Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Pirates of the Caribbean 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well at least it doesn’t use bloody vacuum tubes.

I think there’s something inherently different when you are using solid state arrays of one sort or another;

www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06010503boylesmith.asp

www.engadget.com/2009/10/06/nobel-prize-in-physics-shared-by-ccd-inventors-fiber-optics-pio/

A Nobel prize well deserved.

CMOS especially, very different animal.

Digital means something and so does “Cinema/Cinematic Camera”;

It all becomes a mouth full so do we say, “Cinema capable, digital acquisition system”

[For a moment there I thought we were all in big “trub”]
 
Well guys, if we want to play a definition game...

The root of the word VIDEO come from the word VIDERE in Latin which means "to see". So technically our eyes are the best provider of video footage of all (well except mine until I get LASIK :)

But seriously, I think Jim is right. From day one here in Japan I have been trying to define what clients call video such as to not lump red in with the rest of the cameras. People have a natural tendency to use previous understood terminology to describe new technology so I guess it was only natural for people to call red "video" or a camcorder, as much as I disliked this.

So I started explaining to them how the red one is 1/2 in between your DSLR and 35mm film. They got it then.
 
So... let's recap.

RED is not a video camera by definition. So I guess we get to call it whatever we want. We say that The RED ONE and EPIC are digital cinema cameras (that is the primary target of use) that shoots high resolution (up to 5K Bayer Pattern) REDCODE RAW (variable compression RAW) to various types of media but primarily solid state. Pretty easy stuff.

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this... and it doesn't really seem to smack of marketing other than the names of the cameras and REDCODE (which is our proprietary invention).

Added- I guess I forgot that we can also call them DSMC (digital stills and motion cameras)...

Jim
 
Last edited:
The war of words can get a bit silly, when someone wants to insult Red by calling the Red One a "video" camera and someone wants to insult someone back by saying that they are an idiot for calling a Red One a "video" camera -- it just shows that both sides think there is something wrong with the word "video". In their case, you have to some degree, an agreement between them that video must be bad!

If you take one established definition of "video" -- "the electronic capture, storage, and even presentation of moving images, etc.", then the Red One, Epic, etc. are all "video" cameras. If you take the definition that recording to videotape has to be involved, then those cameras aren't video cameras, though technically one could take the 1080P out on the Epic (or 720P out on the Red One) and record it to videotape. The first definition of video is probably too broad today to be useful and the second one is also too narrow today to be useful.

Saying that if it gets used for digital cinema, it's no longer video is also a bit too broad because anything can get shown in a theater no matter what it's shot on.

So if saying that all electronic moving images are "video" is too broad a definition..

Anything recorded to tape is too narrow a definition...

Anything shown in a movie theater is not therefore video is also too forgiving, too broad (would be the same as saying that anything shown on television has to be video)...

Then what's the definition of "video"?
 
Last edited:
Personally I wouldn’t let dictionaries or patent examiners define the terminology for ANY technical device, article, method or process!
 
Just read that the movie grossed over $360 million this weekend. Happy to have added my cash to that number because you know what? For all the opinions, is RED this, that or the other, Pirates 4 is entertaining people by the boat load, and that is all that it's about. Case closed.

For my 10 cents worth, what did it look like? It looked like a movie to me.

Justin, you're very entitled to your own opinions and I would always encourage someone to stand up for their beliefs. Perhaps, though, your opinions might be better served if you added experience and some... tact... so as not to make you come off looking the way you do. For me, a short reel of 3D models, probably done as some sort of class assignment, does not speak to an impressive body of work strong enough to support the weight of your suppositions and judgements.
 
The intent is that it CAN deliver up to the most demanding standards required by cinematic applications, i.e. cinema CAPABLE; its digital (no denying that); so Digital Cinema Camera (the “capable” is redundant, given that the intent is completely understood).

So the comments that have come back are all about how filmic or beyond “Pirate’s” looks.

“pirates!, Pirates!, dum, de dum de dum…!” (remember?).
 
I would say that "video" cameras output one of the various TV signal specs -- NTSC, PAL, SECAM and nowadays the ATSC HD formats, and generally YUV. An Epic-M does have a "video" out on its HD-SDI port that can be configured to output a "video" signal. It can also be configured to output non-video signals, even though they are valid HD-SDI. Thus, an Epic-M can be used as a video camera, or not.

BUT The Epic-M's primary signal capture mode is REDCODE RAW, which is NOT a video format. Thus, I think it's fair to say that the Epic-M is not a "video" camera.
 
How about RED is primarily a digital cinema camera that shoots RAW. However, it is also capable of shooting video out ports if you feel compelled to do that...

Why did this come up in the 1st place? I forgot. MM? Seems like the inference was that we were doing something wrong or sneaky... I take offense to that.

Jim
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The war of words can get a bit silly, when someone wants to insult Red by calling the Red One a "video" camera and someone wants to insult someone back by saying that they are an idiot for calling a Red One a "video" camera -- it just shows that both sides think there is something wrong with the word "video". In their case, you have to some degree, an agreement between them that video must be bad!
Click to expand...

haha... I was hoping we could avoid another linguistics discussion...

