered and put into use, LART happens, more camera features are enabled, etc...

I think the comparisons with the F23 are a little unfounded. IMO, the F23 isn't that great; especially considering the price. While I can see your concern in some of these areas, I also think you're making too many assumptions.

Brandon Fraley

10-04-2007, 10:46 PM

and regardless, RED is 1/10 the price. That's hard to argue with. I'm sold, whether it's better than the F23 or not.

mezmo

10-06-2007, 05:41 AM

Hi Jeff,
As I said in my posts the problem will only appear at the end
of a $100-150K post path and in the first trial print of a
multigenerational printing run.
Jeff I want to shoot Red @4k, no problemo, but at 2k windowed
the camera I assume is nowhere near 4k. maybe closer to 1.5K.
I'm comparing the F23 to Red @ 2k windowed.
I'm not promoting Red as an alternative to film, Jim is. It's speading
the promohype a bit thick if you think this camera running at high speed
(2K windowed) and being used for wide screen digital S35 2.35:1 work
is a class act and is bulletproof for this type of workflow.
We need to test this type of multigenerational post workflow now before
we commit to projects with this camera (running at 2K windowed and
shooting highspeed) so Redusers don't get caught if a film becomes
sucessful and ends up needing a 200 plus print run. At 4K the camera looks
fine and is probably sharper than the F23.
Being caught : This may means your project is picked up at a festival
(possibly screened in HD) by a sales agent/distributor. You may be offered
an advance on sales. This money will help you finish to film-out, pay some
bills and put together all deliverables. (if you know all this, sorry)
However this money is an advance on your ability to deliver a 35mm
intermediate so he/she can strike another negative and print from that.
If at any point you are unable to deliver an intermediate of a certain
standard and quality (as outlined in your disto deal) you have to return all
monies advanced, on the spot.
If the stuff you've shot on Red @ 2K windowed is not up to the standard
and quality of the 4k Red stuff, your in the poo.
You won't know this untill you get to the end of this photochemical (filmlab)
multigenerational post path and you've spent perhaps in excess of US $200K.
Hence my concern.
Cheers Mezmo

Emmanuel Cambier

10-06-2007, 11:05 AM

TimPipher

10-06-2007, 11:18 AM

Chris Kenny

10-06-2007, 11:27 AM

and regardless, RED is 1/10 the price. That's hard to argue with. I'm sold, whether it's better than the F23 or not.

This is worth repeating every now and then. What if testing showed tomorrow that REDCODE RAW footage had a bit less less resolution than F23 footage recoded 4:4:4 on HDCAM SR? I doubt this is the case, but it's an interesting hypothetical.

Would you pay $300K for an F23 camera package instead of a $30-40K for a Red package? Would you give up all the benefits of Red's compressed data-centric workflow? Would you give up 35mm DoF, and compatibility with cine, Canon, and Nikon lenses? Would you put up with a camera body that weighs three times as much?

I rather strongly suspect that for virtually everyone who participates in this forum, the answer is a resounding "no".

Stephen Williams

10-06-2007, 11:57 AM

This is worth repeating every now and then. What if testing showed tomorrow that REDCODE RAW footage had a bit less less resolution than F23 footage recoded 4:4:4 on HDCAM SR? I doubt this is the case, but it's an interesting hypothetical.

Would you pay $300K for an F23 camera package instead of a $30-40K for a Red package? Would you give up all the benefits of Red's compressed data-centric workflow? Would you give up 35mm DoF, and compatibility with cine, Canon, and Nikon lenses? Would you put up with a camera body that weighs three times as much?

I rather strongly suspect that for virtually everyone who participates in this forum, the answer is a resounding "no".

Hi Chris,

In many ways your jumping the gun, the benefits of Red's compressed workflow have yet to be proved, in 1 years time that may well be true.

There are times that the wider DOF a smaller sensor can be useful, I am not sure everybody hear understands what they are getting into with 35mm DOF, I actually believe the DOF will be a little less than on 35mm in any case.

Stephen

Damien Molineaux

10-06-2007, 12:57 PM

Well then… wouldn't it better to settle for 4k @ 120fps :clown2:

Seriously, I'm a bit worried myself about going windowed, I may be wrong but there is something unatractive about it: lack of sharpness, DOF, FOV, it makes things a bit complicated for me at least.
2k scaled on the other hand if the onboard processor can make that happen, should be quite sharper, no DOF or FOV issues, which means no lens change.
2k @100fps was once mentioned, I would "settle" for that anyday.

Emmanuel

If I'm not mistaken, 2k@100fps has only ever been mentioned when talking about windowed mode. So far there has never been any mention of being able to go above 60fps when using the full sensor, wether recording 4k (via raw port) or 2k scaled. 2k scaled @60fps Red Raw would already be pretty nice in any case.

