feedback

[Christian Edwards]

Hey there ,
I was just wondering about the demand for RED outside of actual user/owner operator , by this i mean, is it getting attention to the point of being in demand for shoots?.How much are people with cameras already finding its popularity? I'm imagining from what i have notice so far that its reputation is preceding it...is the RED bug catching on? and also,whilst on topic, is there any "negative" feedback from film purists (no pun intended) ?

[Mike Prevette]

Talked today with one rental house clawing for it. They said they field a couple calls a day for it.

Most of the people who have a camera and are on this board seem to say it's been nonstop. Who knows what it will be like in a few months.

[Eryc Tramonn]

Hey there ,
I was just wondering about the demand for RED outside of actual user/owner operator , by this i mean, is it getting attention to the point of being in demand for shoots?.How much are people with cameras already finding its popularity? I'm imagining from what i have notice so far that its reputation is preceding it...is the RED bug catching on? and also,whilst on topic, is there any "negative" feedback from film purists (no pun intended) ?

On one hand, filmmakers do seem to be clamoring for it. Then, on the other, they seem very leery of it. I was on a large commercial shoot recently and the DIT's and AC's guffawed at the mere mention of the camera...like it was some grand fuckin' joke, and I was somehow left out of the punchline. Whatever. At the end of the day, you use what works for you. Everyone else be damned.

I remember having similar conversations about the differences between Avid and FCP back in the day. You still have Avid purists, but many of the large houses have incorporated FCP workflows into their business paradigms...

Again, ultimately...who cares. Use what works, and make movies.

[Eryc Tramonn]

Hey there ,
I was just wondering about the demand for RED outside of actual user/owner operator , by this i mean, is it getting attention to the point of being in demand for shoots?.How much are people with cameras already finding its popularity? I'm imagining from what i have notice so far that its reputation is preceding it...is the RED bug catching on? and also,whilst on topic, is there any "negative" feedback from film purists (no pun intended) ?

And in relation to your true question, I'm not sure how pervasive the camera technology has spread to the populace outside of filmmaking circles. However, it was been featured as THE gadget to have in numerous publications. And I've even read on this forum that the average Joe has gone up to the filmmakers using the camera on location and asked, "Hey, is that the new RED camera?"

If that's any indication, I think most savvy ad execs and others are well in the know. Now do they wish to take a risk with their jobs, and essentially experimental technology on high budget shoots...maybe not so much. I don't know though.

I really think it'll be us early adopters that help the camera cross the proverbial chasm and gain mainstream acceptance and usage. what the hell do I know though?

[redicule]

==================================
Now do they wish to take a risk with their jobs, and essentially experimental technology on high budget shoots...maybe not so much. I don't know though.

I really think it'll be us early adopters that help the camera cross the proverbial chasm and gain mainstream acceptance and usage. what the hell do I know though?
==================================

you are wise beyond your words.... this is exactly what is happening

[Christian Edwards]

On one hand, filmmakers do seem to be clamoring for it. Then, on the other, they seem very leery of it. I was on a large commercial shoot recently and the DIT's and AC's guffawed at the mere mention of the camera...like it was some grand fuckin' joke, and I was somehow left out of the punchline. Whatever. At the end of the day, you use what works for you. Everyone else be damned.

I remember having similar conversations about the differences between Avid and FCP back in the day. You still have Avid purists, but many of the large houses have incorporated FCP workflows into their business paradigms...

Again, ultimately...who cares. Use what works, and make movies.
same thing happen in the music industry, people seem to feel sound loses its warmth although digital representation of analog is now at the point of near indifference

[jtcoleman]

same thing happen in the music industry, people seem to feel sound loses its warmth although digital representation of analog is now at the point of near indifference

Yeah, it seems like there is always a lot of resistance when new (and potentially revolutionary) technology enters an established market.

Some of the pros (the good ones in my opinion) will embrace the new technology and use their depth of experience to make it really sing. Others look at it as a threat to their livelihood, scared that it could devalidate or dillute the experience they've spent years amassing.

Historically, the argument for film has been more centered on image quality... and rightfully so. Now, the image quality argument is getting harder to make -- and the other areas (cost, speed, pipeline, accessibility) are getting even harder.

I'm starting to see the arguments shift to over to things like "film is more permanent medium than digital", which quite frankly baffles me.

