View Full Version : Milk Girls
Alister Robbie
12-30-2006, 11:28 PM
Hey,
Just tracking down info and samples on the Red camera to try and sway our people across to considering the Red camera. Have hit up the website for video samples, and have downloaded the torrent files, but am having trouble with one because no-one is seeding.
I have Juliet2 and BubbleMovie, but there are no seeds for milkgirls1080p.mov, Anyone got it, and anyone care to seed.
Cheers
Al
http://www.dvxuser4.com/red/milkgirls1080.zip
robbo
12-31-2006, 12:36 AM
ace - why did I think you were in LA ?
You resident in Syd ? Or just passing thru ?
I'm coming across there soon - end of Jan/early Feb, err unless something crops up. Maybe we could say howdy ...
ace - why did I think you were in LA ?
You resident in Syd ? Or just passing thru ?
I'm coming across there soon - end of Jan/early Feb, err unless something crops up. Maybe we could say howdy ...
Because I probably mentioned it previously. I was in LA for a few months working on a couple of projects. Just got back home recently.
You definitely have a ground contact in Sydney!
Edit: Yes, Sydney is my hometown.
mikkowilson
12-31-2006, 01:55 AM
... Files also available at: http://red.mikkowilson.com
- Mikko
robbo
12-31-2006, 01:55 AM
dude, way cool !
heh - umm your gurl, err ;;;
np - I'll let you know off-list when I know that things are finalised.
cheers, r
Alister Robbie
01-01-2007, 03:48 PM
http://www.dvxuser4.com/red/milkgirls1080.zip
Cheers bloke. Greatly appreciated.
Al
Emanuel A.
01-01-2007, 05:50 PM
http://www.dvxuser4.com/red/milkgirls1080.zip
Cheers bloke. Greatly appreciated.
AlAnd to Mikko too. :) He has the most important (and unique) RED footage and stuff (grabs etc) data base where all the files are available (there).
Were the "Women Drinking Milk" (1080p footage on the Red site) shot against a green screen?
Nick Shaw
03-06-2007, 04:20 PM
Were the "Women Drinking Milk" (1080p footage on the Red site) shot against a green screen?
No, I don't think so.
Did anybody ever comment on the shadow on the inside of the woman's arm? The one drinking milk. It has a shadow that seems "cut out" to me. I actually just showed the footage to someone who isn't familiar with this particular clip, and he immediately asked: is that shot on a green screen? And the funny thing was I was just wondering the same thing, mainly due to the sharp, almost purple-ish shadows on the inside of the woman's arm.
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9412/1173223719.jpg
wshultz
03-06-2007, 04:42 PM
A few people have asked me that too, but I believe it's because of the long lens used and the uniformly oof background create the illusion that the image is fake.
Jance Allen
03-06-2007, 04:52 PM
That would be a really nice key if that were the case!
Chris Gearhart
03-06-2007, 04:59 PM
Good lighting, long lens, clean sensor. As I recall, RED folks said this was shot outside on a lot.
Michael Schrengohst
03-06-2007, 05:22 PM
And I believe this shot was taken with the early RED prototype....
even before they have dialed in REDCODE...
so me thinks that shipping units would even be a cut
above what has been shown so far!
jbeale
03-06-2007, 06:00 PM
As hard as I look at the image I don't see anything that suggests a greenscreen to me, either inside or outside the circled area. There may be some color cast to the shadows but that is more a question of grading.
Back when those were first released, there were a lot of different grades posted in the forum that various people did, with a large variety of color tones and saturation.
Gbabymogul
03-06-2007, 06:33 PM
Good lighting, long lens, clean sensor. As I recall, RED folks said this was shot outside on a lot.Yup.
Summed it up. This was also shot while they were still improving the sensor dynamics (interpolation) and deciding on the aesthetics of the shutter (which emulation choices). All of that being said, I was VERY impressed with the choices made -> primarily how filmic it seemed and that it had that "magic"...that ineffable something (for me).
They've apparently improved since then, and narrowed down the choices that they were deciding on (with input from folks here).
With NAB, we'll get to see what kind of dynamics and shutter characteristics they've chosen (with the new footage). Can't wait.
:guinness:
Thanks for the insights. The footage at NAB will be very interesting indeed.
I also think it's interesting how "very shallow" depth of field behind brightly lit foreground subjects does create almost a "cut-out" effect which seems to remind us of a composite. Just shows how digital tech in general is changing how we read and interpret all images. Almost as though we need something in the mid-ground to tell us this is "real" (and ten years ago would we even have asked this question at all?). But that's a cinematography debate and not necessarily relevant to a "camera test."