Cheers,
Damien

Chris Kenny

10-06-2007, 02:29 PM

Red folks have mentioned that the 60 fps @ 4K is an actual sensor limitation (not an on-board processing or media performance issue), so you're never going to see 2K scaled at better than 60 fps. At least, not until those future sensor upgrades Red has hinted at.

mezmo

10-06-2007, 05:59 PM

Well then… wouldn't it better to settle for 4k @ 120fps :clown2:

Seriously, I'm a bit worried myself about going windowed, I may be wrong but there is something unatractive about it: lack of sharpness, DOF, FOV, it makes things a bit complicated for me at least.
2k scaled on the other hand if the onboard processor can make that happen, should be quite sharper, no DOF or FOV issues, which means no lens change.
2k @100fps was once mentioned, I would "settle" for that anyday.

Emmanuel

Hi Emmanuel,
Red 4 or 2K scaled running at 100+fps would have to be Red 2 or a sensor
upgrade for Red 1.
A firmware/software upgrade is required to get Red 1 running above 30fps
to 60fps in 4 or 2K scaled and doable now with this first box.
Mezmo

mezmo

10-06-2007, 06:15 PM

This is worth repeating every now and then. What if testing showed tomorrow that REDCODE RAW footage had a bit less less resolution than F23 footage recoded 4:4:4 on HDCAM SR? I doubt this is the case, but it's an interesting hypothetical.

Would you pay $300K for an F23 camera package instead of a $30-40K for a Red package? Would you give up all the benefits of Red's compressed data-centric workflow? Would you give up 35mm DoF, and compatibility with cine, Canon, and Nikon lenses? Would you put up with a camera body that weighs three times as much?

I rather strongly suspect that for virtually everyone who participates in this forum, the answer is a resounding "no".

Hi Chris,
How cheap is the Red package at the end of the day if issues with
image quality (shooting 2K windowed @ highspeed 1.5K) lead to
a 2-3 million dollar loss of sales? On top of that you have to sell the
house kids & wife to pay back a $200K sales advance.
This is an extreme scenario I know but not entirely out of the question.
It's also why people love film and pay thru the nose to use it. It's
bullet proof in the kind of multigenerational post workflow I've mentioned.
Red has to be as bulletproof if it's to be a good alternative to film.
Cheers Mezmo

Chris Kenny

10-06-2007, 06:30 PM

Hi Chris,
How cheap is the Red package at the end of the day if issues with
image quality (shooting 2K windowed @ highspeed 1.5K) lead to
a 2-3 million dollar loss of sales? On top of that you have to sell the
house kids & wife to pay back a $200K sales advance?

What if the F23 causes damaging solar storms, and knocks out satellite communications to half a continent? It's about as plausible as losing a $2M sale because your slow motion shots have a little less resolution than what you might get from an F23. (Anyway, isn't the SRW-1 recorder only 4:2:2 above 30 fps? That narrows the gap somewhat.)

nickybee

10-06-2007, 07:01 PM

but having just read the whole thread...if you are a hollywood (read - lots of cash production and you need 4k digital High speed there are some obvious options - e.g. the Phantom 65 (125fps on a 65mm sized sensor)

we played with that a while back and I can tell you the feeling of seeing immediate camera playback via the HD-SDI outputs of 24fps (at basically 5:1 slowdown) was awesome.

Granted the workflow with the Phantom has some serious issues for prolonged feature film work but for the odd off-speed shot here and there - it can work.

(back before Jarred was a Red Fire Chief we actually played with the idea of using Phantom cameras to shoot an entire film since the frame rate is modifiable by 1fps intervals you just shoot 24p when you need to and 1000fps when you need - the 2k version of the latest phantom sensors can go up to 1000fps.) - some of the results are on www.purposelabs.com

But Vision Research sadly never listened to our suggestions for changing the workflow.

my point being that while I have not seen 2k windowed vs. scaled vs 4k filmout tests the debate seems somewhat moot.

Given a really amazing 4k tool (like the Red One) huge amounts of people will still just make crap. 4k crap looks and smells the same as 2k crap.

There's so much more to the things that will make your movie "get caught" at festivals than just the image quality so if you are indie indie indie (as somebody said) I would say focus on those things - and consider yourself blessed that Jim and co have solved the problem for you giving you a workable 24p 4k camera.

If however you are past the bleeding to get the 1st/2nd film out the door to get noticed and get some money/deal/regular work etc etc...then you no longer have the same problem. need 4k 24p (or up to 60 eventually) - sure Red one's got you covered.
4k 125 fps - you got it. Need 2k 1000fps you got it.

my 2 cents.