The real winners, IMO, are the really experienced pros who will embrace the new technology as another tool in their toolkit... who realize that RED won't replace everything that came before it in every situation, but also realize that it has amazing potential, it isn't "just a toy", and it is capable of producting stunning results.

Those are the guys that I want to work with. and learn from. ;)

JT
Austin, Tx

[Craig Schober]

On one hand, filmmakers do seem to be clamoring for it. Then, on the other, they seem very leery of it. I was on a large commercial shoot recently and the DIT's and AC's guffawed at the mere mention of the camera...like it was some grand fuckin' joke, and I was somehow left out of the punchline. Whatever. At the end of the day, you use what works for you. Everyone else be damned.


that's mostly emotional response. filmmakers love to feel like part of the club and those who have something to lose will generally hold on until their "club" dies out or just recruits new members. i've found that most red adopters (myself included) just don't have as much to lose. we've not only been waiting to jump into a new technology workflow but also don't have a whole lot invested in older technology. it's kind of like going from tiger to leopard os. on my work machine, i hesitate to upgrade but on my mac at home, i throw on leopard and am more than happy to be apple's "beta" tester.

[Eryc Tramonn]

==================================
Now do they wish to take a risk with their jobs, and essentially experimental technology on high budget shoots...maybe not so much. I don't know though.

I really think it'll be us early adopters that help the camera cross the proverbial chasm and gain mainstream acceptance and usage. what the hell do I know though?
==================================

you are wise beyond your words.... this is exactly what is happening

Thanks. I've been talking to the producers of my upcoming film about embracing RED for our workflow. At that point, there should be enough cameras in circulation and we'll most likely be renting. Depends on how cost effective it will be considering our four week schedule, of course. I sure as hell hope we can buy them...and then somehow I can Jedi mind trick one into my home after the shoot. :shiftyph34r:

"This is not the camera you are looking for."

[Hans von Sonntag]

Historically, the argument for film has been more centered on image quality... and rightfully so. Now, the image quality argument is getting harder to make -- and the other areas (cost, speed, pipeline, accessibility) are getting even harder.

Most producer I know are in a kind of wait and see position. The word is here: Why should I leave a proven workflow? IMHO a secure worflow is the main argument here. Something RED has still to prove. Producers tend to be very conservative on the technical side.

Hans

[I Bloom]

I've been hearing mixed reports about the camera. I had a conversation today with a gaffer who had been on a RED shoot and they said they thought it didn't compare to 16mm!

When you hear something like this, you need only ask one question. How was the image you saw posted. Invariably, if they have something negative to say about the image, the answer will be I don't know.

RED = Post. If one knows nothing about Red post, one knows nothing about Red. End of story.

IBloom

[M Most]

Most producer I know are in a kind of wait and see position. The word is here: Why should I leave a proven workflow? IMHO a secure worflow is the main argument here. Something RED has still to prove. Producers tend to be very conservative on the technical side.


Quite true.

The very thing that so many people here seem to love about Red - its ever-changing specs, capabilities, software tools, and potential work flows - are exactly why so many professionals, in both production and post, are wary of it. It's difficult to commit a 30-40 day shoot with another 4-6 months of post to a product whose operating characteristics and support programs seem to change weekly. If you're shooting a one or two day commercial or music video, or doing personal projects, it's all very exciting. But if you've got a reasonable budget, experienced editor, and a delivery date, you need to create a post path at the beginning of the project that won't change 3 weeks into it.

[McDiver]

Similar story. I'd been talking with a producer over the last year about shooting his next feature with Red. When I caught up with him recently, he admitted that he kept hearing about the camera, and was interested. I started gathering my collection of images, movies and statistics to discuss it over lunch, when he calls to tell me he's been in contact with a local, reputable, DP who already owns a Red. I say, "Great!" and he says the DP is unimpressed -- not really pleased with the image.
I fire back, "What's his background?"
"He shoots 35!"
I laugh. How many film-oriented DPs are as heavy into the post-production process as your average video geek? Seriously. Sometimes I wonder if the unions have done more of a disservice by encouraging isolation of skillsets. I tell the producer that's the problem. Just because it's called a camera doesn't mean the image pops out seran-wrapped and ready for consumption.
So I hang up.
This camera is like a stock trying to rise past support, with a whole industry buying puts on it. It may feel slow, at first. But it's really building pressue! And when Red does break through those barriers, only the people who invested early will see the most gain.

