Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[David Mullen ASC]

Keep in mind that "film" is a very broad term too, covering everything from Super-8 to IMAX, reversal to negative, stills to motion pictures. The question is whether a Red One or an EPIC can be called a "video" camera... if you take the most generalized definition of video, which is something like "electronic moving pictures", then it is, whether or not people like or not, whether or not it is too vague to be accurate.

You know, when someone calls a 35mm Panaflex a "film" camera, Panavision doesn't get upset that it is being lumped into the same category as a Super-8 camera! Yet some people are upset that an Epic is lumped into the same category as a cheap Sony Handycam. But that's what a very generalized definition does, it covers a broad range of things, the high and the low.

It's only because of the negative emotional baggage that the term "video" carries that modern digital cinema cameras don't want to even be associated with the word. But honestly, it's just a vague word. Like "film".

But language is fluid and evolving and if Red wants to push a naming change, they are free to do so. After all, we've been using the word "digital intermediate" for only a decade and already it has evolved to cover things not even shot on film or going back to film, but cinema projects that remain digital throughout. So an "inaccurate" usage is becoming commonplace enough to become an acceptable usage. But since not everyone has a negative attitude about the word "video" they are still going to be perplexed by all the people who find it offensive somehow when applied to the latest digital cinema cameras. On the other hand, as I've said before, some people only have negative thoughts about the word "video" and apply it insultingly whenever they can to the latest digital cinema cameras, and who wants to play their game?

Which is why, even though personally I am fine with the term "video" covering all "electronic moving images" (using the term "digital" instead is almost even vaguer and just as generalized and thus just as potentially useless) it is simpler to avoid these emotional (and promotional) wars by avoiding the term.

 

[patrickortman]

Chomsky

Chomsky

Which is why, even though personally I am fine with the term "video" covering all "electronic moving images" (using the term "digital" instead is almost even vaguer and just as generalized and thus just as potentially useless) it is simpler to avoid these emotional (and promotional) wars by avoiding the term.

"There's a word for it
Words don't mean anything.
There's a name for it
Names make all the difference in the world"
- N. Chomsky via Talking Heads



Patrick

 

[Eric Lange]

That was all nicely expressed.

As someone that has studied the history of technology (at a university level) for many years from stone axes to ICBMs, and someone that has and is developing very cutting edge stuff in special 3d/VR/photogrammetry/high res machine vision (related) apps and has patents to his name blah blah blah yawn yawn…(yeh yeh, boring jerk…)

I am trying to get people to see a little bit from the technologist’s point of view rather than the “users” point of view that might (in some instances) over-focus on a smaller groups of technical sub features.

I have a simple question; two hundred years from now, you are the curator of a new Museum of The Moving Image. In a long hall you have a set of display cases running down your right hand side that show the historical development of TV and video technologies, (adjunct display cases showing consumer video tech); and on the left side of the hall you have the history of cinematic technologies, particularly cameras. New acquisition: a Red EPIC circa 2011 comes in. Which display case do you put it in?


To me this is a no brainer I would stick it in the cinematic display cases on the left side with the other cameras, and not stick it in the set of display cases on the right hand side with the history of video technology. Some of you might argue that you need to stick it in a display case at the end where the technologies merge?


I’m not entirely sure you can even say that Digital Cinema Camera or Digital Cinematic Camera is a new “made up” term as it completely describes its intended function and actual use. [We’re not calling a golf club a teapot?].


So for example with Pirates, if you removed the novel elements from the system that make it “digital cinematic camera” and instead make it function more like a video camera then, in all likelihood one would not have shot POTC4 on a video camera (in the first place) but would choose instead to shoot on "film".