Nick

tj williams

10-06-2007, 11:43 PM

Chris you forgot about the price of buying or renting the Sony 444 Studio deck.... not a cheap item either.

I Think Mezmos points are very well taken. Before someone is in that position of being "in The poo" we all hope this complete workflow is done out to a very short and cheap peice of film we can all se or at least look at frames in high
rez like 4K to determing if this is or is not a problem.

Clearly the RED will not deliver "everything they want" "all three things" etc. RED will do some things very well and other things not so well. The price is certainly wonderful.
Good Cheap Fast Lets hope either RED development team gets a better quality of hs photography going or that the existing is good enough to print to 35. We'll know when we see it.

Stephen Williams

10-06-2007, 11:58 PM

(Anyway, isn't the SRW-1 recorder only 4:2:2 above 30 fps? That narrows the gap somewhat.)

Hi Chris,

At this time yes, in a soon to be released software update that will be fixed! Even Sony equipment gets better as time goes on!:tongue:

Stephen

Rob Lohman

10-07-2007, 04:25 AM

if issues with image quality (shooting 2K windowed @ highspeed 1.5K)

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Mark L. Pederson

10-07-2007, 05:04 AM

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Exactly. There are a few posts in this thread pretty far off from reality here. Seems like a bit too much "2K windowed will never intercut with 4K" paranoia. To that I say RELAX, there is more than one way to "skin that cat" -

1) software based upres, or scaling, can be done with a number of different algorithms - in Scratch if you scale, you can actually select from a palette of scaling algorithms - depending on what is happening in your clip, you can get better results with one scaling algorithm over another.

2) there are many post tricks to improve lower resolution material when scaling. I am not going to give them all away here because ... it's part of my business. But, for example, there is a high-end plug-in suite for denoise and degrain that allows you to work on the color channels separately. Works MAGIC. LOTS of things can be done in post, ESPECIALLY WITH RED, as a matter of fact, a facility could in-fact master 2K windowed material with better results than another facility working with 4K - if they didn't know the very best way to work with the material.

3) Major motion pictures intercut lower resolution (and digital) shots in action sequences of major motion pictures shot on 35mm more often than you think - and they pass delivery QC.

I think there are many concerns posted on REDUSER that are "valid" because there is not enough information out yet and not enough "published" tests. In time, there will be plenty.

Offhollywood is currently preparing a film record out of 4K and 2K material that hits the Arrilaser very, very soon -

oldphart

10-07-2007, 05:56 AM

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Not only is that obviously a good point, but we should also keep in mind that there are still a rather low percentage of audiences that will be able to see your 4k masterpiece. They are still installing 2k cinemas, and last I checked they still made negatives from 4k for film release, with the quality loss involved in that extra step.

While they will inevitably change to making release prints directly from digital as soon as market pressures start to grow, the fact remains that having a couple of scenes originated in 2k is not going to matter more than having to shoot some scenes on high-speed film.

Häakon

10-07-2007, 12:47 PM

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16...
...and it's never been good enough for serious cinematographers looking to find an alternative to film.

...it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....
Nope - and that's exactly why RED is so special. :-)

Stephen Williams

10-07-2007, 01:13 PM

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Hi Rob,

The question is how will RED 2k windowed compare with a Viper that has 3 sensors with 9,200,000 pixels each or an f23.

Stephen

M Most

10-07-2007, 02:40 PM

...and it's never been good enough for serious cinematographers looking to find an alternative to film.

"Serious cinematographers" aren't looking for an alternative to film. They are, however, always looking at technology and what it can bring to the table. If the technology is interesting, they will test it and consider using it if the tests prove successful for whatever project they're considering it for.

Film has served and continues to serve as an excellent capture medium for moving images. It does, however, have its own pallette and feel. Having tools that have a different pallette and feel - like what Red brings to the table, for instance, but also what Genesis, Viper, D20, Dalsa, SI, and other products do also - represents other possible choices for "serious cinematographers." That is a good thing, and when projects come along that are appropriate for these alternatives, they are considered.

Häakon

10-07-2007, 02:53 PM

"The times, they are a changin'" :-)

David Mullen ASC

10-07-2007, 03:39 PM

Sure, they've never stopped changing, from the beginning, pre-1900.

But that doesn't mean that film today isn't a very reliable process that produces high quality images, so this notion that despite that, it somehow now needs to be junked, belongs in a museum, etc. -- well, that makes no logical sense.

The reality is that we are in a time of transition that will take many years, and meanwhile people have options these days to pick all sorts of interesting formats and processes to use. If our options ever get narrowed-down technically someday, we may look back at this time of unstability with some fondness.