I did load up this 1080p clip on my Avid Xpress to see how it played, and the motion looked perfectly filmic to me. Can't wait to hear the responses to Red's newest images at NAB.
Blaine Golden
03-06-2007, 07:26 PM
As I recall, RED folks said this was shot outside on a lot.You recall correctly.
Rob Lohman
03-06-2007, 07:32 PM
Yes, it was shot outside the RED office. No green screen or such stuff.
Jarred Land
03-07-2007, 12:49 AM
I shot it with Jim, James and Brian, cut the sequence myself and i can tell you it wasnt fake.
If I could make fake look that good I would be pretty impressed with myself though.
Sounds vaguely familiar to photographic analysis of the moon landings... I'm waiting for someone to say that the whole sequence was actually shot with a DSLR while the girls moved in slow motion.. ;)
James T Mather
03-07-2007, 02:57 AM
Sounds vaguely familiar to photographic analysis of the moon landings...
The kind of photo analysis usually performed by people who have zero photographic knowledge yet trumpet normal photographic artifacts (such as shadow convergence) as though proof of conspiracy?
Or do you mean that this was shot in a warehouse in Arizona?
Chris Gearhart
03-07-2007, 06:14 AM
The milk girls shot was actually done on the moon.
Andrew M.
03-07-2007, 06:36 AM
I shot it with Jim, James and Brian, cut the sequence myself and i can tell you it wasnt fake.
If I could make fake look that good I would be pretty impressed with myself though.
Jarred, one question that is intriguing me since I saw the footage,
where in CA do they have such milk bottles?
Last time I did see these bottles, were in Europe. They deliver milk to your doorsteps in these bottles early morning, like 4AM, in the wire-frame bottle containers, bottles banging against the wires making terrible noise and waking up all the people on the street.
The good thing is that if you are coming back from the party and you have hangover then you just grab the bottle from someone’s doorsteps and you can extinguish you thirst.
Well...I don't know that anyone was suggesting conspiracy. At least not in this thread.
I myself couldn't recall whether this was actually shot on a green screen or not. And from looking at it several people wondered. But I for one am happy to accept that it was in fact shot on a lot! :-) I pointed out the shadow because on my own (non-HD) monitor, the shadow looked "different" from what I was used to (viewing DVD's of Hollywood movies or my own truly exceptional SD footage (ack!)) and I was trying to figure out if it's because the images that 4K produces will have a certain look that I may or may not have to mitigate, or whether some compositing had resulted in the effect.
The kind of photo analysis usually performed by people who have zero photographic knowledge yet trumpet normal photographic artifacts (such as shadow convergence) as though proof of conspiracy?
Okay, I can't resist. I assume this is directed at me, the dude who re-opened this thread to ask a question about the image. All I can say is, as someone spending a lot of money on a new camera, and tackling a very steep learning curve with obsessive conviction, I will continue to ask a lot of questions. I'll even ask stupid questions. And I'd say I have considerably more than zero photographic knowledge. However, considerably less knowledge than Jarred Land has about cameras, considerably less knowledge than Graeme Nattress has about bit depth and algorithms, and considerably less knowledge than Evin Grant has about lenses. That's why I spend too much time on RedUser.
Jim Arthurs
03-07-2007, 11:02 AM
My only two cents... if it WAS shot on green screen (it wasn't), wouldn't you really want the camera that could do that good of job? I would! Oh, wait, it's the RED...
chuck colburn
03-07-2007, 11:08 AM
I shot it with Jim, James and Brian, cut the sequence myself and i can tell you it wasnt fake.
If I could make fake look that good I would be pretty impressed with myself though.
Hello Jarred,
Were the lactos babes shot with the Red 300mm? Looks like lots of compression in that shot.
Chuck
Emmanuel Cambier
03-07-2007, 11:09 AM
If you guys get thrilled with this kind of thread, wait until you check the one called "Strobe" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=791).
Now that's a real thread for real men with real concerns about a real camera:detective2:
You're being nice kids though:meh:
"Just kidding" Emmanuel
Ronnie Silos
03-07-2007, 11:11 AM
To claim it was shot on a greenscreen would actually be a credit to Red. Either a yes or no answer is a good answer. So the real question is, was the Red camera somehow used in the moon landing because whether or not it was real or greenscreen, it sure worked! Red team, are you using alien technology?
Ronnie
Andrew Benz
03-07-2007, 02:08 PM
Hello Jarred,
Were the lactos babes shot with the Red 300mm? Looks like lots of compression in that shot.
Chuck
Yes it was shot with the RED 300mm. Hard reflectors (2) were used for edge lighting and fill was used... don't remember if hmi's were used... this from memory and per Jim and Jarred. I cannot wait... here is to the upcoming price list!
