Can you, also, tell when a movie is shot on RED?

[Josh Negrin]

It's bizarre man.

Sometimes I'll watch a movie or a trailer and know right away that it was shot on RED because of the way it looks. Does anyone else notice this?

"Knowing" is a perfect example of this happening and also "Social Network", but today I watched the trailer for "Rabbit Hole" and knew right away as well (confirmed it via imdb.com technical specs)

This doesn't always happen, though, and I'll be pleasantly surprised later to read that a movie, I enjoyed, was shot on RED.

So, I'm curious as to what someone would attribute this to. Is the color corrector not pushing it enough?

I've color corrected a few things, shot on RED, including my own film.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

yes.. red has a look. its pretty easy to spot most of the time

[michael zaletel]

I couldn't disagree more. If shot on RED-MX with Zeiss Master Primes by top-notch team then the RAW R3Ds graded/treated by the best to look like something else, you would simply never know.

RED-MX footage can be made to look like anything else which is never true the other way around.

-michael zaletel

[Frank Glencairn]

I agree. I can see the RED signature most of the time.
Nothing to do with the grading or the glass - it´s something else. Probably the motion.

Frank

[Zac C]

I agree, no matter what you do with R3D's, I can tell you what is and isn't shot on red, within a degree.

I watched a few commercials, then my friend humorously put on "Fred: The Movie" and I could easily tell all were shot on red

[Tim Hole]

When I saw Social Network for the first time it was quite amazing to see how clean the image is. Its so clean to a point that it will probably be rejected by some. But within that cleanness is a colour depth that is so rich, and a range that is profound. I have obviously seen quite a bit of stuff shot on RED and it does have a distinct look, but how the camera is employed is obviously VERY important.

Its funny that some people I know reject RED because it is not film because from what they have seen, to them looks too clean and digital. Apparently it is too real. What I see is a magical blend of what film has been doing for over a century, only amplified. It takes all the elements of film and adds its own signature blend. The result is a film like essence with the clarity of the world I see, with enough bonding magic for it excite my mind cinematically.

Also, this may be just me, but does anyone else think that the idea of shooting raw, play towards a mentality to push the look a bit further. Or is this just more of a common trend now.

[Julio Quintana]

Sometimes I'll watch a movie or a trailer and know right away that it was shot on RED because of the way it looks. I watched the trailer for "Rabbit Hole" and knew right away as well

I'm not sure I could tell any significant difference between these two:

Film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfdrJ0wHUGw

RED: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/rabbit_hole_trailer.html

[Tim Hole]

I'm not sure I could tell any significant difference between these two:

Film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfdrJ0wHUGw

RED: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/rabbit_hole_trailer.html

Its difficult when watching a youtube compressed video. Squid and Whale was shot on S16 though but watching it if someone told me it was RED I would disagree and have to check it out. But it could easily look digital from the youtube video.

[M Most]

yes.. red has a look. its pretty easy to spot most of the time

All capture devices and mediums have a signature look. There is no such thing as a device with a blank canvas, other than perhaps the human eye, and there's really no way to measure that. This is not a good or bad thing, it's just a fact. However, it is these very differences that allow artists to choose the proper tool for a particular production. This is no different than what different film stocks have presented for years, and it does not detract from the artistry that the individual artist - in this case, the cinematographer - brings to the job. Many different types of material can be shot using the same camera, and of course, they will look somewhat different if they are shot by different, talented cameramen. But there is undeniably a signature similarity in terms of general color reproduction and image texture when the same camera is used, it is simply the nature of any image capture device.

[jimhare]

Just wait until they point at the sun and look for the black spot! :wink:

[Gunleik Groven]

It was simpler on the M than on the MX, as it was breaking more easily in the top and more often treated badly in post and it was easier to do so in an unsexy way.

But I think I am better at spotting "bad RED post" than RED images.... And that goes for MX projects as well...

[Emyr R. E. Pugh]

It's usually the way skin looks that gives it away for me - at least that's the feeling I get; something about flesh tones, especially if shot on RED and then given the 'teal and orange' treatment, which, somehow has a noticably different feel to similarly graded film. That new Naomi Watts picture is one I'd pick as having that RED 'look'. I'd say it's easier to spot whether or not something was shot on RED if what was shot was shot under a certain style of lighting - soft light seems to accenuate it. But I find it much harder to spot that RED signature on footage shot on natural or hard light but there are always exceptions and really, as someone else pointed out, RED footagecan be made to look like just about anything else.