Häakon

10-07-2007, 04:24 PM

Hi,

I never said that all serious cinematographers are looking for an alternative to film. What I said was that serious cinematographers who are looking for an alternative for the most part haven't found it yet (or they've been left wanting more). Mike didn't read my post well.

In regards to latitude, resolution, and DOF characteristics (the areas that other digital cameras have been largely criticized for in comparison to celluloid film), RED seems to have been able to create something that, for the most part, is capturing images which are acceptable in those areas to a whole lot of people.

Certainly the process of making films has undergone change since its inception, but the shift to begin making major motion pictures digitally in Hollywood is an extremely recent concept compared to the grand history of the practice of shooting film. It's also one of the biggest changes, so yes, I think it's a big enough deal that it deserves special merit. I'm not asking anyone to like it, or even to make it their choice. It's just another option. Then again, these are the RED discussion forums...

mezmo

10-07-2007, 05:27 PM

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....
Hi Rob,
How's things.
Yes people shoot 2/3" material but they don't as a rule intercut it with
4k stuff from Dalsa or Red.
Yes you could shoot super 16 but would you intercut it with super 35
stuff on the same 2.35/40:1 wide screen movie? Don't think so.
Mezmo

David Mullen ASC

10-07-2007, 05:38 PM

mezmo

10-07-2007, 05:51 PM

Exactly. There are a few posts in this thread pretty far off from reality here. Seems like a bit too much "2K windowed will never intercut with 4K" paranoia. To that I say RELAX, there is more than one way to "skin that cat" -

1) software based upres, or scaling, can be done with a number of different algorithms - in Scratch if you scale, you can actually select from a palette of scaling algorithms - depending on what is happening in your clip, you can get better results with one scaling algorithm over another.

2) there are many post tricks to improve lower resolution material when scaling. I am not going to give them all away here because ... it's part of my business. But, for example, there is a high-end plug-in suite for denoise and degrain that allows you to work on the color channels separately. Works MAGIC. LOTS of things can be done in post, ESPECIALLY WITH RED, as a matter of fact, a facility could in-fact master 2K windowed material with better results than another facility working with 4K - if they didn't know the very best way to work with the material.

3) Major motion pictures intercut lower resolution (and digital) shots in action sequences of major motion pictures shot on 35mm more often than you think - and they pass delivery QC.

I think there are many concerns posted on REDUSER that are "valid" because there is not enough information out yet and not enough "published" tests. In time, there will be plenty.

Offhollywood is currently preparing a film record out of 4K and 2K material that hits the Arrilaser very, very soon -

Hi Mark,
Excited about your 4K & 2K windowed tests. The proof will be up on
the big sheet, but for those of us who don't have access to Offhollwood
post magic a high quality acquisition solution is the only answer.
As for uprezed denoised and degrained footage, most I've seen looks
bad and these systems just don't work in many situations.
Please don't tell people here that everything can be fixed in post because it's
just not true. There is no substitute for high quality acquisition.
I've have not been to your facility and you may be very talented with
what you do but I have been to some very well regarded post houses
and they will tell you in no uncertain fashion that you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
Cheers Mezmo

mezmo

10-07-2007, 06:54 PM

But people do intercut 2K with essentially 4K (or non-D.I. 35mm) all the time, whether or not it's the ideal way of doing things, and they generally get away with it. There is a precedent for that. Look at some of the recent 4K D.I.'s of movies with 2K digital efx and titles in them.

And before digital efx, we had movies with original footage intercut with duped material for efx, plus optical fades & dissolves. Again, not ideal, but it was fairly standard practice.

Intercutting 2K and 4K isn't quite the same as intercutting Super-16 and 35mm because there is no obvious change in grain size between 2K and 4K as there is between Super-16 and 35mm (which the movies "City of God" and "Constant Gardener" did intercut, sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously.) There are or were some TV shows that also intercut Super-16 and 35mm, counting on the smaller screen size to hide the differences -- I heard that "Third Watch" did that on some of their seasons.

