Contagion- Soderbergh...

[Eric J Kosinski]

It's not taboo to mention Alexa here. I was also struck by Drive's look. I went in not knowing it was shot digitally and was shocked afterwards- not just that it was Alexa, but that it was digital at all. The scene in his apartment where just the single work light was on was amazing. Wonderful highlight preservation, etc. You have to remember though that Steven Soderbergh shot Contagion as with Girlfriend Experience and CHE using available light. On this film he shot with two wide primes (18mm and 30mm I think). He also is a big fan of crushing blacks and high contrast environments like casinos for some scenes... intentionally degrading the footage to an extent. In the rest of the film, he went for the more flat feel. So to pit Drive to Contagion as a comparison between Arri and Red is just not realistic at all. And, remember, Drive... as much as I like it, will always be stuck at 1080p.

A great example of the ability of all these cameras is Transformers: Dark of the Moon. That project used film, Alexa, Red, SI-2K, and F35. Who can tell which is which? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/technical

If I'm not mistaken, Alexa shoots 1080P to an internal codec, but the majority of the Hollywood pictures released in theaters are shot using the 3.5K raw workflow and processed down to 1080p. 3.5 K RAW with the amazing dynamic range on the Alexa is far superior to anything I've seen yet from any camera, RED included, but to keep it real, we haven't really seen anything from EPIC yet. It looks like Contagion was still Red One, so lets Not get disappointed quite yet. I'm not bashing RED here, as I will put my money into RED but mainly because of the concept of a smaller body camera with a lot of power and one most important key factor, Price!! Regardless of the hype, Resolution isn't everything, and resolution, and more importantly image quality, comes from a lot of factors, and not just a K rating.

RED ONE is 4K, and I've seen several theater films shot on RED ONE and was far from impressed, regardless of the resolution. The Alexa has completely impressed me with the quality and I have to say the resolution didn't look any worse or at least noticeably worse to the eye. Do we really need more resolution or is the key Dynamic range, natural skin tones, color, organic feel, etc? This is the 50,000 dollar question. Take a look at drive, mr poppers penguins, and some others coming out, Hugo, etc. I don't see how image quality from any other camera can compare to Alexa currently, except maybe the EPIC when put to the test.

I'm extremely excited about some of the EPICs upcoming films, including Spiderman to really prove to us they can beat the Alexa, regardless of resolution.

[ChrisLyon]

I never said resolution is everything. It's color reproduction, dynamic range, resolution, flexibility, alongside overall image feel which can't really be pinned down to a figure. As Jim has always said, just look at the image. To stop worrying about specs - particularly when discussing bayer patterns, etc. According to IMDb, Drive was shot 1080p and upresed to 2k for mastering. I certainly wasn't able to tell, but my screening was slightly out of focus anyway- and the cinema flat out refused to fix it... sigh....

The Amazing Spider-man trailer looks pretty good amazing on screen. I was every bit as impressed with Spidy as I was with Drive. I've seen it projected digitally and printed to film and it looks as every bit like film as Alexa did with Drive. And yes, a lot of productions - including fast-paced action films like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter use Alexa tethered to a codec. Productions make it happen, but carrying around a backpack for your camera that weighs a ton isn't my idea of modern filmmaking tools. But that's a preference, unrelated to the final image.

The way the highlights fall off and the blacks held detail are big of course. One if the tricks I use when determining what looks film-like is how the image looks when fading out and how cross resolves work. The dynamic range really is revealed in moments like these when you are reducing the exposure of an image and the extra detail has a chance to shine. There is a look to a fade with adequate dynamic range.

At the end of the day if you have a DP who lights and exposes correctly, and a color team that understands the hardware they are working with, then the end image can be pretty amazing. Contagion isn't a poster child for that process for that very reason. It was meant to be something other than polished. Drive seemed to be aimed at making it as natural and filmic as possible. Just making the image look "good" as a default- rather than highly stylized.

[Eric J Kosinski]

I never said resolution is everything. It's color reproduction, dynamic range, resolution, flexibility, alongside overall image feel which can't really be pinned down to a figure. As Jim has always said, just look at the image. To stop worrying about specs - particularly when discussing bayer patterns, etc. According to IMDb, Drive was shot 1080p and upresed to 2k for mastering. I certainly wasn't able to tell, but my screening was slightly out of focus anyway- and the cinema flat out refused to fix it... sigh....

