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 :)

Film vs Red in music videos

Sheltie Guy said:
So, is this shot from 35mm or from Red? If you already know from my previous post, don't give it away.
Click to expand...

So if it is red do you have a video i can see somewhere please?
By the way, I have to say this is the sharpest still from RED footage I have ever seen. What settings, gear did you use? Looking at some RED stills you can sometimes tell its a still from moving footage but this... no way... Looks shot with a still camera.
 
It's Red

It's Red

Shot with Red #100, non X model, Canon 70-200mm L lens at 2.8 using a Birger prototype mount. I used RedCine with a litle curve top and bottom and added more than a bit of saturation. This shot is a little softer than what I am getting with the Canon L primes, but only a little. I think that if I had added grain you might have guessed film. I'll be adding a lot of test footage next week.
Canon 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 300mm 2.8, 16-35 2.8 II, 28-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8.
 
Sheltie Guy said:
Shot with Red #100, non X model, Canon 70-200mm L lens at 2.8 using a Birger prototype mount. I used RedCine with a litle curve top and bottom and added more than a bit of saturation. This shot is a little softer than what I am getting with the Canon L primes, but only a little. I think that if I had added grain you might have guessed film. I'll be adding a lot of test footage next week.
Canon 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 300mm 2.8, 16-35 2.8 II, 28-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8.
Click to expand...

Accept for the basic photography techno most of what your saying is chinese to me so i guess i need to read up on red cinematography but please confirm this for me. The numbers infront of the camera everyone mentions is just a serial number during the reservation purchase correct?

Are these still 35mm Canon lenses? I assume they are much cheaper then zeiss and cooke primes, have you compared them at all? If that still was a Canon zoom I can only imagine what the prime will do.
What is the birger prototype and the non x model?
I need an 18mm FL does Canon have such a thing in normal speed prime?
 
Canon still lenses

Canon still lenses

ter for Birger. Yes the Canon lenses are very much less expensive than PL mount Zeiss lenses. There are many great things about the Birger system which will start shipping as production model around the first part of March. The Birger mount is made in 2 parts. The submount and the EOS mount. The EOS mount can be swapped for other Birger mounts: Nikon, Four Thirds, even a Birger PL mount. This system will retain proper back focus between all various Birger mounts. Also the EOS mount features electronic control of Canon lenses internal iris and focus motors so you will not need a dedicated and heavy and ents: Nikon, Four Thirds, even a Birger PL mount. This system will retain proper back focus between all various Birger mounts. Also the EOS mount features electronic control of Canon lenses internal iris and focus motors so you will not need (expensive and heavy and time consuming to align with lens changes) external focus motors or gears. The Birger follow focus and iris control will even work as a remote with bluetooth. Birger is going to convert a lot of traditional thinking in the motion picture business. Are the Canon lenses as good as cine lenses? It will be a very subjective answer. Some of the Canon lenses will not breath some will. Some of the Zooms will breath at the wider end and not at the Tele end. The picture quality will not be quite as good with some Canon lenses and probably much better with others. The Canon lenses for full frame will only be using the center portion which is the sweet spot for lenses, Cine lenses only cover the 35mm Cine sensor area and are going to exhibit more problems at the edges of the frame than many of the Canon lenses. Until side by side test are done the jury will still be out on which lenses are superior but I personally feel that the Canon lenses, especially the L series, are so sharp ( when shot open to f4 or f5.6 ) that it is necessary to knock the sharpness down with diffusion or blurring in post.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
First link is dead for me too. Second link video does look a bit flat. Has nothing to do with RED, that's the color grade applied to that footage and who knows what else. ...Actually, did they even apply much of a grade? looks somewhat muted, I just took that as a stylistic choice though - same with the blown-out sky when she's under the bridge or light at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...
If I remember right that clip was a rough cut and not the final product, which was promised but not uploaded I think.

But yes, it's down to grading in the end. You can easily make Red look like 35mm film OR video, that's the beauty of it.

Cheers,

Paul
 
BASSAM MSSALATIE said:
no i think i disagree with you . it is not a matter of tool it is all about
who is using this tool.
Red alret is so important with its curves it is not only simple curves
it is placed fo skilled (operator) .(someone know's) about colors
and color wheel and color balance theory .i mean an skilled Artist because your are doing
something Art is part of it is ( colors )
Click to expand...