In the case of the EPIC or RED (MX) or RedOne etc. it has various unique technical features (that you can describe if one likes) that make it cinematic capable; BUT in the future there will be other completely different systems that operate (under the hood) in entirely different ways that also fulfill the function of a “digital cinematic camera”. This capability is not entirely defined by its sub processes, components and intermediate formats, but rather is defined by it functional design intent or actual function. BUT I also see the possibility in the future that a “video” camera on “stereoids” (i.e. new materials, chip design and insane bandwidth) may indeed one day be able to function as a digital cinematic camera, but probably when that time comes a completely different bag of tricks will be more efficiently used instead, in terms of coding and processing.


POTC4 may (in time) be seen as the turning point or historical transition between traditional and full on digital cinematic “production” technique?

There are other movies before and after, but I really think POTC4 will be the one that (posthumously) sticks in the mind as a major stick in the sand. I’m sure many will disagree with this.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it is no brainer at all - if I had a museum showing the evolution of film technology in one side and the evolution of electronic imaging on the other... I'm going to stick the Epic in the film side???

But if the display was separated into the history of theatrical feature production versus television production, sure you might be tempted to stick the Epic in the theatrical feature section... except that television production used film for decades, and Epics, Red Ones, Alexas, etc. can all be used for television production.

So separating the two sections by whether they were used for movies or TV doesn't really work when you are talking about film and electronic technology that has been used for both, particularly in television.

So it goes back to purely technological developments, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the Epic and Red One evolved from photochemical technology and not electronic imaging technology that started back with analog video. The conversion of light hitting a sensor into electrical signals that can be recorded is the basis of video, and of modern digital cinema technology, even if the sensors have changed and the methods of signal processing and recording have changed, it's still part of the same evolutionary chain, more so than it is part of the development of silver-based photochemical technology. So it's hardly a "no brainer"!

I think it would be pretty arbitrary to put television and feature cinema camera technologies into separate sections of a museum. You'd have to put 35mm and 16mm cameras into the television section and HD video cameras into the feature cinema section for one thing. The only thing you can really be sure of is that old tube cameras on pedestals weren't used much for features and 70mm cameras weren't used much for TV, but otherwise, there has been a lot of cross-pollination.

 

[Eric Lange]

I don't think it is no brainer at all - if I had a museum showing the evolution of film technology in one side and the evolution of electronic imaging on the other... I'm going to stick the Epic in the film side???

But if the display was separated into the history of theatrical feature production versus television production, sure you might be tempted to stick the Epic in the theatrical feature section... except that television production used film for decades, and Epics, Red Ones, Alexas, etc. can all be used for television production.

So separating the two sections by whether they were used for movies or TV doesn't really work when you are talking about film and electronic technology that has been used for both, particularly in television.

So it goes back to purely technological developments, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the Epic and Red One evolved from photochemical technology and not electronic imaging technology that started back with analog video. The conversion of light hitting a sensor into electrical signals that can be recorded is the basis of video, and of modern digital cinema technology, even if the sensors have changed and the methods of signal processing and recording have changed, it's still part of the same evolutionary chain, more so than it is part of the development of silver-based photochemical technology. So it's hardly a "no brainer"!

I think it would be pretty arbitrary to put television and feature cinema camera technologies into separate sections of a museum. You'd have to put 35mm and 16mm cameras into the television section and HD video cameras into the feature cinema section for one thing. The only thing you can really be sure of is that old tube cameras on pedestals weren't used much for features and 70mm cameras weren't used much for TV, but otherwise, there has been a lot of cross-pollination.

Sorry I’m originally from the UK so when we say “film” technology you might say movie or cinematic technology. When I say “film” I mean cinematic process of one sort or another not silver halides in emmulsion on a polyester substrate.

Ultimately depends what type of story you are trying to tell with “artifacts”. If it’s a science museum then technological exposition of video based technologies makes sense. BUT if it’s a history of what cinematographers used to make their movies with… then that might be different.

Sorry I mis-wrote/mis-thought: When I said history of video technology, I should have said the history of the USE of video technology etc. (my mistake).