Hi David,
Take your point about 16 & 35mm intercutting, my example for Rob was a little over the top. In the good old days I've had opticals looking so bad the
director refused to cut them into the finished film. Thank god for D.I.
I've intercut super 8 into 35mm myself to create an effect. That's different.
I agree S16/35mm scanned frames are intercutable between 2K and 4k.
My beef here is intercutting Red 4K material and 2K windowed material in
the same scene in a super 35 digital movie for multiscreen theatricial release.
With a martial arts movie this Hspeed cinematography (shot 2K windowed) can make up 50%+ of a scene. I have one director who likes to shoot many
scenes offspeed @ 40 or 50 fps, even dialogue , ADR later.
Shooting Offspeed on film is bulletproof, the look is the same, the quality is
the same. Red has the ability to achieve this for a 4K 60 fps result with a firmware/software upgrade. Dare to be great Red, Jim and the team.
Red has the opportunity to be the first 0-60 fps 4K raw camera on the
market and achieve this at a fantastic price point.
I don't understand the opposition to this from a lot of people posting here on this thread. And the lack of any positive response from the Red team.
I know they have a lot on the plate at the moment, but I really don't think
2K windowed should be promoted as a solution for Super35 digital acquisition. At this
precise moment Red does have the ability to be that much better than anything else out there and live up to it's original promo/hype. A serious alternative to 35mm motiom picture film. It just needs 60fps @4K or even 60 fps @ 2Kscaled if that works.
Mezmo

Mark L. Pederson

10-07-2007, 06:59 PM

you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
Cheers Mezmo

agreed Mezmo -

but I can tell you ... in no uncertain fashion ... that 2K windowed shot on Red ain't no pigs ear.

If you come to NYC I can put it up in 35mm on the big sheet for ya' -

mezmo

10-07-2007, 07:24 PM

Hi Mark,
NYC maybe first 1/4 of next year,
if not i'll send a friend.
Thanks Mezmo.

Häakon

10-07-2007, 07:43 PM

Shooting Offspeed on film is bulletproof, the look is the same, the quality is the same. Red has the ability to achieve this for a 4K 60 fps result with a firmware/software upgrade. Dare to be great Red, Jim and the team. Red has the opportunity to be the first 0-60 fps 4K raw camera on the market and achieve this at a fantastic price point.
Hi,

Unless I've missed something, it has never been stated that RED will be capable of 4K @ 60p onboard. That's not to discredit you, but I've seen a couple people mention it now and If it was truly possible, no one would care about shooting 2K scaled at all. If you're talking about 4K uncrompressed RAW at 60p, that's doable at some point in the future - but then you're talking a lot more than a software upgrade. You'd need the optical port, a huge teathered RAID, and a super beefed-up post system; not to mention that the whole solution would cost lots more than their current 'fantastic price point.'

To get offspeed shooting with RED some tradeoff has to be made; either shooting windowed, scaled, or uncompressed. There doesn't seem to be a "fix all" answer yet.

tj williams

10-07-2007, 10:09 PM

Hey Off Hollywood
For those of us on the wrong coast or even further away how about a really big frame scanned from 35mm originated in 4K and another of the same subject in 2K so we can actually see the difference.

Rob Lohman

10-08-2007, 04:08 AM

ed.
Yes you could shoot super 16 but would you intercut it with super 35
stuff on the same 2.35/40:1 wide screen movie? Don't think so.

Actually, I would. I've seen 2K and 4K printed to film from RED, I would not hesitate to inter cut 'em if for whatever reason I needed to shoot in 2K.

BUT, I am far from an authority on film as one could be. I've seen a lot of film projected, like most, though.

In the end it all depends on what the people using the camera want to do and find acceptable. Not what I personally or RED as a company would do.

I just wouldn't call it an issue with image quality. It's a creative choice. A lot of stuff that goes through DI these days is in 2K and then printed to film. Looks perfectly fine (not saying it can't be better).

Even showing 2K on a 4K digital projector looked stunning to my eyes. But, that test wasn't 4K with some 2K inter cut. I'm definitely interested in trying that some day though.

David Mullen ASC

10-08-2007, 09:05 AM

Here's a good article on the advantages of scanning 35mm at 4K:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html

Rudi Herbert

10-08-2007, 09:45 AM

Mark,

Here's an idea that's been on my mind ever since the RED and SI-2K began promising film alternatives a couple of years ago. For many of us, the make or break test of whether we can convince those financing our projects is to to see the RED originated footage projected on a big screen. I have been in pre-production of a film now for a while and my first thought was to shoot it on F-900 or F-950, which still added quite a bit to the budget on a 3-4 month shoot, and had projected quality that was very inconsistent. Now I have convinced my financers that we'll go with this incredible new tool called RED, which will save us close to 1 million in budget (no small potatoes on a 3.5 million feature), but yet again, I'm being asked to show a demo reel on one of the multiplexes' screens owned by the production company. Especially in a film with a very strong focus on visuals, lots of exteriors and underwater work, I understand their concern. So, could OffHollywood or RED or anybody have a 1-2 minute demo reel that you could sell, rent, loan that potential users could use to convince producers?
Just a short 35 mm reel showing a few interiors, exteriors, a chart test, exposure test, a beauty shot or two and/or anything else deemed appropriate, but mostly that can show RED's quality when projected on a large screen, not a 20 ft DI suite screen but a typical 40-50 ft cinema screen. I, for one, would happily pay whatever rental or purchase fees would be required, and I'm sure so would many others.

