Che

[Jan Reiff]

don´t know about the CHE cameras, but there´s more DR than a standard video-camera in the raw´s in the firmware 13 shooted footage, for sure.

let´s wait for more reviews of CHE, can´t imagine that this is the naked truth.
seems to be a very offensively -black and white- opinion, you can see bad things if you want to see them ...

[laguun]

Hello film101, and welcome to reduser.net.

This place helps less qualified and informed people like you to better understand how movies are made. Lets begin educating you.

What does not work is the dynamic range the camera can handle is no better than video. Consistently there is little to no shadow detail. The shadows simply meld into one black mass.

Shadow detail of the red one are excellent, lets say, outstanding. Especially in comparison to 35mm film negative. As i own and use hdcam, 35mm arri and red and started with film ~20 years ago i have a pretty good understanding of the media.

crushed shadows can be decided by
- DoP
- light & grip
- director
- colorist / color timer
- DCI Mastering

The red camera has shortcomings, as any camera. Shadow detail certainly isnt one of these. They are lovely. The lower stops work *much better* than any Kodak or Fujistock.

You are confusing artistic intention and technical limitation here.

Toni Richmond, DoP, ASC, BSC, "Legally Blonde, Good Luck Chuck..."
Whats very impressive: Its (the red) is incredible at the low end. Incredible. It goes so deep into the shadows, its really fantastic... its all there."

What works is that the images are sharp.

You saw 1/4 of the resolution.

The highlights clip exactly like video, in many shots no better than consumer video. Day exteriors where the sky is outside the, what look to me to be 5 stop range of the camera, are ugly.

One can easily work with 8-9 stops, really good, not as good as modern filmstock, but perfectly in the same class. To get the 11.3 technical possible stops requires tweaking on light temperatures and has to much "texture" (thats the romantic term for noise/grain) for my taste.

Doug Liman, director (mr. and mrs. smith, bourne identity, jumper)
"The footage we shot on the red blended in perfectly with the 35mm... it has all of the advantages of film, and none of the disadvantages... You shoot it like film, it has enough lattitude..."

The only thing mysterious about the Mysterium is how it so faithfully delivers high resolution video. Either the sensor and electronics are incapable of handling shadows and highlights elegantly, or there's still wisdom in the mysterious words "you get what you pay for".
Don;t take my word for it. See the movie and weep.

Its very amusing to see that now some emotionally confused folks begin to criticize reds image :) Months ago, when red for the first time was on #1 of the box office with "jumper", no one complained about the image - because it was combined 35mm film and 35mm sensor, and as no one saw the difference, no one complained.

"you get what you pay for" were the last word on the captains bridges of companies as steenbeck - the former world market and technology leader for editing.

When markets go from screws and mechanical to microchips and digital, disruptive prices are one of the several reasons why markets usually go from <0.9% to >90% digital within 1-2 decades. red is by far the marketleader for 35mm cameras and the camera of choice for many production, form a-budget hollywood superproduction to no-budget skeleton crews.

The red camera might be *much* more expensive than the typical used 35mm film camera today, it may have higher rental fees than the usual oldschool 35mms, but that is simply as there is to much demand and to many offer for some months.

[Evin Grant]

Like Brian I was able to see some of the Che footage at NAB, in 4k. I can tell you quite definitively that it did not look like film, it looked much cleaner. And the dynamic range was fine, I only remember seeing clipping once in the whole reel, during the explosion at the end. Everything else looked great!
And I have a pretty good reference too because some of the footage I shot was in the first part of the demo.

I call bullshit.:bleh:

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Troll

[Sanjin Jukic]

"Part one is impressively shot with crystalline clarity in widescreen,
while part two downsizes to the 1.85 aspect ratio to tell the theoretically more
intimate story of Che’s decline and fall. Direct effect of this aesthetic decision,
however, is to make part two look puny in comparison with the first. Soderbergh,
who as usual lensed under the nom de camera of Peter Andrews,
used the new RED digital camera, and the result is highly promising."

Quote from variety.com.

LINK>>>

[Petros Nousias]

Well,jumper is not that great an example, it felt as if it was shot with every stock imaginable and been through all processes, digital or chemical. Resolution/grain wise it had extreme differences sometimes from shot to shot, some scenes had way more contrast than others and in general looked inconsistent.
Of course that's my personal opinion...

And it's not the isssue in this thread...

[Sanjin Jukic]

"Soderbergh serves as director, cinematographer and editor here,
and the end result is masterful -- expressive, innovative, striking, exciting.
Shot on high-definition video cameras, Che doesn't merely look wonderful;
it also delivers on the long-promised but rarely delivered potential DV offers real artists.
I cannot imagine a studio making the investment to shoot this script with the economic
costs of film in play; I can only shudder to think of the demands for more explanatory
monologues from the lead characters, or more time devoted to the rebel leader's loves,
or any other possible dilution or alteration made in the name of reaching a broad,
profitable audience. And Che doesn't look cheap; it looks great, and has the advantage
of being less expensive -- which means it can be what Soderbergh wants it to be instead
of having to contort itself through the hurdles and demands required to justify other people's money. "

Quote from cinematical.com

LINK>>>

[Christian Edwards]

does anyone know what build where the cameras operating under?

[Sanjin Jukic]

""Both films are being finished at Technicolor,"
he says. "Tim Stipan of Technicolor Creative Services New York did the DI,
and the DCDM for Cannes is being done at Technicolor Creative Services in
London. And Technicolor Madrid is doing the filmout and video mastering."

Quote from hollywood-elsewhere.com

LINK>>>

[James T Mather]

""Both films are being finished at Technicolor,"
he says. "Tim Stipan of Technicolor Creative Services New York did the DI,
and the DCDM for Cannes is being done at Technicolor Creative Services in
London. And Technicolor Madrid is doing the filmout and video mastering."

Quote from hollywood-elsewhere.com

LINK>>>

and this is important why?