Still design intent and what problems were actually solved to bring a particular capability into existence matter I think, and in most technological achievments (rather than scientific) you see design intent being the key factor (appart from lucky mistakes).

I like your points of view though…

 

[Eric Lange]

I don't think it is no brainer at all - if I had a museum showing the evolution of film technology in one side and the evolution of electronic imaging on the other... I'm going to stick the Epic in the film side???

The only thing you can really be sure of is that old tube cameras on pedestals weren't used much for features and 70mm cameras weren't used much for TV, but otherwise, there has been a lot of cross-pollination.

I can certainly agree with that!

 

[Peter Moretti]

Keep in mind that "film" is a very broad term too, covering everything from Super-8 to IMAX, reversal to negative, stills to motion pictures. The question is whether a Red One or an EPIC can be called a "video" camera... if you take the most generalized definition of video, which is something like "electronic moving pictures", then it is, whether or not people like or not, whether or not it is too vague to be accurate.

You know, when someone calls a 35mm Panaflex a "film" camera, Panavision doesn't get upset that it is being lumped into the same category as a Super-8 camera! Yet some people are upset that an Epic is lumped into the same category as a cheap Sony Handycam. But that's what a very generalized definition does, it covers a broad range of things, the high and the low.

It's only because of the negative emotional baggage that the term "video" carries that modern digital cinema cameras don't want to even be associated with the word. But honestly, it's just a vague word. Like "film".

But language is fluid and evolving and if Red wants to push a naming change, they are free to do so. After all, we've been using the word "digital intermediate" for only a decade and already it has evolved to cover things not even shot on film or going back to film, but cinema projects that remain digital throughout. So an "inaccurate" usage is becoming commonplace enough to become an acceptable usage. But since not everyone has a negative attitude about the word "video" they are still going to be perplexed by all the people who find it offensive somehow when applied to the latest digital cinema cameras. On the other hand, as I've said before, some people only have negative thoughts about the word "video" and apply it insultingly whenever they can to the latest digital cinema cameras, and who wants to play their game?

Which is why, even though personally I am fine with the term "video" covering all "electronic moving images" (using the term "digital" instead is almost even vaguer and just as generalized and thus just as potentially useless) it is simpler to avoid these emotional (and promotional) wars by avoiding the term.

David,

I think one of the "negative" connotations that people associate w/ video is YUV encoding. Now I know that YUV and Y'CbCr (for you terminology freaks) can make beautiful images, starting probably with the F900. But I do think that video and YUV kind of go hand-in-hand. RGB RAW really is different enough that calling it video feels wrong.

But then again, using that methodology, an Alexa is a video camera when shooting ProRes 4:2:2, and something else when shooting ProRes 4:4:4:4 (which is RGB not Y'CbCr) and belongs in whatever category a Red One MX is in when shooting ArriRAW.

And then we have the Red Epic, which is a "Digital Stills and Motion Camera." Hardly a name that will catch on. So, yeah, "video" probaly isn't all that bad a description to use when you consider the lacking or clunky alternatives.

 

[Simon Falkentorp]

I understand the aversion against the "video"-word. But I also think it is important to tell that it is a digital technology. I think" "Digital Cinema" and "Digital Film" sounds great. Ind if you are european maybe "Le cinéma digitale" (just jokin').

 

[Eric Lange]

I understand the aversion against the "video"-word. But I also think it is important to tell that it is a digital technology. I think" "Digital Cinema" and "Digital Film" sounds great. Ind if you are european maybe "Le cinéma digitale" (just jokin').

That’s funny; being English my French is pretty lousy, but with French word order they are probably already saying something like that, le Camera de Digitale de la cimatique…

It’s usually at this point when Jim/”big dawg” usually chimes in and says “you boys having fun with all this…” and tries to slap some sense into us…


Digital Still and Motion, I’m OK with that too. I think that will make a lot more sense when a dynamic 645 unit and other higher res offerings eventually roll out one day.