The Amazing Spider-man trailer looks pretty good amazing on screen. I was every bit as impressed with Spidy as I was with Drive. I've seen it projected digitally and printed to film and it looks as every bit like film as Alexa did with Drive. And yes, a lot of productions - including fast-paced action films like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter use Alexa tethered to a codec. Productions make it happen, but carrying around a backpack for your camera that weighs a ton isn't my idea of modern filmmaking tools. But that's a preference, unrelated to the final image.

The way the highlights fall off and the blacks held detail are big of course. One if the tricks I use when determining what looks film-like is how the image looks when fading out and how cross resolves work. The dynamic range really is revealed in moments like these when you are reducing the exposure of an image and the extra detail has a chance to shine. There is a look to a fade with adequate dynamic range.

At the end of the day if you have a DP who lights and exposes correctly, and a color team that understands the hardware they are working with, then the end image can be pretty amazing. Contagion isn't a poster child for that process for that very reason. It was meant to be something other than polished. Drive seemed to be aimed at making it as natural and filmic as possible. Just making the image look "good" as a default- rather than highly stylized.

My bad Chris, I wasn't calling you out on resolution comments. I used your quote as a reply simply to point out the Alexa. I agree, the camera is simply a tool. These are all amazing tools, and it's been proven that all can compete. It's a great time for filmmakers with so many choices.

[Wayne Morellini]

Just seen the film, fantastic, nice story. I would like to review the picture quality, and hopefully get a few answers.

Ok, sorry if this has been covered before, but there are things I have noticed before.

Seen on film, nice looking, though I can see that great portions of the film are deliberately made to look like old quality film from the 80's with desatuation for dramatic effect, to show the bleakness.

Have noticed a metalic like sheen in faces in Red footage from the beginning. I wanted to see this film to see if it was no longer evident. I've noticed it getting less and less over the years. I aim to see the Amazing Spider Man to confirm. I originally thought this might be related to color toning before, maybe to do with debayering on large areas of similar color flattening out.

I notice in the advertising the scenes were nicely satuated but a slight patch looked like it was there. In the film the desatuated portions show very little of this, it is hard to notice. However, in the nicely saturated parts it was noticeable, the first part of the outside scene of the world health organisation, it is noticeable on the actresses skin.

However, concerning faces, there is something about the contrast toning. It looks strange. I have noticed this on other publicity shots, but the opposite. Too little or much toning, so I guess it is adjustable.

There are blotchy niose and a lack of detail noticeable on faces. I wonder if the data rate used is similar to what Scarlet will be used? I wonder what process it went through to make this print. Face texture detail needs contrast to make it stand out. Can hdr be changed to add more contrast in the mid range where faces are often lit?

There is little else (the color scheme I took as choice), but something for color science. This is common on cameras, my cameras here do it. They see variouse colors (and consequently their contrast) differently to human vision. So the sickly skin tones on people looked different. As I was saying, this is something color science could be expanded to correct.

Thanks.

[Kacey Baker]

Just seen the film, fantastic, nice story. I would like to review the picture quality, and hopefully get a few answers.

Ok, sorry if this has been covered before, but there are things I have noticed before.

Seen on film, nice looking, though I can see that great portions of the film are deliberately made to look like old quality film from the 80's with desatuation for dramatic effect, to show the bleakness.

Have noticed a metalic like sheen in faces in Red footage from the beginning. I wanted to see this film to see if it was no longer evident. I've noticed it getting less and less over the years. I aim to see the Amazing Spider Man to confirm. I originally thought this might be related to color toning before, maybe to do with debayering on large areas of similar color flattening out.

I notice in the advertising the scenes were nicely satuated but a slight patch looked like it was there. In the film the desatuated portions show very little of this, it is hard to notice. However, in the nicely saturated parts it was noticeable, the first part of the outside scene of the world health organisation, it is noticeable on the actresses skin.

However, concerning faces, there is something about the contrast toning. It looks strange. I have noticed this on other publicity shots, but the opposite. Too little or much toning, so I guess it is adjustable.

There are blotchy niose and a lack of detail noticeable on faces. I wonder if the data rate used is similar to what Scarlet will be used? I wonder what process it went through to make this print. Face texture detail needs contrast to make it stand out. Can hdr be changed to add more contrast in the mid range where faces are often lit?