[M Most]

...he calls to tell me he's been in contact with a local, reputable, DP who already owns a Red. I say, "Great!" and he says the DP is unimpressed -- not really pleased with the image.
I fire back, "What's his background?"
"He shoots 35!"
I laugh. How many film-oriented DPs are as heavy into the post-production process as your average video geek? Seriously. Sometimes I wonder if the unions have done more of a disservice by encouraging isolation of skillsets. I tell the producer that's the problem. Just because it's called a camera doesn't mean the image pops out seran-wrapped and ready for consumption.
So I hang up.

Why are you assuming that a reputable DP who happens to shoot mostly 35mm film (most reputable DP's do, BTW), wouldn't understand how post works? Or that he wouldn't understand the tools used to correct Red images? A film shooter would likely understand the need for color correction and processing much more than a video shooter, since all film must be processed and color timed by definition. Did you ever consider that it might just be possible that some cinematographers simply prefer the visual characteristics of film to digital media? Red images may be quite beautiful when properly exposed and processed, but in most cases they are noticeably different than film images. Some cinematographers will prefer one, others will prefer the other, at least for certain projects and under certain conditions. It is not an absolute that one is always superior to the other. If you don't see that, you're the one who's being closed minded.

[E.J. Sadler]

Did you ever consider that it might just be possible that some cinematographers simply prefer the visual characteristics of film to digital media? Red images may be quite beautiful when properly exposed and processed, but in most cases they are noticeably different than film images. Some cinematographers will prefer one, others will prefer the other, at least for certain projects and under certain conditions.

I have enough experience shooting stills and pushing them in post to know that any film look can be had in post. It will only be a brief matter of time before you can duplicate the look of any film stock with a post plug-in in your grading suite. When that's the case, it will make no sense to narrow your options at exposure time.

I have no doubt there are people already feverishly working on this.

[I Bloom]

Why are you assuming that a reputable DP who happens to shoot mostly 35mm film (most reputable DP's do, BTW), wouldn't understand how post works? Or that he wouldn't understand the tools used to correct Red images?

Well... in a word, yes.
He might not understand a lot of things about Redcode, about workflow etc.
If he is saying he shot some stuff with it and posted in Scratch and did a 4K filmout at DuArt and still he was like "meh". Then ok fine, your entitled to your oppinion. But very few have done that, so what do they know really, what are they judging based on exactly.

I don't think that deep knowledge of RED post is widespread knowledge. And yes many reputable people wouldn't understand the difference between a fully decompressed and debayered image, and a proxie or between flat ungraded raw and something that has had the right amount of grading.

I'm interested in oppinions about Red's dynamic range, about sharpness, about grain. But I mean seriously, if someone looks at this footage and says it looks like 16mm, that is just objectively wrong. Something got lost in the pipeline.

You might like 16mm better, but that's a different story.

IBloom

[Christian Edwards]

RED = Post. If one knows nothing about Red post, one knows nothing about Red. End of story.

IBloom

BINGO!

[M Most]

Well... in a word, yes.
He might not understand a lot of things about Redcode, about workflow etc.
If he is saying he shot some stuff with it and posted in Scratch and did a 4K filmout at DuArt and still he was like "meh". Then ok fine, your entitled to your oppinion. But very few have done that, so what do they know really, what are they judging based on exactly.

But you didn't ask about any of that. You're making assumptions based on your own preconceived notions about experienced cinematographers - notions that those of us who have a lot of experience with such people would likely all agree are dead wrong. Not to mention the simple fact that many of the "video geeks" that you mentioned earlier are no more expert at things like raw conversion and color correction than those you are currently accusing. As evidence I offer many of the images posted on this very forum.



If he is saying he shot some stuff with it and posted in Scratch and did a 4K filmout at DuArt and still he was like "meh". Then ok fine, your entitled to your oppinion. But very few have done that...

But I have, albeit with material shot by a very good cameraman, color corrected (by me) with his supervision and approval. And I've shown the results - via both digital projection and film projection (they are almost identical in our case - the color management was done by us, the prints were made by, coincidentally, DuArt) to a number of local cameramen. Some liked it very much. Some felt that it lacked some of the texture they like from film. Some preferred the film projection to the digital projection for just that reason. All of which seems to illustrate my point.