[Gunleik Groven]

Typically you see it under tungsten lightning when someone have tungsten ballanced the cam in post and the red-channel blows because of too high iso-settings or RED gain in the ballancing...

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

RED M had a distinct look, which could be a BAD thing sometimes, as Gunleik already said.

Now... As already mentioned by Michael, RED M-X with great optics is just so noiseless and with a versatile DR that you can grade however you want it.

'Social Network' for example has a great flat look in the beginning parts of the movie with a slightly more contrasty in the parts when they're richer. It's all subtle and very beautiful and you can't spot a single flaw usually associated with digital imaging.

[Gunleik Groven]

Fun thing is that I really like the M... It's so smooth and the whole cam with M is so ballanced, but it needs more light and gentleness to perform than the MX.

My guess is that the MX will have the same gentleness + all the goodies back on the Epic, with the added bit-depth and in-camera oversampling possibilities.

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Just wait until they point at the sun and look for the black spot! :wink:

Oh, I can do that with my Sony HVR in HDV. ;-)

Jochen

[Liam Hall]

The electronic shutter is often a giveaway.

[M Most]

'Social Network' for example has a great flat look in the beginning parts of the movie with a slightly more contrasty in the parts when they're richer. It's all subtle and very beautiful and you can't spot a single flaw usually associated with digital imaging.

You were obviously looking the other way during that day exterior pool scene..... :rolleyes:

[Josh Negrin]

I think Gunleik said it best:

"But I think I am better at spotting "bad RED post" than RED images.... And that goes for MX projects as well..."

[Joe Taylor]

When I saw "Winter's Bone" projected at Sundance I was recognizing blooms in the highlights that were becoming quite familiar to me by then. I pointed them out to my girlfriend and she told me to "shut up and watch the movie." Point taken.

[Rob Ruffo]

I think we must not forget that, still, Red is chosen by younger DPs for lower budget features - and many things are a pattern there : No glass filtering, lower budgets, "edgy verite look" - it has nothing to do with the cam, just the circumstances that almost always follow the cam. If you watch many music videos shot with more budget in a more glossy way on MX it is very hard to tell they are not film.

SoGunleik - you feel there was something lost since M to MX? Please tell me more..

[Andrew Wilding]

I think it has alot to do with overdone color grading "giving away" the images. The Rabbit Hole has a thing going for it that I see alot with red footage - Orange Highlights and Teal Shadows. Then it looks like they lifted the exposure a bit on the shadow side, maybe due to shooting with less fill then they ended up wanting. Also, secondaries on the skin tones tend to produce this sort of steppyness that doesnt feel smooth and filmic to me. I think that RED (scratch that, ALL) footage looks best very minimally graded. I dont even use secondaries. I try not to do any obvious toning of the highlights vs shadows. I more or less pretend that I dont have any of the fancy tools available, and try to pretend as if Im not even doing a DI. Obviously if something needs to be corrected in a big way, that all goes out of the window.

The only stuff that goes through a DI that looks so good you'd think it didn't to me is Deakins stuff. Most of the best looking films of the last decade I think didnt do a DI or used the tools very very sparingly.

What I find strange is that one doesnt have to look to far to find incredible looking Red footage online. Yet rarely do the feature films look as good and natural as alot of shorts etc that Ive seen. Too many cooks in the kitchen maybe, or a lack of familiarity with the tools perhaps.

Feel free to disregard any of this rambling...

[Steve Sherrick]

I think it has alot to do with overdone color grading "giving away" the images. The Rabbit Hole has a thing going for it that I see alot with red footage - Orange Highlights and Teal Shadows. Then it looks like they lifted the exposure a bit on the shadow side, maybe due to shooting with less fill then they ended up wanting. Also, secondaries on the skin tones tend to produce this sort of steppyness that doesnt feel smooth and filmic to me. I think that RED (scratch that, ALL) footage looks best very minimally graded. I dont even use secondaries. I try not to do any obvious toning of the highlights vs shadows. I more or less pretend that I dont have any of the fancy tools available, and try to pretend as if Im not even doing a DI. Obviously if something needs to be corrected in a big way, that all goes out of the window.

