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 :)

Full-frontal insidious attack on Red, by indie director Rian Johnson (2008)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dan Carew

Active member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OK, so I get a Google email alert today linking to this Red-bashing blog post , which gleefully quotes from indie director Rian Johnson's diatribe against Red, entitled "Red Bull".

Here's a quote and the core of Johnson's argument:

The RED camera does not do what it claims...it does not hold a candle to regularly used high-end HD, let alone film. And we're going to tell you why....

It's seductive to see beautiful test footage played as a compressed and down-sized Quicktime file on your computer and be wowed by it, and if a computer or tv screen is your project's final destination, you need look no further. But if you're shooting for theatrical projection, it's important to remember that you haven't actually evaluated the RED camera's results until you've seen them projected full quality on professional equipment.

We have. And under these conditions we could plainly see huge splotches of compression clumping and artificial-looking colors.​

The rest is rehashed dumbed-down attack on Red's CMOS 4K and Red's compression--sophistry at its best--bordering on slanderous (accusing Red of being "misleading at best" and full of "bull").

Hey Rian, we don't need you to protect us indie filmmakers from the "big bad" Red.

Rian writes:

I'm just a filmmaker, I have no stake in RED succeeding or not succeeding in the marketplace. But a few of my best friends are DPs, and over the past year the gap between what their research into the realities of RED turned up and the claims that were being flung around in the press grew wider and wider, until we all decided that we'd feel a little less irked if these disparities were at least available somewhere on the internet. So I'm posting them here on my site.​

Rian, here's an open challenge to you and your anonymous (which seems to me cowardly) DP friends: please post here or on your blog frames (or sections of frames) of 4K TIFFs of Red footage showing "huge splotches of compression clumping and artificial colors". I'm sure improper post-production handling can produce this. But I've seen a lot of Red footage (both digitally projected and film out) and I've never seen this. So your attack is a cheap shot in my book. Attempt to piss in Red's well plain and simple.

Put up or shut up, I say. The implication of your article is that I'm a dupe (as are Peter Jackson, Steven Soderbergh, Tony Richmond, John Leonetti, Doug Liman, etc., etc.)

Sincerely,

Dan Carew
Indie filmmaker and proud clear-eyed owner of Red #1304
 
Dan, I'm not standing against you on this. I understand why this upsets you. But is it worth it? You can't make everyone like you. Not even RED. You are what you think about - and Rian seems to be keen on focusing about negative stuff.

I've seen RED projected 4K on a huge screen - it looked better then all 35 mm projections I've ever seen. This was at IBC and PJ's Crossing the Line.
When I left I realized that every time my footage didn't look like that it wasn't going to be the cameras fault, but my own error and lack of knowledge.
 
Well,

The idea that RED is above criticism and evaluation is kind of absurd. People are entitled to their opinion, and he can choose any format he likes. If you ask me his worst crime is being so late to the presses. Sniping Red is old news.

Red's compression is sophistry, that's why it's so damn good.

IBloom
 
I'm not worried.. RED has to much out there and more to come, people will know the looks of it by what they see on TV and in theatres..

That said, this guy is making himself look a little foolish, or he's about to show he does not know how to make a movie..

Jay
 
His analysis is deeply flawed. The best way to refute it, if we can be bothered to try and influence a mind seemingly already made up, would be to invite him to a full theatrical screening of the latest Red build footage, and see if he still feels the same. Then point out all the errors in his technical understanding of Bayer and compression.

I get the impression he and his DP buddies have been looking at old build footage, perhaps shot by non RED savvy operators, so he probably genuinely feels like RED is a scam, but so what? It's more his loss than ours. No need to feel defensive.
 
I just color corrected some footage on a Lustre at 2K and I was absolutely blown away. This was my first opportunity to color correct RED footage digitally projected on a big screen.

I am talking to Technicolor in Toronto about doing a test reel "film out" for the naysayers!
 
He ends by saying "RED reps, if there are any factual errors in this document we'd love to hear about them, and we'll happily update it."

I won't post the link to his rant here (no sense making it easier to show up in Google), but if you search for the guy's name his site should be one of the first few results.

Someone with some time on their hands should at least ask for an outline of his complete post process and the name of the facility / operator who supposedly projected his test.
 