I don't think that deep knowledge of RED post is widespread knowledge.

That I agree with, in part because Red post still hasn't been fully defined (so nobody really has deep knowledge of it) and in part because, well, there are only 100 of them out there at the moment.



And yes many reputable people wouldn't understand the difference between a fully decompressed and debayered image, and a proxie or between flat ungraded raw and something that has had the right amount of grading.

Again, you're stating things that just aren't the case. For someone who might be aspiring to be a cinematographer, you seem to have very little respect for those who have already demonstrated their proficiency and artistry. The good ones - and especially the great ones - know a lot more than you seem to want to give them credit for. And they are constantly educating themselves about new equipment and methods, contrary to what you seem to be implying. If you don't believe me, you might want to talk to Dave Mullen about this. I'm quite sure he'll confirm what I'm trying to say.

[M Most]

I have enough experience shooting stills and pushing them in post to know that any film look can be had in post.

For a still, perhaps. But usually only when there is an actual film image as a matching reference. And not for motion footage.



It will only be a brief matter of time before you can duplicate the look of any film stock with a post plug-in in your grading suite. When that's the case, it will make no sense to narrow your options at exposure time.

I'm guessing that you haven't shot a lot of motion picture film. And that's perfectly OK. However, for those that have, there is a difference in the pallette delivered by the two mediums. As I said - not better, not worse. Different. This gives a cinematographer choices, and that is a good thing.

[John V]

Two words so far and certainly not the last..Jackson Soderberg.

[McDiver]

Yes, film guys good, video guys stupid. Happier?
When I wrote "heavy into post-production" I didn't mean "sit behind the colorist and tell him what a wonderful job he's doing." I don't know if he pursued getting what he wanted or not -- I'd love to talk to him, but the producer is also a lawyer, and was telling me he couldn't reveal the guy's name because of some sort of confidentiality. I don't know. I don't care.
My point wasn't that I disagree with someone else's opinion on Red footage. But if someone is used to the luxury of film, and after a couple of hours is still struggling to get Red where he wants it, he may quit. Not because he's a quitter, but because he's already an expert in something other than digital acquisition. So then he heads out and tells the world that Red sucks. Am I not allowed a counter-point? Or do I have to dive into the wonderfully soft pillow of apathetic safety with "Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion."

Red footage is tough to grade - if you want contrast without losing any detail. I've been struggling with it for a while, and only recently found a solution I think is going to work. How many film DPs are going to slog away on Shake for endless nights experimenting? How many video-idiots, who have nothing to lose, will pound it out because they already expect problems from the digital world? My bet is on the video guys. They're hungry for this. That was my point.
Geesh!

[McDiver]

Yes, Jackson and Soderberg. Two mavericks. Hands-on. Independent roots. I've never heard anyone describe them as typical.

[Mike Prevette]

I have to agree with Mcdiver on most accounts. I know a lot of DP's that are just going to walk away if they don't see a pretty picture on the screen. To many years of film DP's getting burned by not realizing WYSIWYG with HD, and not being able to correct back to the idea of shooting RAW on an electronic devise.

Also Grading is all about throwing away detail, just as shooting is all about throwing away the details of reality. It is the essence of photography.

[M Most]

Yes, film guys good, video guys stupid. Happier?

No. That's not what I was inferring, nor is it what I believe. What I was trying to point out is that experience teaches vigilance regarding new technology, not avoidance and denial. To look, learn, understand, and evaluate - then, if it has value, to use, without hesitation but with knowledge. That is not what you seem to believe, but at some point in your career, you will hopefully understand just how true it happens to be.


So then he heads out and tells the world that Red sucks. Am I not allowed a counter-point? Or do I have to dive into the wonderfully soft pillow of apathetic safety with "Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion."

Well... they are. He is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours. There's no need for a knee-jerk defensive reaction on your part just because someone disagreed with you. An opinion doesn't represent a threat, it just represents an opinion. One person's opinion isn't going to change the world. If the Red is as great a product as everyone here thinks it is - including me, or I wouldn't be here and wouldn't be encouraging the people I work for to support it - it will succeed regardless of individual opinions. So where's the threat?



Red footage is tough to grade - if you want contrast without losing any detail.