There is little else (the color scheme I took as choice), but something for color science. This is common on cameras, my cameras here do it. They see variouse colors (and consequently their contrast) differently to human vision. So the sickly skin tones on people looked different. As I was saying, this is something color science could be expanded to correct.

Thanks.

Didn't you get the memo? Contagion was colored using Magic Bullet Looks.

I was the first to bring up Contagions poor footage/color when the trailer was released, and most red users defended SS saying it was stylistic choice, I think now there is clearly a big question mark over this film. One thing is for sure, I hope one day to reach the heights and talents of SS as he is truly talented on many levels regardless of Contagion, I'd work with him at the drop of a bird, I mean hat.

[Wayne Morellini]

Nope, didn't want to spend all night reading through the thread.

I have nothing really against the colorisation, it is a choice (I would have prefered to use more color if it was me, in a different way, but it is not me, and it works). What I am talking about is camera and sensor performance. If people can point out how any of these things were not either camera or sensor, that would be great.

[Bill Anderson]

Wayne, get a camera in your hands and test it, that is the only way to find out where the inherent qualities of the sensor end and artistic expression and post variables begin.
Either that or you're going to have to take the time to read through the many posts - even then they are anecdotal and will only a provide rough point of departure for personal testing.

[Michael.B]

If you'd like to learn a bit more about the Contagion finishing process, here's an article with a couple details - http://www.fotokem.com/projects/feat....php#contagion

I don't think anybody would expect or want everything shot on a RED camera to have the same look. I've seen RED footage turned into surveillance camera footage; we've also transferred it to 15-perf 65mm IMAX. Soderbergh and his crew have a pretty incredible handle on RED workflow and filmmaking in general. It's impressive to witness and fun to be a part of.

[Sulekh Suman]

On a different note, I watched Antichrist on 55" HD LED and it stood out as one of the most visceral visual experiences in recent times. The film was primarily shot on Red One(Not MX) with a few scenes on Phantom. The versatility of Red One is beautifully showcased through the wide forest exteriors and the dimly lit close ups in the interiors. Anthony Dod Mantle had first caught my attention almost 13 years ago with The Celebration(Dir: Thomas Vinterberg). Mr. Mantle is one of the pioneers of digital cinematography/ dogma. He won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire. He also shot Wallander(not listed on Red.com) on Red One and won a BAFTA for photography. I am using this week while we all wait for November 3rd announcement to see as many feature films shot on Red One/ MX as possible. Please list names of films that may have been shot on Red One/ MX/ Epic and are currently not listed on Red.com.

[Wayne Morellini]

Michael, thanks for that, I am very time consumed now so I'll have to try to look after. I was just refering to the transfer to the film print I saw, as sometimes thst knocks things didn a bit. The process is not of much interest to me as I am describing, and interested in camera codec and sensor effects. I'll have to look though, to see if the footage changed codec before transfer, that could explain some things, and the data rate used on the early cameras. I am interested in getting a feeling of what Scarlet rates, and sensor, will be like.

Wayne, get a camera in your hands and test it, that is the only way to find out where the inherent qualities of the sensor end and artistic expression and post variables begin.
Either that or you're going to have to take the time to read through the many posts - even then they are anecdotal and will only a provide rough point of departure for personal testing.

Not really, I am looking deep into the footage, and if you are good enough and the footage has not been destroyed you don't need the camera to review the footage. Believe me, I have been doing this for years, since the diy d cinenma group that inspired Red to start out. A number of the things I am saying definitely originate in the camera not in the process. However, you should take my report as an objective report as such. I find many people with a camera know less of what they are talking about than even me. I have come across many that either think: SD is good enough for a cinema screen; there.is no benefit to 4k over fullhd or 3k; or that highly compressed footage looks as good as original footage on a cinema screen (they can stop drinking and getting hyped up, and spend several hundred dollars on a good pair of spectacles ;) . I did, and now have the eyesight of a fighter pilot apparently, more or less, in at least one eye. Getting spectacle scripts setup right made a four time difference, and learning how to look through them properly increased it even more, and I am supposed to be going blind). If people want to work in 8 or 4k, even in fullhd, they need to do this, some people even obviously have problems seeing past SD. The image refinements that can be made with good vision, increase audience enjoyment even if they are never noticed consciously

Anyway, love the film, love the brand, lets examine the camera.