I think it's pretty straightforward how we use the terminology. While consumers may not yet understand the difference between a video camera or camcorder and something like a red or alexa, we have a pretty good idea that theres a degree of separation to use different terminology. Because of the nature of technology advancement, there is no 'one size fits all' term here. Right now, we seem to be liking the term digital cinema for these kinds of cameras, but it's all in flux... bottom line: it doesn't take a strict definition to choose an appropriate term to describe something. that's why we have brains geared towards communication. so call it what you will, just try to be courteous in your doing.

in related news, i'm going to go see pirates!
 
How about RED is just badass! Call it video or not... The purists and haters can argue over semantics... I'll be the guy shooting awesome stuff. Thank you Jim, for all that you and RED has and IS doing.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Then what's the definition of "video"?
Click to expand...

Boy, has THIS gone off on a tangent..

I like David's notion of language being fluid, and in that sense, I do see a need for a colloquial definition of the term, even if it narrows down the actual, technical definition. So I'd be in favor of having the term "video camera" refer primarily to cameras whose output conforms to a known video recording or broadcast standard (i.e., NTSC, PAL, 1080i, 720p, etc.) and is used primarily to produce images that can be viewed coherently without further post processing. Other devices can be referred to by their primary purpose: digital cinema camera, for instance. That allows for, say, a broadcast camera to be commonly called a video camera, but devices like Red, and also Alexa, F35, and the like, to be regarded as digital cinema cameras due to their nature of not conforming strictly to SMPTE broadcast format guidelines, and not necessarily directly producing images that are intended to be used without some processing applied. It also allows for small handy cam type consumer devices to also qualify as video cameras, since they conform to both requirements.

Now, at the same time, I would say that the colloquial definition and the technical definition can be and probably are two different things today. This is partly due to historical technical precedent, but it's also due to the way society evolves. "Filming" has become a more generic term for capturing moving images, regardless of actual medium, in part because those who do that for a living worked on film for many years and the term simply rolls off the tongue, but it was also picked up by younger people who had never touched film, probably because it somehow sounds professional. Today, a lot of very experienced DP's will refer to the use of Sony, Panasonic, Arri, and, yes, Red cameras as "shooting on HD," because their point of reference is shooting on film. And regardless of whether Jim feels insulted by the use of the terms "HD" or "video," they will continue to be used by some not because they're comparing Red to a video camera, but because they're comparing it to film. So there needs to be an understanding on all sides that language is indeed in a state of flux, but the use of terminology is often influenced by one's point of reference and not necessarily by either book definitions or technical accuracy.

Now, having talked that through, I just got back from seeing "Pirates." Like David I thought it looked very, very good. I didn't think it looked "like film," but who really cares? I thought the look that was achieved was appropriate to the story and the venue, and the notion that the only criteria should be a medium that is becoming less prevalent is a bit outdated. The locations looked good, the people looked good, and the movie worked. I will say that I thought the 3D was somewhat pointless, and that it might be the last time I go to a 3D version of a live action picture that's also available in 2D for quite some time. But it was a fun piece, looked great, and I felt like I got my money's worth (except for that $3 or so additional for the 3D.....). I don't know what more one can say about a "Pirates" movie.
 
Its probably better to move the "video" talk to a new thread. We could probably discuss it for days! I think there is a negative connotation associated with the term video. Historically the term video might have referred to 60 Hz interlaced content. (or 50 Hz) Then you have home video, which includes Blu-ray. You can connect a Blu-ray player to a D-Cinema display and watch a movie that was shot on RED, for example.

I will say that I thought the 3D was somewhat pointless, and that it might be the last time I go to a 3D version of a live action picture that's also available in 2D for quite some time.
Click to expand...

I felt that the 3D presentation was the low point of the movie. There was very little depth in the film. It could be the overly conservative I/O used. The presentation I saw, on a Sony 4k, was really dim. With that said, you should try and make a point of seeing Transformers in 3D. Based on the feedback from the 15-minute preview, it sounds promising. The following quote was sent to a 3D photo discussion group.

Mojo said:
Last night, at Paramount Pictures, James Cameron and Michael Bay took the stage to have a candid discussion about the current state of 3D cinema. A large part of the talk was focused on Bay's decision - and overall experience - to shoot TF3 in 3D (I'll save a synopsis of this discussion for another post).

They started things off by showing the first 5 mins of the film in it's entirety, followed by ten mins of Bay's favorite 3D scenes and clips.

The reaction of myself (and Jim Carbonetti): Holy Mutherfarking Shitake Mushrooms!

I'm not being hyperbolic in saying it was EASILY the most awe-inspiring 15 mins of 3D cinema I HAVE EVER SEEN. Even Avatar should be ashamed in comparison...

First and foremost, liberal amounts of depth were on display, a welcome contrast to the spate of interrocular conservatism we've seen in Hollywood of late (*cough* Tron *cough*). Jim and I reckon that with the studios strong-arming directors into going 3D, their "revenge" has been to go with such narrow depth it makes Olive Oyl look positively volumous (rumor has it that the new 3D "Pirates" movie used an average lens separation of just .4 inches).