Not for an experienced colorist. As a matter of fact, I found it quite simple to grade, considerably simpler than film. But then again, I have over 25 years of experience doing it.

[I Bloom]

For someone who might be aspiring to be a cinematographer, you seem to have very little respect for those who have already demonstrated their proficiency and artistry. The good ones - and especially the great ones - know a lot more than you seem to want to give them credit for. And they are constantly educating themselves about new equipment and methods, contrary to what you seem to be implying. If you don't believe me, you might want to talk to Dave Mullen about this. I'm quite sure he'll confirm what I'm trying to say.

You are putting thoughts into my head and making assumptions about me based on McDivers post that are untrue and unneccesary. I don't know the specific DP he is speaking of, and I have no idea what his specific gripes with RED are and how he came to those conclusions.

My point is that it's very difficult today to look at a full blown 4K image in motion. It's almost as difficult to look at a 2K non DCT image in motion. In general it costs money. Redcine has only existed to the general public for a few weeks. Prior to that Scratch and Tiff/DPX sequences were the only two paths to properly downconverted or debayer Redcode. That's a path less travelled. It seems from my experience that everyone who can tell you, "I went down that path" has come back impressed.

I don't think its presumptive of me to suggest that anyone who hasn't been down that path isn't ready to give an oppinion. So it doesn't matter how much experience you have, if you can't explain how you got to the point that you were judging the image then you don't know what you are talking about.

I can understand if people have an issue with the electronic nature of Red images, or they don't like the highlight falloff in comparison to film. But if you aren't somehow impressed with what you've seen, then you aren't seeing it the way it's supposed to be seen. I think we can say that objectively.

IBloom

[M Most]

Yes, Jackson and Soderberg. Two mavericks. Hands-on. Independent roots. I've never heard anyone describe them as typical.

The last time I checked, Peter Jackson's current project ("The Lovely Bones") is being shot on film. That's not to say he won't use a Red or another digital camera in the future, but he's not using one right now.

Steven Soderbergh is, of course, shooting multiple projects on Red.

[E.J. Sadler]

For a still, perhaps. But usually only when there is an actual film image as a matching reference.

Not perhaps, it's done everyday by thousands of people without the need for a matching reference. Still film for the most part just isn't used any more professionally.



And not for motion footage.

RED files are just a series of stills, so of course it can be done. People might not have figured out what to do to match a particular stock yet, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Most still shooters digital stuff looked pretty average for a long time until they really got a handle on the post end.

I'm not disagreeing with you that right now there aren't different palettes. There was no shortage of still shooters who stuck with their favorite film stock for years, saying exactly what you are saying and being perfectly correct. But as soon they learned how to match their favorite stock in post from a digital file, their film days were over. The freedom of not having to lock in a look at exposure time was too great of a pull.

That same process is going to happen with grading motion footage, and it's going to happen way faster than it did with still stocks. There's a Golden Ticket out there for the post house that learns to match existing MP stocks first. And with RED RAW footage and REDCINE out in the wild for everyone, that might just be a hungry seventeen year old with nothing else to do than figure it out and write a plug-in.

I've been down this road before. I know where it ends.

[John V]

Remember RED is still an infant in the scheme of things. It only keeps growing. There will always be the negative comments and positive ones. These negative ones keep a guy like Jim going.

[Remy Carter]

I look at this from a producer's position who grew up in a photography studio and started with film and moved into the digital realm. I probably have a more open mind to moving toward digital sooner than most. I also like to be at the bleeding edge of technology and finished the first feature film on a Andromeda system. It was the cheapest way to get the best picture. My next couple of projects are in a much larger budget range and were originally set to shoot 35 film. I've been watching this product develop for about a year and had heard about it some time in the beginning, when all were claiming it to be a scam. I've waited and have seen what it can do with the limited features available and I'm looking to shoot RED only for some time. It just makes sense from a producer's standpoint which is to deliver great product at a better price. Some talk about a higher shooting ratio when going digital, I just see more time available to get the shot right and see it instantly. Just my two cents...

[McDiver]

mmost, do you have samples of your grading that I can look at, with the unaltered originals to compare? 1 frame each would be wonderful. I would very, very, very much appreciate that.
And thank you for explaining your position as well as you have. I look forward to more discussions with you. (I began my career as a custom printer at a very large photo lab in Ventura County, CA, 20 years ago, so I'm no stranger to color. I'd love to see what you've been able to accomplish.)