Again looking from the technologist’s point of view; I take liberties at this point, Jim (as I understand it) loves digital imagery from medium format and DSLR, and also looked at the images from “film” 35mm, 70 mm, Imax and so on and says; “Hey..why can’t I get DSLR/Medium format res and DR at a film like frame rate?”. So the idea IS a sequence of (beautiful) stills. Pirates of the Caribean 4 could have been shot on a high end DSLR or medium format camera system, it’s just everybody would have to speak and move VERY VERY sloooowwwwwlllllyyyyyyy, and would have taken about 15 years to make (like Wallace and Gromit). So some of the technological root s for Epic come from Digital stills cameras, and no one would seriously make the case that a medium format digital back is really a video camera. So I’m sure Jim went around in the early days saying O.K. why can’t I have a higher frame rate and raw at high res, and probably everybody told him that you just can’t. Not taking no for an answer managed to get the right people together and systematically tackled the problem from many different angles one piece at a time.


More than just design “intent” there was a real “will” behind that that said, this has to be possible and everything else is just an excuse. It’s not let’s get a video camera and make it do more kinda a thing. If you come from a large format stills background it’s hard to describe the visceral difference between stills and “video” even if the so called “stills” are going 30-60-100 fps. For many years we have been looking for high res dynamics, and really hate the look of video and industrial cameras as we come from a high quality high res stills/3d background. The Epic and the next beasties in line are the only devices on the planet (right now) that can deliver the look and functionality of a “fast” high res still.


Rather by accident, I have a bunch “off cuts” on 70mm form 2001 Space Odyssey, where they have hand painted out the star back ground (one by one) from behind so the stars are not seen through the “space walk sequence”. You look at the image on the actual diapositve and you think wow, that’s a very high quality still, and then you look at all the other frames and you see, wow that’s a sequence of high quality stills, you don’t think wow this is just like video. And I think the Jannard concept of high quality stills at a higher frame rate has a lot more in common with this idea that “film” can be a sequence of high quality stills rather than video, especially considerening the look and quality of the images created? That’s what it’s all about (I think?).

Personally I think “Pirate Vision™..arrrrrrrr™” is the way to go.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Both video and movie film are a series of single frames -- are you really saying that the single frame images from an Epic have more in common technologically with a film movie camera than, let's say, a 24P HD video camera, particularly a 35mm single sensor one like the Genesis or F35? That a 35mm Panaflex movie camera is closer to what the Epic is than an F35, even though the second uses a sensor that captures images electronically?

What you are really talking about is resolution, that somehow it's the higher resolution of an Epic or Red One that makes it not a video camera. But if that were true, then the moment you switched the Red One to 2K mode, it would be a video camera.

Look, whether you take a video camera and improve it to take good higher-resolution pictures at 24 fps, or take a digital still camera to run faster and take more pictures at 24 fps, the final results -- the picture -- don't necessarily end up being radically different, especially when viewed on a frame-by-frame basis. Or you seriously going to look at a single 24P frame from an F35 and say that it is obviously "video" and then a frame from the Red One and say that it is obviously different than that?

This is just sort of a romanticization, this notion that because you started with basic parts from a digital still camera and built a cinema camera up from that, it somehow falls under an entirely different technological category than a video camera, when if you look at how either works, it's the same elements: a sensor, a digital processor, color filters, recorder, etc. So why two objects with the same basic parts in them fall under two different categories as pieces of technology doesn't make any sense.

Intent is all fine and good, but an object should be categorized by what it ended up being, what it IS.

And I think ENG/EFP shooter Steve Gibby would object to the notion that the Red One and Epic weren't intended for use in situations where a 24P HD camcorder has been traditionally used, that the only intent was to build something for cinema applications. What about commercials, TV shows, wildlife programs, industrials, etc.? None of those are headed for movie theater screens.