Jun-Dai
03-13-2007, 06:20 PM
Is there any chance that we'll be able to download this (or another sample) at > 1080p at some point?
Gunleik Groven
03-13-2007, 06:26 PM
Like this?
http://red.com/gallery-video.htm
Gunleik
Jun-Dai
03-14-2007, 11:24 AM
Am I missing something? The highest quality video I see there is 1080p.
Rob Lohman
03-14-2007, 02:40 PM
If you come down to NAB you can see footage 4K projected in our booth!
Jeff Kilgroe
03-14-2007, 04:03 PM
I sure hope we can get some >1080p footage posted online at or after NAB. Some of us would love nothing more than to come to NAB and see it in person, but I have a family commitment for mid-April that I can't escape from. I've tried everything and I'm starting to accept that NAB for me isn't going to happen this year. On the bright side, I save a bit of money to spend on more RED accessories. :w00t:
But there's people in my area who will have RED before me, so i'll be able to check it all out before mine is ready to ship.
Gunleik Groven
03-14-2007, 04:09 PM
Like Jim andd the team, I'm having a new kid around NAB.
I guess there are more of us who are longing to have go @ some real testfooty, but then again we probably will very soon when people start to get their cameras and the beta-software is online.
Really waiting for a new full circle of:
"Film is dead" and "watch this" threads.
It's only a year ago that the HVX was released...
Sorry for the link Jun-Dai, misread your question.
Gunleik
Paul Hazlett
03-14-2007, 04:52 PM
If you come down to NAB you can see footage 4K projected in our booth!
I would rather see them live actually...heheh
jbeale
03-14-2007, 05:03 PM
Is there any chance that we'll be able to download this (or another sample) at > 1080p at some point?
What format does one use for download of video resolutions higher than 1920x1080? And what system do you need to play that back smoothly? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really don't know. Has anyone done that before?
Gunleik Groven
03-14-2007, 05:23 PM
I have done this in Shake with the apple animation codec. But that's an uncompressed rgba codec, so it taks up a lot of space.
AFAIK there's no real limit to say QT for supporting "odd" or "huge" resolutions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have an app that supports "weird" resolutions - like shake - you can export with wichever compression and make the file playback in qt.
Gunleik
Adrian T.
03-14-2007, 05:38 PM
You can use any CODEC which is not bound to some native dimensions. Video based CODECs like DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO HD, HDV all have their native dimensions. Other CODECS like H.264, MPEG2, JPEG2000 etc. support any resolution. But the higher you go, the more likely your hardware will have problems keeping up.
gunleik: QuickTime is only a container format. It's not a CODEC.
Jeff Kilgroe
03-14-2007, 05:53 PM
What format does one use for download of video resolutions higher than 1920x1080? And what system do you need to play that back smoothly? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really don't know. Has anyone done that before?
Some codecs support greater than 1920x1080p like DiVX. But that wouldn't be a good representation of RED image quality. I'm hoping to see some more footage in various forms after NAB or even while NAB is happening. Hopefully, if the REDCODE codecs are available, even just for playback only, some of the early adopters and possibly the RED team as well can begin to share native format stuff.
So I guess we see what happens at NAB and with the release of the camera, eh?
Adrian T.
03-14-2007, 06:14 PM
I have done this in Shake with the apple animation codec. But that's an uncompressed rgba codec, so it taks up a lot of space.
The Apple Animation CODEC is NOT uncompressed. It's lossless though. It uses simple RLE (run length encoding).
Gunleik Groven
03-14-2007, 06:22 PM
1. gunleik: QuickTime is only a container format. It's not a CODEC.
2. gunleik: The Apple Animation CODEC is NOT uncompressed. It's lossless though. It uses simple RLE (run length encoding).
1 - yes I know, dunno where I said otherwise -;)
2 - Right! Sorry for mixing up.
My main point, though - is that it's not impossible or hard to deliver 4k samples for us to see, if they want.
You just need a software that is resolutionindependent (like Shake)
And export to a resolution independent QT codec.
So basically:
The day they want us to see it, we can.
Gunleik
Adrian T.
03-14-2007, 06:33 PM
1 - yes I know, dunno where I said otherwise -;)
You said:
there's no real limit to say QT for supporting "odd" or "huge" resolutions
Sorry for misinterpreting that. :innocent: I just meant to say that it's the CODECs which limit the resolutions, and not QT.
My main point, though - is that it's not impossible or hard to deliver 4k samples for us to see, if they want.
You just need a software that is resolutionindependent (like Shake)
And export to a resolution independent QT codec.
No, it's no problem at all to produce and distribute such clips. But not many users have a 4K screen and enough hardware power to view them.