[M Most]

mmost, do you have samples of your grading that I can look at, with the unaltered originals to compare? 1 frame each would be wonderful. I would very, very, very much appreciate that.
And thank you for explaining your position as well as you have. I look forward to more discussions with you. (I began my career as a custom printer at a very large photo lab in Ventura County, CA, 20 years ago, so I'm no stranger to color. I'd love to see what you've been able to accomplish.)

Unfortunately I can't release it here because the images belong to our client, not us. We'll be getting some production footage in the near future and I'll ask them if I can release individual frames with their approval. If you happen to be in South Florida in the near future, I might be able to arrange a viewing, though... ;-)

[Rob Lohman]

It's a bit puzzling. I've seen so many footage that even looks great straight out of the camera, but you definitely want to tweak things in post. Add a slight curve, some saturation, maybe a slight unsharp mask, etc.

The whole RAW workflow + metadata is pretty new. If you set your camera up for ISO 1000 for example the post tools will follow this setup per default, so you might complain about noise while in reality you're bumping up the exposure quite a bit.

[McDiver]

If I'm in south Florida, I'll be diving, not hanging out in another post-house :biggrin:

What I have found, in my own personal experience with the raw footage I can acquire from friends, is that I can by-pass any grading in RedAlert or RedCine altogether.

Or I can tweak it to such an extreme, in RedAlert, that it would appear unusable, when in fact, it is still quite useable.

If anyone blames some poor intern for not running RedAlert or RedCine properly and making things difficult, they're smoking something. Keep it in linear light, and it's a tough image to wreck.

But there is nothing "simple" about the grading I'm doing to gently roll off highlights in an organic manner, while keeping deep, yet detailed blacks and rich saturation in the lower luminance values alive in the scene.

Some say part of grading is to lose that latitude. I'm not going to argue with them about it. But if I can compress a 14-stop latitude into an 8-bit image, and make it look gorgeous, then why not. And if I'm too accept that I can't grade like that in Red -- that my final grades have to loose that exposure latitude -- then why not stick to my little HVX? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way).

I find it hard to do this with Red footage, because it starts out so flat, and the linear environment is so touchy at the bottom 6 stops of the exposure range. I understand why that is, and I appreciate it very much. But I refuse to blow highlights or block shadows just to get a look I want.

But this goes back to my original statement. If somebody doesn't like the way Red looks, and they already have a workflow (ie film) that they like, they may not have the "hunger" to figure out how to get Red where they want to be. I think video guys, being the red-headed step-children of the industry (your comments justify what I'm saying here) tend to be pretty hungry. And I'd bet on hunger before technology or money. Even experience can be a hindrance to "evolution" if you reach the point where you're resting on your laurels.

So if you (or anyone) are doing all this with a flick of the wrist, I'll be very interested to see you demonstrate it when you have access to footage you can post. But don't be offended if I find fault with it. :innocent: At the same time, if I learn something from you, I'll be eternally grateful.

In the meantime, I'll keep studying this new format as much as I can. I must say, the keying capability is phenomenal. One-click keys on properly exposed greenscreens are really possible -- gorgeous. Combine that with its ability to read i-data from lenses (Cooke's announced lenses specifically for the Red at this link (http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/dcb2d81e7e2672ed85256e710062d65e/e052b8926b66ce1f852573920053b8f4?OpenDocument)) and this looks to be the most amazing effects-friendly camera anywhere, anytime!

And that is something I'm taking to the bank.

[Steve Sherrick]

However, for those that have, there is a difference in the pallette delivered by the two mediums. As I said - not better, not worse. Different. This gives a cinematographer choices, and that is a good thing.

This is spot on. It kind of disappoints me to see so many people on this site disrespect film the way they do. I love what I have seen from the Red camera and I plan on using it on as many projects as possible, but there is just no reason to kick film in the face when it's provided us with so many incredible movies over the years. They are different mediums and to me they just feel different and that is what is so cool about it. Filmmakers have a pallette as mmost mentions, and that is a good thing. Eventually film will probably be chosen less because of economics but it will still have a place in a lot of artist's hearts. Spielberg is one of them. I know exactly what he is talking about when he says that motion picture film seems to be alive. Red footage has a life of its own as well. It feels different than HD and it feels different than film. What artists choose to do with the Red footage is what will be exciting to me. We know how much it can be manipulated and that is what is great about it. Some will choose to give it a film-like texture, others will enjoy it's brilliant clarity.