If you take the broad definition of video as being "electronic moving images" then technology like the Epic, Red One, etc. fall under it. If you want to create a more narrow definition that excludes those cameras, that's fine, but I don't think design intent can be the biggest factor if the end result uses similar technology and get similar results for similar applications -- intent isn't enough of a reason to move something to an entirely new category. It may be a small factor, but then you fall into the problem of saying, for example, that the Red One wasn't "intended" for anything other than cinematic uses, when that's not true.

Look, we all know the history of Red and Jim Jannard's vision for it -- he saw where digital cinema technology was heading, but he also saw that it was lagging far behind in cost, features, and quality... for a variety of reasons, one of which was just conservative thinking by existing manufacturers and the need to fit new products into existing manufacturing lines, plus to maintain continuity with previous products and to not alienate current customers heavily invested in the previous technology. Jim was able to leap-frog all of that and jump to the heart of the matter, which was to create a 4K digital movie camera that was affordable for filmmakers. So yes, part of that involved not being tied to the existing broadcast video technology infrastructure and working at a more fundamental level with what was needed to create a movie camera that was digital but competitive, image-wise, with 35mm film. So in that case, I can see why Red is not interested in the "video camera" label (besides the fact that too many people use it as a term of insult) because they worked, and continue to work, outside the traditional broadcast video manufacturing ideology.

But "broadcast video" is a more particular concept than the general term "video" and even that's not a particularly well-defined one.

This is never really going to be resolved because the terms are too vague or ill-defined and while one can argue that Red technology works in a different realm than traditional broadcast video technology, there is enough crosstalk between the two worlds that it is hard to argue that the general concept of "video" (again, meaning electronic moving images) can never apply to Red for no other reason than emotionalism, that because some people like Red and don't like the word "video", they don't want Red associated with the word and they come up with all sorts of odd rationalizations why Red cannot be a form of video technology.

I think Mike Most's distinction is as good as any other, and is similar to how the Thomson Viper differentiated between their "video mode" and "filmstream mode" -- that any processing of the electronic signal to become "friendly" for TV monitor display in terms of gamma, color space, resolution, frame rate, etc. makes the signal essentially "video".

 

[Joe Carney]

In regards to the previous discussion about the varying projection-quality issues people have had when seeing POTC4, here's a newspaper article that might explain some things - http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-...-projectors-movie-exhibition-business-screens

To sum it up, someone looked into it and found it's common practice in a lot of cinema's for the 3D lens to remain on the projector when a 2D version of the movie is being shown.

I'd like to say more about what I think of the projection practices being described in the article, but they literally leave me speechless, so I'll just leave it at that.

In the "off topic" section of reduser, I posted a link to Roger Eberts blog which also refers to the article you posted. Plus an article in Movietownnews.

 

[Ivan McCullough]

That’s funny; being English my French is pretty lousy, but with French word order they are probably already saying something like that, le Camera de Digitale de la cimatique…

Not Digitale, in french Digital is Numeric :coolgleamA:

Regardless of what anyone would like to hear I imagine that the RED is a video camera in a technical definition sense.

If you ask the guy in the street I am sure for them there are Film Cameras, Video Cameras and Digital Cameras. The technical distinction between the latter two is blurred but we all have a picture in our heads when we imagine any of the 3.....

Funny I remember watching BTS stuff of the last superman movie and Bryan Singer went to great lengths to stress that they were not shooting video, it was 'Digital Capture' :rolleyes5:

 

[Peter Moretti]

Both video and movie film are a series of single frames -- are you really saying that the single frame images from an Epic have more in common technologically with a film movie camera than, let's say, a 24P HD video camera, particularly a 35mm single sensor one like the Genesis or F35? That a 35mm Panaflex movie camera is closer to what the Epic is than an F35, even though the second uses a sensor that captures images electronically?

Not necessarily. Video used to be solely interlaced--which does not have full resolution frames, just a succession of half resolution fields recorded at twice the frame rate. (And up until recently, most consumer and prosumer video cameras would record 23.976 inside a 60i wrapper.)