Not so with Transformers! Bay isn't exactly known for his conservatism and has clearly pushed the 3D as far as it can go. In fact, during the talk he expressed concern that he might have been too conservative in a few scenes - at which point he turned to one of his colleagues in the audience and actually said "hey, let's look at that tomorrow and see if we can do something about it!"

Very encouraging words for 3D fans everywhere! (since there is still 6 weeks before release, naturally he is actively tweaking and finishing effects).
Bay had explained that even before going 3D, he always composes shots with FG, mid, and BG elements, a style that is welcomed by 3D with open arms. All the footage we saw had plenty of depth cues without crossing the line into hyper.

On the other hand, Bay is also know for other aspects of his "signature style" - most notably a constant use of fast cutting and a frenetic camera - which don't play too well in the 3D sandbox. Well, you can breathe a sigh of relief - Bay actually admitted he toned down these aspects of photography to get the best 3D results he could (to which I applauded).

While TF3D will undoubtedly be compared to Avatar (two super high-budget, live action summer movies from AA-list directors), the nature of the 3D is wildly different; while being technically a live-action movie, Avatar was mostly computer-generated, with the bulk of live-action filming being restricted to actors against a blue screen.

TF, on the other hand, is largely shot on location in real places, with not only real people, but real freeways, skyscrapers and zooming cars. This makes it a very different beast from Avatar, and is (arguably) the first "real" big budget, live action 3D movie of the 3D new wave.

One major action sequence features a team of wing suit jumpers (look it up on YouTube if you're not familiar with wing suits) leaping from a high-altitude helicopter and whizzing through Chicago - shot by a wing-suited cinematographer with a 3D helmet cam! All of which was done for real - not through CGi (Bay said it took a year of bugging the mayor just to get the permits).

The result is truly spectacular - sure, there is plenty of CGI on hand, but having it melded into real stereo backgrounds of real locations makes a huge difference; the footage was truly exciting and dynamic, especially the stuff shot in the heart of Chicago. The line between CG and reality was totally seamless, and the depiction of truly epic battle scenes - the likes of which have never been seen in 3D - is going to leave a lot of people breathless.

TF3D takes the concept of an eye-candy movie and and ratchets it up to a level no one has before experienced. I know I sound melodramatic, but the reaction of the audience clearly showed the feeling was mutual. Naturally everyone wants to see a good movie (to wit I have a feeling this might be the best in the series), but, even in the absence of an Avatar-like level of script quality, the sheer visceral reaction people are likely to have to watching this thing is going to help further cement the notion that 3D is much more than a temporary gag.

Hopefully, audiences will be so in awe of just watching TF3 that no one will even want to THINK about seeing movies of this nature in 2D ever again.
If it can make people feel that way, I'm not at all hesitant to use the term "game changer."
Click to expand...
 
Very encouraging words for 3D fans everywhere!
Click to expand...

You mean there are actually 3D fans? Other than studio executives with dollar signs in their eyes and Jim Cameron?

(putting flame suit on now...........)
 
Refering to MM’s post:


To be honest, for current relatively novel “instruments” or various product offerings you have to go with the manufacturer’s design intent (or stated functional intent). Maybe twenty years from now when other families of cameras come out and similar devices is it then possible to apply appropriate taxa and classifications. It’s much too early for that. In patent law novel or intended use is almost as important as the “novel” article itself. A Web-cam has all of the same technical features as you describe as for a digital cinematic camera.


Glad you enjoyed pirates, I’m starting to get excited about a movie that I might not have been very excited about.

Cheers,

Eric
 
Back on topic...

I saw a 2D digital projection of Pirates on friday and I was generally impressed. I was surprised to see a few clipped scenes but after reading this thread I'm betting that it was projected on a silver screen, because the entire picture just felt brighter than it should. That being said I saw no noise whatsoever and thought the skin tones and explosions (always a clipping challenge with digital) to be very pleasing. I won't get into the story, but I saw nothing that took me out of the movie, except maybe one strange pan in the London scenes that seemed to stutter in an unusual way, however there were many other similar pans that looked fine so I have to assume it was a VFX or projector induced aberration.

Another interesting observation, I'm in Anchorage right now working on a movie and the local theater is showing both 2D & 3D versions and the longest line to get in was at the 2D showing.
This was for both Pirates and Thor.

I think there are certain projects that really do deserve 3D (Avatar, Tron, possibly The Hobbit) but I wonder is moviegoers are becoming weary of the glasses and price.
 
Hey Stacy,

Thanks for posting the comment about Transformers -- very illuminating and makes me eager to see a movie I might have otherwise ignored, as I did with the second one.

I think we can put the debate about the visual quality of Pirates to rest. A stunning achievement -- bravo to the cast, crew and Red.

In terms of it's 3D -- that's still up for debate, and even though I thought it was better than others I've seen recently (such as Thor) ... yes, the depth of Pirates' 3D did leave
something to be desired. In fact, overall if 3D production and viewing can fix the dimness issue and bring more depth to it as is cited in the post you cut and pasted, it will be revolutionary.

Yes, it will create many, many fans -- maybe even Mike most ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top