By the way, I'm not an old guy. I consider myself a member of this new generation of professionals in the film/video industry. But I have huge respect for those who came before me and I always feel I have so much to learn, both from the veterans and the kids coming out of school who are doing great things as well.

Steve

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

... Add a slight curve, some saturation, maybe a slight unsharp mask, etc.


Can you add an unsharp mask in Redcine? How do do that on moving footage..? (outside a £3000 a day suite..:innocent: )

I love film and have only just come over to digital in the last year. It's all about post huh..

[Blue]

This is spot on. It kind of disappoints me to see so many people on this site disrespect film the way they do. I love what I have seen from the Red camera and I plan on using it on as many projects as possible, but there is just no reason to kick film in the face when it's provided us with so many incredible movies over the years. They are different mediums and to me they just feel different and that is what is so cool about it. Filmmakers have a pallette as mmost mentions, and that is a good thing. Eventually film will probably be chosen less because of economics but it will still have a place in a lot of artist's hearts. Spielberg is one of them. I know exactly what he is talking about when he says that motion picture film seems to be alive. Red footage has a life of its own as well. It feels different than HD and it feels different than film. What artists choose to do with the Red footage is what will be exciting to me. We know how much it can be manipulated and that is what is great about it. Some will choose to give it a film-like texture, others will enjoy it's brilliant clarity.

By the way, I'm not an old guy. I consider myself a member of this new generation of professionals in the film/video industry. But I have huge respect for those who came before me and I always feel I have so much to learn, both from the veterans and the kids coming out of school who are doing great things as well.

Steve

I guess for big biscuit filmmakers such as Spielberg whom you mention there's so little incentive to change given that A) They know celluloid so well and B) It's such a small financial consideration RELATIVELY SPEAKING of a large scale project. I've never shot film but I understand completely where you guys are coming from.

[Bill Goehring]

Can you add an unsharp mask in Redcine? How do do that on moving footage..? (outside a £3000 a day suite..:innocent: )

Despite the way it sounds, unsharp mask is not a secondary sharpening correction or, at least, it doesn't have to be. Still photographers have been using it on overall still images and on isolated parts of an image in Photoshop for many years.

You can also use it overall on video images, and, if you want to, you can isolate it on a particular part of the frame in a static way or as a floating matte, say, to sharpen the whole frame, except a person's face. I haven't done this myself, as I've never done secondaries in video, but I believe this can be done in FCP's Color and Adobe's After Effects and on up the line to the more expensive and complex DI software.

[M Most]

If I'm in south Florida, I'll be diving, not hanging out in another post-house :biggrin:

Probably a wise choice.


If anyone blames some poor intern for not running RedAlert or RedCine properly and making things difficult, they're smoking something. Keep it in linear light, and it's a tough image to wreck.

But there is nothing "simple" about the grading I'm doing to gently roll off highlights in an organic manner, while keeping deep, yet detailed blacks and rich saturation in the lower luminance values alive in the scene.

Some say part of grading is to lose that latitude. I'm not going to argue with them about it. But if I can compress a 14-stop latitude into an 8-bit image, and make it look gorgeous, then why not.

First, to do any kind of proper grading, you need at least two things (besides your eyes, hands, and talent): a proper monitoring device/environment, and proper tools. RedAlert on a Mac laptop doesn't really provide either of those, although it's certainly acceptable as a way to make usable, semi-representative preliminary choices. Second, your instinct about doing minimal correction is a good one. Proper grading starts with bringing out what was photographed in its most accurate representation. It is only then that other creative directions can be explored. So keep that in mind the next time someone looks at the linear light RAW image and immediately starts adding tons of contrast, desaturation, and green or cyan to the blacks. The other thing that you might want to think about is how your eyes work. The human eye has a logarithmic response (just like film, incidentally). It therefore has a gamma curve (just like CRT's and other monitors). An image displayed as true linear light will therefore look very flat to a human eye. So to make it more what the human eye would read if it were a real live scene, you need to apply what amounts to a logarithmic curve - an "S" curve, if you will. That's the first step you should take (after adjusting the exposure setting to get the information somewhere near the center of the available range, and recover any information that appears to be clipping, if it's available), and if the scene is properly exposed, it will likely get you about 80-90% of the way towards a basic grade that represents the image as it would appear to the human eye. From there you can adjust some basic balance or saturation to taste. And from that point, you can choose to "muck it up" if that's what you want. But the key to good grading - at least for most good colorists - is to start with the basics, not to jump into no man's land before you or the image is ready for that.