It may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I'm really not. Interlaced for many people equates to "video."

This is never really going to be resolved because the terms are too vague or ill-defined and while one can argue that Red technology works in a different realm than traditional broadcast video technology, there is enough crosstalk between the two worlds that it is hard to argue that the general concept of "video" (again, meaning electronic moving images) can never apply to Red for no other reason than emotionalism, that because some people like Red and don't like the word "video", they don't want Red associated with the word and they come up with all sorts of odd rationalizations why Red cannot be a form of video technology.

I think Mike Most's distinction is as good as any other, and is similar to how the Thomson Viper differentiated between their "video mode" and "filmstream mode" -- that any processing of the electronic signal to become "friendly" for TV monitor display in terms of gamma, color space, resolution, frame rate, etc. makes the signal essentially "video".

I can't blame Red at all for wanting to get away from "video." I just don't know what a suitable alternative term would be. An Alex recording to ProRes is a video camera... but so is a surveillance camera at an ARCO station.

 

[Eric Lange]

Mainly in response to David’s nice post.

I/we completely understand the case that you make (very nicely I might add); any advanced system can be downgraded one way or another; however the reverse is absolutely not true. Right now you can’t just take a higher res sensor and make it go faster, it dosen’t work, major problems have to be solved (as mentioned before).

As I mentioned earlier a web cam shares all of the same technical features as described by MM.

This is a very perceptive comment that you make DM,

DM says:

“Both video and movie film are a series of single frames -- are you really saying that the single frame images from an Epic have more in common technologically with a film movie camera than, let's say, a 24P HD video camera, particularly a 35mm single sensor one like the Genesis or F35? That a 35mm Panaflex movie camera is closer to what the Epic is than an F35, even though the second uses a sensor that captures images electronically?”

YES!

Not technologically but FUNCTIONALLY.

As you know I’m not deaf to the concept that moving electronic images can have the term “video” applied to them. We’re not (anymore) talking about posthumous taxonomies for mapping out the various cladistics of electronic devices. But to my way of thinking it doesn’t matter if the device uses squirrels, goblins or the non-locality principal of quantum physics and a giant building (somewhere else). It has to function as a substantially usefully device that meets the basic design requirement that it function as a digital cinematic device (to a very full extent). It was deliberately designed to meet that requirement.


Basically the other lower res offerings that you mention do not cut it, at least for our applications where high resolution IS a requirement (no disrespect to our friends in Munich). The fact that the “device” is called the EPIC, is meaningful. The intended desire is that the thing, “the camera” can be used to make Epic “movies” like the ones shot on 70mm and the like; like 2001 or Laurence of Arabia and so on. It’s not called “lets shoot 16 mm for TV productions”.


The idea to “lump” the EPIC in a retrograde fashion with “video” technology really represents backwards “thinking” (to my mind). There comes a point where you have to say, “no!”, this is the stick in the sand that says, this is the turning point for new and useful real world cinematic capabilities; i.e. Pirates 4; i.e. real and new capability rather than just a linear extension of current “video” technology.


The point being that RED and Jim Jannard happened to solve the problem in one particular way, for right now. I am willing to bet any amount of money, that in the future if there are newer and more substantially useful imaging technologies available that can be advanced then they will do that instead, BECAUSE they are in the business of developing cinematic camera systems. It may very well be that they use things in the future that are indeed a closer cousin to “video” technology, or in the future they may use something completely different that we cannot even imagine right now.


At a very gut level I feel that a very real tipping point has been reached, in terms of TRUE cinematic capability and that folks like Ridley and Jackson and Cameron say yup, let’s get on with it, let’s do it!... what’s next?!