What do you think?

Rudi Herbert

David Mullen ASC

10-08-2007, 10:07 AM

Since you're trying to convince producers to use the RED, why not borrow "Crossing the Line" from RED to show them? Otherwise, shoot a test and show them that.

Rudi Herbert

10-08-2007, 10:29 AM

David,

Obviously I would love to "borrow" Crossing the Line from RED, though I'm not sure how, if at all, that would work. And of course I can always rent a RED and do a test myself, but I'm just trying to save time which is the one commodity I have none of nowadays. Furthermore, I thought that a few tests have already been conducted by people far more talented than me and, at the same time, having a 35 mm RED demo available on demand might also be a great way for companies like Offhollywood, etc, to advertise their RED expertise and services like color grading, etc, who knows if after seeing a hypotetical demo I would not look into hiring someone like Offhollywood to do post work for us? Then again, if I have to, I will rent a RED and shoot something myself and transfer it to film in the next couple of months...

P.S. David, was reading the new version of Cinematography by Mankiewiz and yourself last night. Great read really, revisiting the basics from such informed and informative perspectives is always a pleasure...

Rudi Herbert

Mark L. Pederson

10-08-2007, 10:37 AM

mezmo

10-08-2007, 03:50 PM

Hi,

Unless I've missed something, it has never been stated that RED will be capable of 4K @ 60p onboard. That's not to discredit you, but I've seen a couple people mention it now and If it was truly possible, no one would care about shooting 2K scaled at all. If you're talking about 4K uncrompressed RAW at 60p, that's doable at some point in the future - but then you're talking a lot more than a software upgrade. You'd need the optical port, a huge teathered RAID, and a super beefed-up post system; not to mention that the whole solution would cost lots more than their current 'fantastic price point.'

To get offspeed shooting with RED some tradeoff has to be made; either shooting windowed, scaled, or uncompressed. There doesn't seem to be a "fix all" answer yet.

Hi Haakon,
Your right, 4K @ 60p onboard has never been mentioned, 4K @ 60P
recording outboard has.
The firmware/software upgrade would get Red running @ 2K scaled
onboard with 35mm FOV/DOF with possibly better image quality tha 2K windowed. This should be good enough for now.
Also I don't see recording uncompressed as an impossible task. As the chips
in these cameras get faster recording to a portable DDR will be the norm.
Mild compression can be done in the DDR to keep the Raid size down.
I even think Red have a plan for this.
We need a second camera body to shoot highspeed on film so the additional
costs for shooting highspeed are already a part of the normal FF budget.
Mezmo

mezmo

10-08-2007, 04:18 PM

Hi Rudi,
Mark at Offhollywood is your man, he has a Red 1 camera, Scratch, the
only Red codec 4k capable post solution and wide screen projection.
If I were in your shoes I'd be testing Red'a interecutability. 4K and 2K
(windowed) (highspeed) in the same scene. Then take that thru a full
film post path. Film Burn, Intermediate,2nd negative for printing and
a trial print from that. I assume your production/distribution company
are still running film. Don't let me stop you from dropping a name here
I have a few projects I'd like to pitch in that 3.5M budget slot. We could
be friends.
Also love to hear about the test results. Mezmo

P Andersson

10-08-2007, 07:56 PM

short answer - YES.

stay tuned.

cool please invite us to a showing here in ny

Rudi Herbert

10-08-2007, 08:02 PM

Mark L. Pederson

10-09-2007, 05:30 PM

cool please invite us to a showing here in ny

http://www.bosfcpug.org/index.php?op...55&Item id=87

tj williams

10-09-2007, 06:51 PM

Just on the wrong coast sometimes!!!!

Fergus Meiklejohn

10-10-2007, 02:17 AM

Mezmo,

I can't drop a name unfortunately :-( Anyway, I still can't believe I went from selling these people documentaries for 35-50 K to a film for 3.5 M, and they can't believe that script can be filmed for less than 25-30 M, so let's not talk about it much lest the fragile spell under which I have them shatters into pieces :-) Anyway, we're talking about an European country and a company with no interest other than producing pieces of national interest and significance so I'm not sure your projects would be of interest. As for Mark and Offhollywood, I'm patiently waiting to see what offers/services they have available for RED users in a month or two. I'm sure I won't have to reinvent the wheel, or make a square one, when they seem to be moving along the very path I need a RED endowed production company to move so I can call on their services.