The only stuff that goes through a DI that looks so good you'd think it didn't to me is Deakins stuff. Most of the best looking films of the last decade I think didnt do a DI or used the tools very very sparingly.

What I find strange is that one doesnt have to look to far to find incredible looking Red footage online. Yet rarely do the feature films look as good and natural as alot of shorts etc that Ive seen. Too many cooks in the kitchen maybe, or a lack of familiarity with the tools perhaps.

Feel free to disregard any of this rambling...
Funny you mentioned the Rabbit Hole. I immediately recognized this as a RED movie when the first frame appeared. Maybe it's a familiarity with RED footage, but there was no doubt from the first moment it was on. Of course, after a few minutes I tend to forget all about the technology if the story is good. That's how I felt with The Social Network. Forgot all about the camera a few minutes in.

Thing about the Rabbit Hole. Looks like an incredibly emotional movie, probably with some great performances, so I'm sure that's what I'll focus on and the cinematography will work on me at a subconscious level.

I agree about film stocks. I'm sure a lot of DPs can recognize a particular stock right away. RED is just another "film stock". I've seen it used many, many different ways with a wide variety of results.

[Rob Ruffo]

Funny you mentioned the Rabbit Hole. I immediately recognized this as a RED movie when the first frame appeared. Maybe it's a familiarity with RED footage, but there was no doubt from the first moment it was on. Of course, after a few minutes I tend to forget all about the technology if the story is good. That's how I felt with The Social Network. Forgot all about the camera a few minutes in.

Thing about the Rabbit Hole. Looks like an incredibly emotional movie, probably with some great performances, so I'm sure that's what I'll focus on and the cinematography will work on me at a subconscious level.

I agree about film stocks. I'm sure a lot of DPs can recognize a particular stock right away. RED is just another "film stock". I've seen it used many, many different ways with a wide variety of results.

Yes, there is a 'Red Film stock look" but it is very subtle - maybe we, after so many hours staring at Red LDCs and footage can spot it, but Rabbit Hole... I'm not sure many clients and producers would say it looks like their definition of what Red looks like, that definition being true false or in the middle.

[Gabriele Turchi]

I am a colorist and i grade Red stuff all the time , and the Red even if is great Camera it really is Bad in teh debayer process....

RED images are almost never quite right balanced...if you balance for the Skin tone something else looks not that great ..and viceversa...

but yes give you all the data to manipulate in teh way you want ...
and yes is a bit plastic ...
so this si way 90% of the time you can recognize a RED image right away ..

But is almost all about the Grade ...AKA red debayer is not as good as the RED reputation....

i would love if Guys at RED would be more focus to improve the debayer (i mean have a nice color balanced image "automatically ") instead of keep building new cameras and new features ....

Maybe Epic will be improved ...

But let me say that aside for Dynamic range and Grain ...Film give you a much better balanced image (color wise) than red ...

Did everyone ever seen jeans looking nice and blue while the kin tone looks correct on the same shots using only primary grading...??

PS:Arri is better on the image that gives you right away....
Not saying that after a nice grade looks better than RED but right away it does ...

So that's why (a bit to clean (plastic) + color balance "digital" give teh impression of a movie shot on RED

PS: and i do respect the RED camera a lot ..but for a colorist grade red is much more time consuming than grade Arri or Film...

my 2 cents

[Erik Franzén]

I think RED definitely has a 'look' to it. But I don't think this has to do with acquisition but more to do with the path of least resistance. See, when going through RED post everything is already so time consuming that adding more complexity to it (to, for example, create a more film-like image) is too bothersome or costly and doesn't really tickle a producer's mind. This is just a wild guess of course.

It might also have something to do with everyone digging the look MX produces? Haven't seen much talk about how to make MX footage look more like it was shot on film (and if I am wrong, point me in the direction! I am interested...)

[Graeme Nattress]

You just have to see one of the RED reels projected to see the vast variety of different ways footage from the RED cameras can look. Does Mrs Peppercorn look like Paradox? Does Fair Game look like The Social Network? One thing the RED cameras do really well, even though I say so myself, is allow you the control to make your look uniquely yours.