As someone doing a lot of color corrections for over 10 years I have to disagree until a certain point. You are right saying it is the artist - but without tools giving him the freedom to make anything he wants he won't get the best results. There is much more in grading than just dragging some curves around. You need to track masks, decide what is important or not, hide things or emphasize them, change the mood and many more.
 
Loved it, nice work Rainer.
Aloha
-A
 
Very nice Rainer! Thanks for posting...what 35mm camera did you use!

Really... what post solution and lens selection did you use?

Dave
 
Hi all,

I'm the director/DP of the filmed video that is linked on the first page of the thread. It was shot in London on Super 16mm, 45 degree shutter, Kodak Vision 2 7218, Cooke 8-64mm, soft f/x filter 1/2, and 1 and then transferred in Toronto at Technicolor.

Crewpix (How's it going by the way?) is very right, a professional transfer is a critical part of achieving that good ol' music video look. That said, I'm really looking forward to shooting on the Red at some point. Thus far the only work that I've shot professionally has been on either 35mm or 16mm film.

With every new project that comes across my table I'm tempted to shoot on the Red but a couple things keep me from doing it. I'm concerned about the post process with the Red and my transfer artist (and they are definitely artists) in Los Angeles has said that he's not overly impressed with the images he's seen come out of the Red.

Personally, I've seen some impressive stuff from the Red. Marc Bachli, another member on this site, shot a video on his Red that he showed me in his online suite in Toronto and I was blown away. Looked to me like grainless 35mm film. ;)

I guess Red image quality partially depends on where you stand - i.e., my transfer artist is probably looking at it from a coloring point of view - less latitude = inferior ability to push the image around (although he also simply said better images could be achieved on Super 16mm and that he was more impressed with the Viper; he colored an award-winning and gorgeous looking vid that was shot on the Viper).

Whereas, as a director sometimes forced to shoot on 16mm, due to budget, the grainless and pristine imagery that I see coming out of the Red gets me drooling a bit.

Personally, I'm looking forwards to seeing more footage from the Red and to a post workflow that does a bit more flowing... ;)

All best,

Evan
 
Sleepless in Sonora

Sleepless in Sonora

Well, I guess I'm rather discouraged. :sad: I downloaded off the Red site both stills and video that Red proudly states are Hollywood motion pictures shot using Red One. I thought it would be fun to run, side by side, with a Hollywood film that was shot with 35mm film. I choose 3:10 to Yuma. You know, forget all the tech talk and just look at the END RESULT. I hate to be the one who says the emperor has no clothes, but in my opinion video from Red looks like, well, video. 35 mm is SHARP and CLEAR and RICH. Details jump out. It's gorgeous. At least in 3:10 to Yuma.

On the other hand, the video from the RED site looks as though you were looking through a slightly milky ground glass lens, at least in comparison. And I don't even think it's all that subtle. I can now spot video a mile away. I hope I'm just seeing bad video due to technique. I would LOVE to see side by side comparison of RED footage and then 35 mm that was even just close. Somebody send me the footage that everyone says looks so much like film they can't tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I WANT Red to be as good as 35mm. I can't afford film so my dream of making a movie is over if I would have to go to film. I've downloaded other sites that have footage shot with RED, and that was even worse. To this date, if shot on panasonic HVX 200 or RED it all looks VIDEO. It was that video look from my Panasonic HVX200 that made me discouraged enough to sell it planning to buy a RED ONE.

Who can afford a Panavision 35 mm camera ($3000/day at least), purchase film and have enough of a budget to have an actor or two in it? At least no indie filmmakers I know. It's just that film is really so beautiful and I want my 'film' to look like that!
 
6bitgulch said:
Well, I guess I'm rather discouraged. :sad: I downloaded off the Red site both stills and video that Red proudly states are Hollywood motion pictures shot using Red One. I thought it would be fun to run, side by side, with a Hollywood film that was shot with 35mm film. I choose 3:10 to Yuma. You know, forget all the tech talk and just look at the END RESULT. I hate to be the one who says the emperor has no clothes, but in my opinion video from Red looks like, well, video. 35 mm is SHARP and CLEAR and RICH. Details jump out. It's gorgeous. At least in 3:10 to Yuma.

On the other hand, the video from the RED site looks as though you were looking through a slightly milky ground glass lens, at least in comparison. And I don't even think it's all that subtle. I can now spot video a mile away. I hope I'm just seeing bad video due to technique. I would LOVE to see side by side comparison of RED footage and then 35 mm that was even just close. Somebody send me the footage that everyone says looks so much like film they can't tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I WANT Red to be as good as 35mm. I can't afford film so my dream of making a movie is over if I would have to go to film. I've downloaded other sites that have footage shot with RED, and that was even worse. To this date, if shot on panasonic HVX 200 or RED it all looks VIDEO. It was that video look from my Panasonic HVX200 that made me discouraged enough to sell it planning to buy a RED ONE.