Rudi Herbert

Good for you Rudi! :gun:
Naming no names of course but I'm wondering how you've figured that filming with RED will save you as much as $1 million over filming with the F950? I'm trying to convince a producer friend to go with RED and while I'm sure it'll save the production much more than just the camera rental, it not tried and tested yet..
Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated. Thanks :nerd:

Mark L. Pederson

10-10-2007, 03:47 AM

Just on the wrong coast sometimes!!!!

I like the East Coast. I think it is the RIGHT coast.

David Mullen ASC

10-10-2007, 09:16 AM

Good for you Rudi! :gun:
Naming no names of course but I'm wondering how you've figured that filming with RED will save you as much as $1 million over filming with the F950? I'm trying to convince a producer friend to go with RED and while I'm sure it'll save the production much more than just the camera rental, it not tried and tested yet..
Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated. Thanks :nerd:

I have the same question -- How does one figure a million dollars in savings?

Fergus Meiklejohn

10-10-2007, 09:31 AM

I have the same question -- How does one figure a million dollars in savings?

Yeah I did a alternative "filming with RED" budget on the $10 million movie, and while you save money over film, most of the budget goes on the Actors and so the Producers are saying "Well OK it saves us a bit but it's not dramatic in the grand scheme of things and RED is unknown which makes it a risk". This is a straight drama, no special effects or stunts, so I do wonder whether RED might make the filming run much quicker, which could save a lot of money, but the problem is quantifying how much time and so how much money..?

David Mullen ASC

10-10-2007, 09:42 AM

I find that almost ALL movie schedules are shorter than they should be - I've done so many movies where the AD calculated that it would take "X" number of shooting days, so the producers automatically cut three or four days from the estimate to save money, only to eventually have the movie run three or four days over the schedule, matching exactly how long the AD told them it would take to shoot the movie!

"The Astronaut Farmer" (which I shot) was originally budgeted, I think, at 12 million dollars and a 40-day schedule, but the studio cut it to 10 million dollars and a 33 day schedule, plus cut some efx shots out. Ultimately we shot an extra 7 days -- 4 at the end of the shoot itself and 3 more in post doing pick-ups -- and added back the needed efx shots... and the final movie came in at 12 million dollars... exactly what the original budget & schedule said it would need.

So don't bother telling producers to cut three or so days off of the schedule because you think you'll gain some time from shooting on the RED. The schedule is already tighter than it should be probably, so use any extra time savings on the set to get some breathing space and catch up. Maybe you'll actually go home after twelve hours everyday...

Also, in a dramatic movie (not an action or special efx movie) most of the time on set is spent blocking & rehearsing, then lighting, and then shooting takes -- the camera crew is generally already set-up during the time spent lighting, etc. So other than not spending time reloading every now & then, and not cutting the camera as often (similar to the time savings of shooting HD tape instead of film), there is not a lot of time being saved on the set. I'll be generous and say you can save an hour by the end of the day, which translates into two or three extra set-ups per day on a single-camera show. Of course, it's a different rhythm on an action movie where you are using multiple cameras and running to get as many set-ups per day as possible.

Fergus Meiklejohn

10-10-2007, 12:36 PM

thanks David

Rudi Herbert

10-10-2007, 03:49 PM

Hello,

I can't explain exactly how we calculated all the savings without going over the budget, but truthfully, the more realistic number was a savings of about 880 K over FILM, not other HD cameras. Roughly put, our original schedule called for about 4.5 months of shooting with about 1 million per month. Our savings were based on:
- Adding about 6-12 set ups per day on digital, reducing shooting time by 2.5-3 weeks.
- Reducing reload time and number of takes for underwater scenes (about 20% of the whole shoot). We were counting on the RED RAID, not the CF module for this, but either way, we would go from about 25 days fully dedicated to U/W work to about 12-14. The difference in housing sizes for a RED as opposed to an ARRI 435 also eliminates 2 assistants for the main operator and a small boat for the crew.
- Most of the savings for our particular project come from the fact that the production company wants dailies on a (no pun intended) daily basis, and the majority of them would require minor color grading to ascertain whether certain specific looks I'm proposing would be feasible with the "in-camera" effects I've developed instead of the major Hollywood type CC they think it would require. Since we would eliminate the expenses of developing, scanning, grading and projecting film on a constant basis by grading on computers and viewing on an HD projector, we would save a huge amount. Again, that's just our case but it comes to about 480 K.
- Then a lot of other minor things make a big difference when put together. If we rent RED lenses we save about $ 25 K for those 3.5 month. If we rent a Steadicam small enough for the RED as opposed to a huge Arri, we save around 15 K, we're saving 105 K in insurance since we can make back ups on set (and this is a very old style European insurer, I would hope it to be better with a digital savy American company). Also, by not having to rent a cinema salon with a widescreen for the daily film screening, we save about 35 K for the whole shoot, and on and on it goes.
The main difference is in the increased number of set ups per day, given the small RED form factor, the instant monitoring of acquired assets, agressive use of zoom lenses to minimize change time and the small, but nevertheless present, decrease in expense and set up time from not having to use heavy and costly hardware (dollies, cranes, jibs, etc) intended for film cameras. Everything we're renting is HD or even ENG gear, and yes, we'll be making compromises but acceptable ones. Lastly, if we truly manage to reduce a month from our schedule, then that's one month less of hotels, catering, salaries, rentals, insurance, sets repair and maintenance, etc, etc, etc.
Honestly, if we were not forced to develop, grade and project film on a daily basis, as oposed to watching rough cuts once or twice a week as most budget minded productions do, our savings might not amount to that much. And then don't forget that since I DO want to shoot this film whatever it takes, I have been fairly optimistic (though not untruthful) in assessing the scope of the savings when presenting them to the producers (what filmaker has not sinned so?). Likely, a 5-7% increase will result once we're out in the real world all the expected real life obstacles appear. But in a perfect world, this is what we're buddgeting for, and we're sticking with it :-)

