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 :)

4k PRO RES... Real time in full res!!... WOW!!!!

Mark Toia said:
Even thought I have no interest in FCP X - (well had no interest) all of a sudden I see light at the end of the tunnel.

Im not allowed to tell you anymore than this.. I could get shot.
Click to expand...

I've just started to use it more and more. I have to say I'm really impressed with how it operates. To start with it feels awkward, but as soon as you get the hang of it, your literally flying.
 
Mark Toia said:
The FCP - X was a beta test. (hence why I could be hunted down by apple for leaking this stuff.. but then again, it wasn't like it was to hidden)
What I did notice though was it had external screen settings when the operator went through the video settings... It also had import XML... which sound promising.
Playback... ooops who said that. :)))))
Click to expand...
Unless you signed some kind of NDA with Apple, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
FCP-X 10.1 supports XML in and out, so that's not really new. The only new thing I see in this test is the support for Decklink, that was promised by Apple and BM a while ago. Happy to see, that that is finally coming, I think:-)
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The major "forgotten" benefit of RAW is that there's less things to worry about while shooting. Forget to set white balance, ISO etc. Or set them wrong and it matters little as the image recorded is not effected. By reducing worry of "which super-hyper-mega-ultra gamma do I record with today, what black expand-contract-detail setting do I set" you can concentrate more on making movies and less on nuances of camera setup.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
Metadata recording allows post professionals many more technical and creative options, while reducing possibilities of bonehead decisions on set:-)
 
I agree that RAW offers the greatest quality and flexibility. But I've found deadline trumps flexibility almost always. If the future really is 4K, as it seems. If a RT prores, or similar, device found it's way into the post world. A lot of producers are going to want to shoot with cameras that support it, just to skip the transcoding. I hate to say it, but a lot of the commercials we shoot with our Red MX, are sent to Post Houses that just pull the footage in via log and transfer as the spot was due yesterday and they can't afford the time for the transcode.
 
Philip Powell said:
I agree that RAW offers the greatest quality and flexibility. But I've found deadline trumps flexibility almost always. If the future really is 4K, as it seems. If a RT prores, or similar, device found it's way into the post world. A lot of producers are going to want to shoot with cameras that support it, just to skip the transcoding. I hate to say it, but a lot of the commercials we shoot with our Red MX, are sent to Post Houses that just pull the footage in via log and transfer as the spot was due yesterday and they can't afford the time for the transcode.
Click to expand...
Which speaks to two problems that really have nothing to do with RED cameras. Unrealistic budgets, and some bad producing. I work a lot in commercials, so I see the challenges, but ultimately it's hard to make a chocolate cake without the chocolate. In other words, if you are shooting with RED and have no intention of ever using it properly, why bother? That's not to say you can't get lucky with the method you described. And with some carefully planned out workflows it's possble to get some nice footage without RAW processing/transcode but quite often, it's just a hack job resulting from rushing things through the pipeline. Post houses have become more educated though over the past year or so. Sometimes it's not by choice but just time/budget that they have to compromise.

So, what does this mean? We are living in a day and age where everyone wants more for less. Cheap, fast, good principle still applies for the most part. I think many productions are leaning towards cheap/fast and hoping for good. Again, sometimes you get lucky. The 35mm days of getting it right, even if it takes time and money may be heading for extinction, or at least limited to a small slice of commercial production. Then again, maybe I'm off in my assessment. That's always a possibility.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The major "forgotten" benefit of RAW is that there's less things to worry about while shooting. Forget to set white balance, ISO etc. Or set them wrong and it matters little as the image recorded is not effected. By reducing worry of "which super-hyper-mega-ultra gamma do I record with today, what black expand-contract-detail setting do I set" you can concentrate more on making movies and less on nuances of camera setup.

Graeme
Click to expand...

As one who will, however reluctantly, admit to "making mistakes" on set, I very much value the chance for a "do over" when I get to post! RAW not only opens up all sorts of creative possibilities but, as Graeme implies, those of us who aren't always "perfect" can cover up our boo-boos, too. :smiley:
 
Well, you can do that still, just repair your mistakes in a first light with RCX Pro and continue with ProRes after that.

I've seen a ProRes 4444 production (white cube, critical skin tones) on the largest screen in my city and it didn't look bad at all (film-out from 2K).

Maybe I'll have to look into FCPX soon…
 
I know I've said it for a while but the software is liberating.

The core of my career has been in front of an NLE in just about every situation you can imagine.

This software is the first offering to address and solve many bottlenecks of traditional NLE's.

It's just going to get better too. again. I am talking about tens of thousands of hours as an editor not ten weeks.


David
 
Uli Plank said:
Well, you can do that still, just repair your mistakes in a first light with RCX Pro and continue with ProRes after that.

I've seen a ProRes 4444 production (white cube, critical skin tones) on the largest screen in my city and it didn't look bad at all (film-out from 2K).

Maybe I'll have to look into FCPX soon…
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was unclear; that is exactly my point. I love REDCode RAW, RC-X and FCPX. As they begin to integrated more, the options for efficient and effective workflow will only increase.
 
I think most people like the fact that they do not have to transcode. This is why folks are hoping to see r3d in FCP-X at some point soon (hopefully soon but maybe not until mid next year probably)

Many people are opting for a prorez one light and never looking back.

This is fast but can defeat the purpose. Why?

- Doing a final render from r3d is better.

The problem is that while you might be able to use r3d natively in the workflow, other problems present themselves.

-effect shots for example. you can't keep the r3d container in a online with effects shots, but you can within a prores or DPX container.

When FCP s supports r3d (and I think it has to) then the workflow could be very silky)

Create lightweight media to edit with and then turn on full quality after Picture lock and grade from the r3d before final render to output etc.

I hope there is RED RAY authouring right out of FCP X at some point down the line as well.


David


(PS: I know a lot of people are going to say you can do this right now out of premiere but I stand by the fact that for me an OFFLINE (rendered red media) ONLINE (relink to r3d in resolve, coor baselight, pablo, etc) workflow is the wise way to go.

I don't feel that r3d was ever meant to be an RT codec and it is not as "smooth" as people using premiere would try to have you believe.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top