Graeme

[Gunleik Groven]

SoGunleik - you feel there was something lost since M to MX? Please tell me more..


Ouch -:)

In mesurable technical terms, there's no doubt that the MX is a quantum leap, most significantly in lowlight performance.

I just happen to really like the look and feel of the M when treated well... i think the whole camera is very ballanced image - and processing- wise, while with the MX I dream of Epic:
More processing power, more everything. It sort of points forewards while the body and infrastructure of the One body is calibrated for M.

btw
I really like the MX, too - I just think the M is a bit underrated at the moment...

Which makes sense. progress and all...

[Graeme Nattress]

With care and attention, M can look just wonderful. We still play the original M reels at the RED Studios to guests, and they still look fantastic. The M-X reels look really lovely too.

Would be fun to do a blind test on camera guessability - but would be very hard to set up an un-biassed experiment without lowering the quality to a lowest common denominator which might just invalidate the aspects you're trying to sense.

Graeme

[Andrew Rieger]

Out of the box, I do feel that the Red has a digital look which some DP's and directors (especially those who have worked with film extensively) are not fond of. If you are looking for filmic digital footage right out of the box, than the Alexa may be more down your alley.

That being said, I do feel that Red footage is often over-graded and films in general today seem over-graded with all the DI options. Just because raw allows you to alter everything does not mean that you should. The best Red footage I have seen projected in theaters has used more restrained color palettes, namely the Social Network, Winter's Bone and The Secret In Their Eyes.

Keep in mind that Red footage takes a little work to rid itself of the stock digital look. With diffusion filters and some film grain addition through Arri Relativity, you can get footage that is very very close to real film. Many younger DP's, especially those who have never shot film or only know the DI process, tend to underutilize filters and assume they can do anything in post. Yes post gives you unlimited options but i feel that when you shoot with a certain look in mind (old school), you tend to get better results. Just my 2 cents.

[Gunleik Groven]

Just finnished prep for a 9 month shoot. The DP is very experienced and have worked all over the world and have 2 or 3 RED features under his belt as well as a long strimng of celluloid. I am not to join the crew, but I was there on set for the exposure tests and had prepared the online files.

His response was:
Is this RED?
These images are incredible.

I think a tested signal chain is the main issue. It is far to easy to throw away 4/5 stops of latitude with the RED, and many do. If you take care of the latitude, precission and flexibility throughout your workflow all the way untill you decide to throw away whatever you don't want in the final grade - RED can be an extremely elegant camera which can create a lot of "looks".

Processing aside, I think it is fascinating to see the diferent DPs footprints and looks, and RED can allow for THAT being the look more than the camera.

[Steve Sherrick]

That being said, I do feel that Red footage is often over-graded and films in general today seem over-graded with all the DI options. Just because raw allows you to alter everything does not mean that you should. The best Red footage I have seen projected in theaters has used more restrained color palettes, namely the Social Network, Winter's Bone and The Secret In Their Eyes.
I think this is sometimes the case. But it's very subjective of course.


Keep in mind that Red footage takes a little work to rid itself of the stock digital look. With diffusion filters and some film grain addition through Arri Relativity, you can get footage that is very very close to real film. Many younger DP's, especially those who have never shot film or only know the DI process, tend to underutilize filters and assume they can do anything in post. Yes post gives you unlimited options but i feel that when you shoot with a certain look in mind (old school), you tend to get better results. Just my 2 cents.
I agree with your theory about filtering and such. There's a lot to be said for doing some of this work during production. Gives DPs more control over their images. Old school way of thinking but one that can yield very nice results.

[Steve Sherrick]

With care and attention, M can look just wonderful. We still play the original M reels at the RED Studios to guests, and they still look fantastic. The M-X reels look really lovely too.

Would be fun to do a blind test on camera guessability - but would be very hard to set up an un-biassed experiment without lowering the quality to a lowest common denominator which might just invalidate the aspects you're trying to sense.

Graeme

Agreed. M is still a very useful camera and I am sometimes surprised to hear people writing it off these days as being useless with M-X available. That's not to say M-X hasn't made some nice progress, but there's still a lot of life left in M.