Rudi Herbert

tj williams

10-10-2007, 04:25 PM

Hi Mark
Bi Coastal is OK, recently worked in NCarolina. (which is sorta Eastern) just lamenting that I am a Continent away from your showing of the RED Film out, and no indication of any paid work to get me back there at the right time! Actually when you look on a map of the US you are on the right edge. Thus the right coast? By the way which state is furthest East?

mezmo

10-10-2007, 07:37 PM

Mezmo,

I can't drop a name unfortunately :-( Anyway, I still can't believe I went from selling these people documentaries for 35-50 K to a film for 3.5 M, and they can't believe that script can be filmed for less than 25-30 M, so let's not talk about it much lest the fragile spell under which I have them shatters into pieces :-) Anyway, we're talking about an European country and a company with no interest other than producing pieces of national interest and significance so I'm not sure your projects would be of interest. As for Mark and Offhollywood, I'm patiently waiting to see what offers/services they have available for RED users in a month or two. I'm sure I won't have to reinvent the wheel, or make a square one, when they seem to be moving along the very path I need a RED endowed production company to move so I can call on their services.

Rudi Herbert

Hi Rudi,
Pity, maybe after you get this film finished we could talk, private message.
hint,hint.
I'm workling in Asia.Australia/NZ. A co production may not be out of
the question. We have 30-40% tax rebate in some countries down here.
I'll stop now.
Luki from Assimilate (the people who make Scratch) may be able to hook
you up with a Red & Scratch owner closer to home. Where ever that may be? He posts here @ Reduser, usually in the Workflow Forum.
He has sold or is selling Scratch into a few Euro countries.
Good luck with your project, don't forget to test Red intercutability 4K and
2K (windowed & cropped), very important.
Cheers Mezmo.

Ramesh Jai

10-11-2007, 02:38 AM

Yeah I did a alternative "filming with RED" budget on the $10 million movie, and while you save money over film, most of the budget goes on the Actors and so the Producers are saying "Well OK it saves us a bit but it's not dramatic in the grand scheme of things and RED is unknown which makes it a risk". This is a straight drama, no special effects or stunts, so I do wonder whether RED might make the filming run much quicker, which could save a lot of money, but the problem is quantifying how much time and so how much money..?

"Well OK it saves us a bit but it's not dramatic in the grand scheme of things and RED is unknown which makes it a risk".

The following is taken from a website contactmusic.com..

"TOM CRUISE's latest movie VALKYRIE has suffered a setback - after finally having a ban on filming inside an important German historical location overturned, the footage shot there has turned out to be unusable.

Crucial scenes filmed at the Bendlerblock in Berlin, where a number of German officers were executed after an abortive attempt to assassinate Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in 1944, will now have to be reshot by director Bryan Singer.

A spokeswoman for the production company tells German newspaper Bild, "A majority of the film material is unusable. We have to film it again." Colin Ullman, a representative for the firm that delivered the footage shot to a post-production studio in Munich, adds, "The production company told us that there were problems with the negative development in Arri Munich, one of the top post-production companies in Germany. The images were wiped away."

Fortunately for Singer and Cruise, the German government has agreed to allow them further access to the Bendlerblock. They had previously been banned from filming at there because officials did not want the "dignity of the place" to be violated. In the movie, Cruise portrays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who was put to death after plotting to blow-up Hitler. "

So I guess there is a risk even shooting on film.