Who can afford a Panavision 35 mm camera ($3000/day at least), purchase film and have enough of a budget to have an actor or two in it? At least no indie filmmakers I know. It's just that film is really so beautiful and I want my 'film' to look like that!
Click to expand...

When you did your comparison - were you comparing in a theatre with projection? On DVD? Blu-Ray?
I don't think it's fair to make this comparison without truly comparing a 4K RED shot with a 35mm shot on a projected screen.
Just my opinion...
 
6bitgulch said:
Who can afford a Panavision 35 mm camera ($3000/day at least), purchase film and have enough of a budget to have an actor or two in it? At least no indie filmmakers I know. It's just that film is really so beautiful and I want my 'film' to look like that!
Click to expand...


35 mm/super 16 mm cameras are not that expensive. I have seen 35mm cameras for $350 - $450/day.

Film stock is relatively cheap also. Look around and you will find deals.
Do not assume and get discouraged.
 
6bitgulch, check out this thread and watch the linked videos there.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10527

You can't compare compressed H.264 with the full resolution 4K clips, so download RedCine (it's free) and download some R3D files from Redrelay.net and render out some 2K ProRes files... do some nice color correction (remember RED footage looks just like un-color corrected 35mm - milky and low contrast - color correction makes it POP) Then, you'll have a better idea of what RED footage can be.
 
I just downloaded the clips from the RED site and viewed them on my Mac Pro. Great monitor and video card. Then I put in a new DVD of 3:10 to yuma and played them side by side on my computer. That's all. I agree kowboy that all things being equal it would be best to compare on a projected screen. And thanks Chuckt. I won't get discouraged! I am a big fan of cinematography. I love Jack Green's work in Unforgiven. There is one shot of Sierra Engine 3 rounding a corner. It takes up about 6 seconds of film time but it is stunning. When you see that you want to emulate it no matter how hard it is to do. Getting back to video, and specifically HD, there is a channel on TV called call the Equator Channel that shows aerial shots of countryside such as Italy, Greece. You get the idea. Although not a film look it is beautiful in it's own right. I remember seeing HD 1080i for the first time and it blew me away. Clear without that milky groundglass look I downloaded off the RED site. Anyway, I have my $1750 down on a RED camera and am told I will have my camera midsummer. It's just hard to take it all on faith when I haven't seen the images yet to make me a true believer. I would hope users on this site are a little like me. We of course want the best canvas and palette we can get for the money. Film or digital! Also, I have a website www.6bitgulch.com It is in a state of development. Main page has a short clip of a double header steam engine shot with my, now sold, panasonic HVX 200.
 
In the right hands, most would not be able to tell the difference.
 
6bitgulch said:
Anyway, I have my $1750 down on a RED camera and am told I will have my camera midsummer. It's just hard to take it all on faith when I haven't seen the images yet to make me a true believer.
Click to expand...

What was the budget on 3:10 to Yuma? And you're comparing what they got with some clips on the Internet from RED? It's not a fair fight.

Here's the deal, film has more dynamic range. Movies with big scenic exteriors are likely to look better on film. Plus 3:10 was shot anamorphic. Maybe that's what you're really responding to. I'm not sure anything has been shot anamorphic on RED yet - though it appears it may be possible.

Having said that, RED can look very filmic if the DP & colorist are good (provided similar production value). The look of these movies is really crafted in post by talented pros. If you want RED to look great you're going to have to hire or acquire that skill.
 
Regarding post, I will be using final cut pro studio 2. Reviewing Red Alert! today. It appears to do alot of the same things photoshop does for RAW stills. Great! I plan my great experiment tomorrow when I will download a R3D file and put it through RedCine. Has anyone ever brought up the anamorphic issue with RED? Anything in the works? As far as the look of digital, what gives me hope at this point is my experience with 7M digital shots from my Sony R1. RAW looks okay. But put it through photoshop CS2, adjust contrast, color, etc. and the final image is perfection. If that same thing can be done with Red RAW through RedCine and RedAlert! then I'm sold on Red. I understand that it probably takes millions of dollars and many gifted people in all phases of production to get a 3:10 to Yuma. But isn't it beautiful? Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top