I have a 1994 edition of the “Art of Digital Video” (focal press, John Watkins); the approaches presented in terms of signal processing are pretty sound, but in every other respect, everything is positively archaic. I just cannot understand why current practitioners in the field would choose to lump RED “scientifically” with video technology (which is not strictly correct), rather than saying this is the first of a new breed of instruments that actually meets most of the highest requirements demanded by high end digital cinematics? [That hasn’t happened before].


It’s odd, as I am an imaging and computer scientist arguing that people should see the instrument for how it’s used and its intended design, and yet a practitioner in the field (i.e. Dp/cinematographer) is arguing that on the basis of a collection of partially related sub processes that the thing should “scientifically” be put in the dusty old “video” “display case”.


I can promise you, nomenclatures; taxonomies etc. are VERY slippery slopes that in a lot of cases lead to nowhere. I see this a lot in many fields, for example in paleontology where we have had decades to debate the classification of basal forms of Triassic Dinosaur pre-cursors etc. etc. and yet everybody still spins their wheels.


So when the “bloke” that caused the RED/EPIC system to come into being says “digital cinema camera” that’s the design requirement it was designed to meet, cut him some slack;… he’s looking forwards, not backwards.


To use a biological or paleontological term he has effectively defined and created a new “holotype” and rightly so in my opinion.

Perhaps try to look at the EPIC as the “basal” form of a whole new breed of instruments, and yet like nature you will see other different cameras that will meet the full cinematic requirement (perhaps or eventually) using completely different methods and systems.

I really believe Pirates will be seen (years from now) as the defining tipping point. Just go with it…(and don’t feel bad about calling it “Digital Cinema Camera”, as that is what it is ); if it can “Do” video, that’s OK too.

[I think I’m done here, thanks for the really excellent responses].


Cheers,

Eric

 

[Ivan McCullough]

DM
"are you really saying that the single frame images from an Epic have more in common technologically with a film movie camera than, let's say, a 24P HD video camera, particularly a 35mm single sensor one like the Genesis or F35? That a 35mm Panaflex movie camera is closer to what the Epic is than an F35, even though the second uses a sensor that captures images electronically?”

YES

Not technologically but FUNCTIONALLY.


Eric

Ask any AC if a RED is functionally more like a film camera than a Genesis or F35. :biggrin:

I know your definition of 'functionally' is philosophically different to an AC's but I know which use of this particular word has more relevance to the perusers of this board.

 

[Eric Lange]

Ask any AC if a RED is functionally more like a film camera than a Genesis or F35. :biggrin:

I know your definition of 'functionally' is philosophically different to an AC's but I know which use of this particular word has more relevance to the perusers of this board.

That's very good.

[I’m not touching that one with a 50 thousand foot barge pole… again that does come back to design requirements again as mentioned by David; (cost is a massive design requirement) a set of cameras should not cost the same as a small battleship.]

I also get that to a seasoned cinematographer that handles these things on set and location every day, that it seems perverse that someone would argue that something that looks and feels a bit like a video camera/imaging device is a closer cousin in terms of “end function” to a noisy heavy lump that goes clackety clack that you have to load thousands of feet of “film” into. [Don’t get me wrong film is still great].

I see an integrated set of novel elements with an overall design and functional effect. Looking from that point of view I don’t see a “video” camera nor do the guys that built it? This is not religion or fan boy hype etc.


I can’t say that anyone is right or wrong other than the ways we might look at things (differently)?

On set “feel” and experience is different from what the thing says it does on the “tin”, I think people are just getting on with it.


Directors (at least with the EPIC) seem confident and happy that it does what it says it does on the tin and are happy to run with it, as is, right now, which I think you’ll agree IS amazing. The NEED for this type of imagery IS very real (obviously).

Ta.

Eric

 

[Justin Armstrong]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html
In the "off topic" section of reduser, I posted a link to Roger Eberts blog which also refers to the article you posted. Plus an article in Movietownnews.