I find it hard to do this with Red footage, because it starts out so flat, and the linear environment is so touchy at the bottom 6 stops of the exposure range. I understand why that is, and I appreciate it very much. But I refuse to blow highlights or block shadows just to get a look I want.

I think you might be expecting a bit too much from tools like RedAlert and Redcine. As I mentioned, you need a proper monitor and a proper toolset to really make images sing. Try making 16 bit Tiff images and taking them into something like Photoshop, or even Apple Color or Color Finesse. And try to look at them on a good monitor with proper displays, like histograms and waveform monitors to help you along. If you don't understand what those tools tell you (my guess is that you completely understand a histogram, but perhaps not some of the other tools), read up on them so that they can be more useful.

[Rudi Herbert]

The beauty of the fluffy politically correct pillow of "all are entitled to an opinion" is that both Mc Diver and Mmost are absolutely right on their points!

By the way Mmost, I live in Miami, and been trying to find a post house that would do a RED/Scratch demo for me, even sent you a PM but didn't get a response. I'll be shooting a music video with RED soon that needs to go the film out route and really need to get a first hand impression of what this combo looks like. If you're too busy, can you recommend somebody else?

Mc Diver, Florida is not all is made out to be diving wise (I owned a dive shop here for a few years) so maybe jumping into some nice DI suite is not such a bad idea :-)

Long live the dialog (the one carried by passionate, intelligent and articulate craftmen, not charlatans)

[M Most]

By the way Mmost, I live in Miami, and been trying to find a post house that would do a RED/Scratch demo for me, even sent you a PM but didn't get a response. I'll be shooting a music video with RED soon that needs to go the film out route and really need to get a first hand impression of what this combo looks like. If you're too busy, can you recommend somebody else?

Sorry, I didn't notice the PM (they're not real obvious on this particular software). I've responded privately.

[McDiver]

Actually, I'm doing all my work in Shake, linear light, with a couple of cinema-displays. Yes, they're only 8-bit displays, but that's not a challenge I can't meet. I am quite aware of all the tools you mention -- I've obssessed over them for years. I wouldn't even think of trying to grade something in Photoshop or AE -- no real mathematical control so you can't "roll your own" control. And my favorite tool is curves, which is quite limited in PS and AE. No offense to Stu Masowitz, but Shake is my horse.
I do come from a heavy film background -- stills, but film none the less. And as a custom printer, color was something of an obsession. I got to where I could tell the difference between two prints coming out of processing that had only a 1/2 cc difference of color correction applied. Text books said human vision couldn't see the difference between 2 cc's. My co-workers were all Brook's graduates, and perfection was an everyday pursuit.
So I'm not new to this. I just have a look that I want to extract, that I think can be quite beautiful, and that 100's of hours with Shake has yet to yield my perfect solution. It's a look that says "not video" as opposed to a look that says "was video, but not as bad as your dad's handycam."
That said, I'm a lot closer than I was. But if I were already shooting mopic film, I think I'd have given up trying and kept with what I know. That's why I think hunger is a good thing. I'm hungry.

And I'm joking about the diving. I may be down early next year . . . I'll look you up. I was a Navy diver/Underwater Photographer (1 of 8 in all DOD), and we used to train in Key West or Guantanimo every year. Truly a blast.

I wish I could show what I'm working on, but like you, the footage isn't mine . . . but someday I'll be happy to post what I own and what I've learned.

[M Most]

I do come from a heavy film background -- stills, but film none the less.

Then I'm sure you'd understand that sometimes dodging and burning certain areas of the image is what's called for in order to maintain an "impossible" dynamic range. That's a technique that's used in DI color correction all the time, as well as VFX approaches like sky replacements and the like.

You do whatever you have to do. And sometimes it's a combination of things.