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 :)

How much of "Wanted" was shot with RED?

The shock wave just rattled my windows. Congratulations, Jim and RED team. And thank you.
 
See, now that's the kind of honesty and openness that makes this whole thing so organic. Thanks, Jon, for your willingness to be completely open about that. The Jim Jannard Way.
 
Nikolai Vavilov said:
Several days ago I had the opportunity to ask this question directly to Timur Bekmabetov. The answer was - nothing. They do some tests with red prototypes during filming Wanted, but there is not a single frame "shot on Red" in this movie.
On the other hand, Timur have very positive view on Red. He said that at the moment they filmed Wanted camera was too "raw" for real work, but for now Red is usable and keep growing quickly.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should ask him again? If no RED footage reaches the final cut then I would say he gave you an honest answer.
 
JonFarhat said:
Before we left Prague, we took the footage shot so far and filmed them out. We scanned the film at 4k, and for every shot would follow with a 4k from the RED. Both were color corrected in the Baselight to match. I screened the results for Mitch and his team. They couldn't tell the difference. Seriously. And Mitch and Andy have sharp, sharp eyes.
Click to expand...

Pretty much says it all. Whether any RED makes the final cut is irrelevant.
 
Pretty much says it all. Whether any RED makes the final cut is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Exactly,

I personally don’t care if Red is ever judged to shoot “better” than film quality. The fact that talented professionals can shoot side by side with film and challenge other pros to “tell the difference” is more exciting than having a few shots used in the movie. The difference in format justifies using the film IMHO. But Jon’s post make’s me all the more proud, to put down my money down on Red, after last NAB.


Frank
 
I'll try to ask Timur again about this.
I hope he was wrong, or I misunderstand something.
 
Yey! We won't hear anymore speculations about that mystery! Thanks guys! Thanks for taking the time to post, thanks to take invaluable time during a film shoot to host prototype equipment, thanks for your involvement in the development of the camera, thanks to Jim to put it up to real in situ and not be a toy maker. It's reassuring for us and... Entertaining?! I feel like part of Apple 25 years ago! Can I buy stock?!!!
 
Kjetil Haugen said:
Could you elaborate on this? Would that mean adding grain, reduce sharpness? Would be valuable info..
Click to expand...

Kjetil

By "dumb down" I am referring to the following.

FILM

1. We were shooting Kodak, 5218 film stock. Mitch, the DP, and the Gaffer Andy produced a great, balanced neg. And still they had a real gutsy style of exposing for the shadows and letting the highlights pop.

2. The blue record in this stock is very, very grainy. Essentially hellish for bluescreens. The green channel is beautiful - thus green screen.

3. DP's like 18. It's fast, and has a wide latitude. VFX people cry when trying to pull mattes from it.

4. When you scan Super 35 (35 full neg) and do so at 4096 h., you take a real sharp picture of the grain structure.

RED

1. The camera crew thought it would be telling to take the early RED prototype and point it directly into lights, bright windows behind our subjects, etc. Jim and Jarred, (and even myself then) were cringing. We were shocked when we analyzed the takes, (instantly I might add) and there was an amazing amount of detail in the windows and sky. More than the 5218. We had to clip the RED a bit to match.

2. The blue record on the RED images is quite amazing. Even a major improvement since we shot in Prague. The cameras we used later in Chicago sported a greater dynamic range and an even more improved blue record. In both cases, we needed to add some contrast and throw some data away to match the film response.

3. Pulling mattes from green screen using RED is much easier than film and frankly any other digital image and works much better than the Genesis system for instance. For a couple years people have been been saying that pulling keys from Genesis is easy. True, but only for the body of the key. The sharper edges means that when you do have a problem with an edge, it's real ugly. Instead, RED's 4k resolution defines the properties of an edge without the need of sharpening. The keys AND EDGES are stunning.

4. Ahhh. The grain. Do we add grain to RED images to be intercut? Or rely on the output stock? We did both. Pre-grain helped. However, I might add that if I were shooting a movie entirely RED, and the delivery was film, I would forget the idea of post grain and go straight to film.

Having said all that, film has been our standard. But now, we are seeing that we might actually be able to over-sample to achieve the 'film look'.

Hope this answers your question
best
j
 
Thanks for you enlightenment Jon! Great post.

Graeme
 
JonFarhat said:
Kjetil

By "dumb down" I am referring to the following.

FILM

1. We were shooting Kodak, 5218 film stock. Mitch, the DP, and the Gaffer Andy produced a great, balanced neg. And still they had a real gutsy style of exposing for the shadows and letting the highlights pop.

2. The blue record in this stock is very, very grainy. Essentially hellish for bluescreens. The green channel is beautiful - thus green screen.