Seems like I more or less struck gold when I mentioned this. A grainy, not crisp, murky-sort of gold. Articles have sprung up all over the internet.
I still don't understand us how people were convinced they could tell me what I saw at that particular viewing. I assume Roger Ebert and his thousands of hours of credibility are also crazy?

And who ever is taking low-blows at a preview of my future 3d demo reel...really? I'm not sure what that has to do with this debate.
It's not quite a school assignment. (It's dedication on my own time -- working my arse off to get my work seen)
Any professor assigning their class to model, texture, rig, and animate a fully functional transformer (in about 8 weeks) would be out of his/her mind, IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OaHQAn-gH0
Here is a link to the video in question since it's been brought up.

That's about all that needs be be said. Maybe I'm qualified to critique the upcoming TF3 film by your standards?

 

[Eric Lange]

I know I should have my head examined…

Justin, some kind words.


My father died a few years ago, but I know this is exactly what he would have said.

If you want to gain respect (especially from your peers and potential (future) employers) it ALWAYS pays to conduct oneself in a respectful manner. My father was a production designer for many years and art director on many movies (made in the UK, yeah!! (go UK)), such as 2001 space Odyssey, Empire Strikes Back & Jedi, Superman I and II, Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.. Dark Crystal and the Muppets Capter, Moonraker, Kelly’s Heroes’ and quite a few others.


He used to hire a lot of young talent based PURELY on their portfolio, not what school they went to or who they knew or who's relative they were etc. . Also of course the ones that didn’t have any particular talent, but somehow got in to make the tea in the art department, (for example) got to learn a LOT. The years go by and then you look at the credit lists and you see the guys and girls that were making the tea or fixed a good Vodka and tonic eventually become in several cases very successful producers in their own right. So high or low, it pays to treat everybody with a basic level of respect [Stanley Kubrick need not apply].


There are people out there that want to give YOUNG talent a chance. I have to say it absolutely blows me away the people that are ACTIVELY doing things right now that blow in to REDUSER/FORUM, and the fact that they take the time to share. So valuable…

Honestly if you are someone that wants to gain professional respect, regardless of talent or persistence you have to treat "People" with respect. It is possible to disagree without shooting yourself in the foot or have to really get in someone's face. (Rule number 1. Don't piss off the director, no matter how insignificant or important you might be, its a good skill to learn).


It really seems to me your “film-buds" gave you a really hard time and you felt perhaps let down. But I can tell you just around the corner are live capture technologies that firmly integrate 100% with CG work flow. In essence flawless reality capture, and I would say, RED is a very good horse to bet on to supply the RAW material for these more advanced technologies that perhaps you yourself will in the future be working with.


Tread light , take it in, ask good questions as there are some really super people here that really know their stuff that are really doing the work RIGHT NOW. This is very rare. TAKE ADVANATGE OF THAT.

Good Luck with your work.

Eric

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

I finally got to see the movie yesterday (in the Real D 3D process, so passive glasses) and it was almost great. I found it eligible to be called "the real POTC 2" as I found it to be better than P2 et P3 and to carry the same kind of spirit as P1 had.

And the pictures ARE GRRRREEEEAT ! Congratulations to the team (and to the company who may have build the cameras... Don't know who did.... )

PS : at some moments I found the moves of the characters to be weird. It was "as fluid" as watching something on a crappy (I think) 600Hz mode on some HDTV screens.

 

[Brad Allen]

PS : at some moments I found the moves of the characters to be weird. It was "as fluid" as watching something on a crappy (I think) 600Hz mode on some HDTV screens.

Yes!

I watched it at the drive-ins and assumed something must have been wrong with the projection system. The whole film felt like it was shot at about 35-40fps instead of 24fps. The section where Jack is locked in the back of the horse and carriage and is bouncing around a bit while talking really made me notice that something was wrong. Maybe I am more sensitive to this than other people, but it drove me crazy. It didn't feel like a feature film.

I guess this is something I am going to have to get (at least partly) used to with some 3D blockbusters now aiming at 48fps.