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 :)

EPIC being challenged by the 5D people...

Status
Not open for further replies.
jorge krausch said:
i dont want to sound like a crazy guy.. but a deep part of me believes a future with lighting-free filmmaking. A sensor as sensitive as the human eye. Using real available light.. after all, isnt lighting basically a way to try to make an image equivalent of what the human eye sees? Lighting in the future i think will just be for artistic expression, to make images differ to what a person sees day to day. because the sensor will no longer need it. just a crazy theory
Click to expand...

No!
 
jorge krausch said:
i dont want to sound like a crazy guy.. but a deep part of me believes a future with lighting-free filmmaking. A sensor as sensitive as the human eye. Using real available light.. after all, isnt lighting basically a way to try to make an image equivalent of what the human eye sees? Lighting in the future i think will just be for artistic expression, to make images differ to what a person sees day to day. because the sensor will no longer need it. just a crazy theory
Click to expand...
I can see where you're going but ...Lighting free? I hope not. Documentary or reality run n gun sure...but lighting is like our paintbrush and the sensor captures it. You can shape your scene and set mood..in a narrative I don't want to capture the equivalent of the human eye, I want to convey a feeling and mood and tell a story without words, and lighting plays a gigantic part in that.
 
MV5BMjE2MTI0MDU2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjc2NTY2Mg@@._V1._SX600_SY410_.jpg


pink.jpg


Pink_Floyd_The_Wall_01.jpg


clockwork-orange2.jpg


576


large_ran_blu-ray1x.jpg


haradamiekoran.jpg


kill_bill_screenshot_002.jpg


ActChaplinModernTimes.jpg


Dude... Get some lights... :)
 
jorge krausch said:
hum.. so technically.. in a very low light situation and you are gorilla shooting without lighting for a few permit-free shots.. its good to have a 5D body in your backpack just in case ;)
Click to expand...


Now we are talking about film making strategies and not camera performance, of course you could more easily grab a shot in a low light situation with a DSLR...you could also more easily grab an underwater shot with a GoPro.
 
I hope that young DPs don't think "lighting free" is the future or that "natural light" means "point camera at actor, crank up ISO, open to f1.4". There is just as much work to getting "natural" light to play nice as setting up artificial lighting.

Each to their own, but to me lighting is as big an aspect as the screenplay -- without it, you might just as well pack up and go home.

Disclaimer: I am one of the aforementioned "young DPs" -- well, I guess it depends on how you define "young" ;)
 
Paul Russell said:
Why is that? Does it cause flicker?
Click to expand...
This is way off topic ... not that this whole thread is off topic ... but here's a great explanation of lighting theory the Academy is doing ... on the link http://www.oscars.org/science-techno...ssl/index.html ... if you click on the movie which is on the right side "Emulsion and Color" ...

On another note ... I really wish there was a WIKI someplace on RED ... first area would be "Why RAW", then something on lighting for red, the spatial frequency for digital sampling (all the threads on lens clarity slay me) ... then the wierd RED specific stuff ... there's probably about 2000 pages of great material i have found here in reduser.net (I have only been in here since Nov. 3rd ) , but it's a lot of work finding it ... and you have to verify everything you read.
 
jorge krausch said:
i dont want to sound like a crazy guy.. but a deep part of me believes a future with lighting-free filmmaking. A sensor as sensitive as the human eye. Using real available light.. after all, isnt lighting basically a way to try to make an image equivalent of what the human eye sees? Lighting in the future i think will just be for artistic expression, to make images differ to what a person sees day to day. because the sensor will no longer need it. just a crazy theory
Click to expand...

I hope not. I just bought $10k more in lights a couple months ago.
 
I don't think Jorge is crazy and I've had the same fears for a while myself. It's a natural extrapolation of the pace of current camera development, and the reasoning behind current trends like 3D and 48fps. A future of 'naturalistic' cinema is certainly possible, but it won't be DOPs driving it. At the point where camera sensors are able to react to light in the same way as the human eye, I can see why many directors will want to shoot that way for reasons of authenticity and placing the audience in what feels like a very real scenario.

I hope not though because at that point most of us will be out of a job.
 
Chris Sharman said:
I don't think Jorge is crazy and I've had the same fears for a while myself. It's a natural extrapolation of the pace of current camera development, and the reasoning behind current trends like 3D and 48fps. A future of 'naturalistic' cinema is certainly possible, but it won't be DOPs driving it. At the point where camera sensors are able to react to light in the same way as the human eye, I can see why many directors will want to shoot that way for reasons of authenticity and placing the audience in what feels like a very real scenario.

I hope not though because at that point most of us will be out of a job.
Click to expand...


+ 1
 
Michael Dalton said:
So if it is true that the 5d is better in low light, who the F* cares when the image it produces is crap.
Click to expand...
It isn't even a 720-line video camera. I appreciate why Phil likes it - it's a cheap form of VistaVision. I really do understand that. But as a movie camera it's a virtual train-wreck.

But for those who want to shoot movies with a cheap camera, the APS-C DSLRs are better cameras for that... Oh, but wait, I forgot, they don't have razor-thin DOF, therefore they don't have the 'cinematic look'. ZOMG! Oh, sorry, what was I thinking? I will do penance and wear a cilice for a week.
 
are people seriously debating about these things, as in proper filmmakers that have experience with both systems ???
comparing a 5D to an Epic is about as pointless as comparing an aston martin to a hot air balloon. yes the balloon flies...but the aston martin gets you laid and comes in metallic green.

I understand that it its more a matter of budget and affordability for most, but lets be serious...would anyone in their right mind ever choose a 5D over an epic ? you cant judged a whole camera system on one little technicality where it might excel over the other.

the power switch on my old Arri SRII was easier to flick than the one on my RED ONE...does that make the Arri superior ?

I almost feel sorry for people who can spend hours writing up pages upon pages with technical discussions about such things, desperately trying to defend one thing over another by clinging to details no-one in the real world wastes a second thought on....or has anyone here in this forum had some serous issues with the performance of their EPICS and thought...."DAMN...should have bought a 5D instead" ??? ...seriously...lets spend the time shooting instead and having fun and gaining practical experience with the cameras we love.

as long as you know what you can and cannot get out of ANY camera system, youre safe.

on that note....Happy New Year Red Peeps !
 
Dominik Muench said:
yes the balloon flies...but the aston martin gets you laid and comes in metallic green.
Click to expand...
LOL. Plus one, baby. Plus one.

Oh, and happy new year to you, too!

P.S. Is the inverse true? That is, when I next get laid, will I get a metallic green Aston Martin? Perhaps some research is necessary to gather more data to better understand this hypothesis.
 
I, for one, would like to know the post processing used on that cell phone shot. That looks a whole lot cleaner than anything I've ever been able to achieve at even 2400. There has to be some magic involved in there somewhere.

Stephen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top