3. DP's like 18. It's fast, and has a wide latitude. VFX people cry when trying to pull mattes from it.

4. When you scan Super 35 (35 full neg) and do so at 4096 h., you take a real sharp picture of the grain structure.

RED

1. The camera crew thought it would be telling to take the early RED prototype and point it directly into lights, bright windows behind our subjects, etc. Jim and Jarred, (and even myself then) were cringing. We were shocked when we analyzed the takes, (instantly I might add) and there was an amazing amount of detail in the windows and sky. More than the 5218. We had to clip the RED a bit to match.

2. The blue record on the RED images is quite amazing. Even a major improvement since we shot in Prague. The cameras we used later in Chicago sported a greater dynamic range and an even more improved blue record. In both cases, we needed to add some contrast and throw some data away to match the film response.

3. Pulling mattes from green screen using RED is much easier than film and frankly any other digital image and works much better than the Genesis system for instance. For a couple years people have been been saying that pulling keys from Genesis is easy. True, but only for the body of the key. The sharper edges means that when you do have a problem with an edge, it's real ugly. Instead, RED's 4k resolution defines the properties of an edge without the need of sharpening. The keys AND EDGES are stunning.

4. Ahhh. The grain. Do we add grain to RED images to be intercut? Or rely on the output stock? We did both. Pre-grain helped. However, I might add that if I were shooting a movie entirely RED, and the delivery was film, I would forget the idea of post grain and go straight to film.

Having said all that, film has been our standard. But now, we are seeing that we might actually be able to over-sample to achieve the 'film look'.

Hope this answers your question
best
j
Click to expand...

Amazing!

The same I wrote before.

Shoot RED.

Edit, VFX, grade/CC, add sound, titles, etc... = POST.

Then record your 4K or 2K master to film negative for example on Kodak Vision 5218.

Print on film for example on Kodak Vision 2383.

Then everybody could say it's shot on film.

NO, you can give them a short answer.

It's shot on RED.
 
Thank you so much for this insight, John. Great to hear that the camera performs so beautifully...
 
JonFarhat said:
Kjetil

By "dumb down" I am referring to the following.

FILM

1. We were shooting Kodak, 5218 film stock. Mitch, the DP, and the Gaffer Andy produced a great, balanced neg. And still they had a real gutsy style of exposing for the shadows and letting the highlights pop.

2. The blue record in this stock is very, very grainy. Essentially hellish for bluescreens. The green channel is beautiful - thus green screen.

3. DP's like 18. It's fast, and has a wide latitude. VFX people cry when trying to pull mattes from it.

4. When you scan Super 35 (35 full neg) and do so at 4096 h., you take a real sharp picture of the grain structure.

RED

1. The camera crew thought it would be telling to take the early RED prototype and point it directly into lights, bright windows behind our subjects, etc. Jim and Jarred, (and even myself then) were cringing. We were shocked when we analyzed the takes, (instantly I might add) and there was an amazing amount of detail in the windows and sky. More than the 5218. We had to clip the RED a bit to match.

2. The blue record on the RED images is quite amazing. Even a major improvement since we shot in Prague. The cameras we used later in Chicago sported a greater dynamic range and an even more improved blue record. In both cases, we needed to add some contrast and throw some data away to match the film response.

3. Pulling mattes from green screen using RED is much easier than film and frankly any other digital image and works much better than the Genesis system for instance. For a couple years people have been been saying that pulling keys from Genesis is easy. True, but only for the body of the key. The sharper edges means that when you do have a problem with an edge, it's real ugly. Instead, RED's 4k resolution defines the properties of an edge without the need of sharpening. The keys AND EDGES are stunning.

4. Ahhh. The grain. Do we add grain to RED images to be intercut? Or rely on the output stock? We did both. Pre-grain helped. However, I might add that if I were shooting a movie entirely RED, and the delivery was film, I would forget the idea of post grain and go straight to film.

Having said all that, film has been our standard. But now, we are seeing that we might actually be able to over-sample to achieve the 'film look'.

Hope this answers your question
best
j
Click to expand...

Thanks Jon. I'm helping some VFX people get to know Red better this week and this is GOLD!
 
Thanks for the information, Jim & Jon.

Can you tell us if Red footage made it into the final cut?

Now that the film is out, will there be any chance of seeing the Red shots (whether or not they are in the film)?

Cheers
 
lightman said:
Thanks for the information, Jim & Jon.

Can you tell us if Red footage made it into the final cut?
Click to expand...

All RED shots were shot alongside a 35mm camera so the 35mm footage was used to keep the continuity. No reason to use RED footage and none of it was. BUT the RED footage was reported to look as good as the 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top