Rian Johnson directed 'Brick' and a new movie called 'The Brothers Bloom', unfortunately he did not consult the real brother (i)bloom or he may not have had the issues or experience he did!
seriously, of course everyone is entitled to his opinion but it seems like one of his DP buddies had a bad experience at some point and hasn't let it go.
lucky for them there are many options of gear etc... for them to tell their stories with which is ultimately the most important thing.
 
Red is still in developement. Build 15 did in fact have significant noise due to compression. Build 16 has changed that. Also shooting with the camera without lots of testing is asking for trouble. Under exposure and unrealistic expectations of the camera's dynamic range can result in very unpleasing pictures. Red is a tool that must be understood to be used effectively. For every noisey blown out piece of Red footage shot incorrectly there are many more fantastic Red scenes that were shot right. If a DP fails to get a result from Red they like, I think they should pick up the phone and talk with some of the many Red experienced DP's on this forum who could give them some help.
 
Some questions from his rant that need to be addressed:

-does the Red One only have 4096 photosites horizontally, split between R G and B?

-has anyone ever seen 'clumping grain' in Red footage. I have seen cool-looking little worms, but clumps?

-Is Red One's compression really 36 to 1?!?

-This one is funny: Does the Red make huge data files only because of "their proprietary software inflating the relatively small file which is actually recorded by the camera..."

This guy sounds like someone who was burned by a poorly-handled Red shoot, or someone with a huge investment in S*** gear.
 
Hi Ian,

I don't think I implied Red is above criticism or evaluation (if that's what you meant). My ire is directed at the false claim--that Red footage projected on a big screen looks bad because of compression.

Hi Andreas,

Is it worth refuting Rian (a well-established indie director; http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0426059/)? I think so. Here's an example of why: today I had lunch with an established Hong Kong director (who's done 6 distributed features). She's thinking of using the Red on her next feature. She's expressly interested in what Red footage looks like in a film-out. If she googles and finds Rian's post, this adds a lot of FUD in her mind, especially coming from a fellow director--and she could just conclude it's not worth hassling with Red. So I think a refutation is in order.

cheers,
Dan

P.S. In my original post, I have links to both the blog post about Rian's article, plus Rian's article itself--as I think one should read the original and judge for themselves.
 
If he doesn't want to use it, that's cool... no one camera is for everybody. If he calls its images splotchy [etc.]... no problem. If that's what he sees, that's what he sees. There are lots of other formats for him to shoot and that's nothing to be upset about.

In the mean time, the other few thousand RED productions can keep using the camera successfully.

Don't take personal offense to somebody's opinions, eh? It's a camera... not a religion. Don't lose sleep. We all know he's wrong.
 
This was a nice comical read with my morning coffee...
 
First, here's the link to the article, which I don't think has been posted: http://www.rcjohnso.com/REDBULL.html

Second, my take on this: I've heard Johnson talk, interviewed on NPR's The Treatment, and he sounds like a really common sense kind of guy. That said, he's one of the luckiest newbie filmmakers in the last decade with a first feature out of the gate that is actually amazingly well shot on 35mm, and somehow pulled off for under $500K. (Brick.) Several shots in that movie were jaw dropping to anyone who knows what a $500K budget means.

When I saw Red project the 4K "milk girls" footage at the Nuart theater in West LA about 2 years ago both compressed and uncompressed, that was what sold me. No one could tell the difference. I've since seen both NAB screeners and in both I'd say 90% looked as good as any film I've seen projected, and the rest showed the limitations of the medium. That's a better ratio than any Varicam or F900 reel uprezzed and then projected at 4K would ever be.

On the issue of compression, people should brag about the 36x compression! Every few years there's a new breakthrough in compression algorithms and Redcode has been a major breakthrough, particularly with its inclusion of RAW data. H264 is about 8 times more compressed than DV, but having come along 15 years later produces an image WAY better than DV.

I don't think Rian Johnson needs to be attacked on this forum or anywhere, but I do hope to see how he responds to information he might not have had at the time he and his DPs did their testing.
 
shows you how important shooting and posting "correctly" is. Brick was a great indie movie and whoever did rian's test fucked up big time. Seems to me no film out was done either in the test. Misunderstanding of bayer sensor mathematics is widespread among anybody with common sense mathematic skills.
 
The compression is closer to 10:1, not 36:1 just to clear that one up. A 4K 16:9 TIFF is around 27MB (at least the frame that I just grabbed and output was). That would make the uncompressed RAW file around 9MB. If you are recording in RC28 at around 28MB/sec, that would give you slightly more than 1MB per frame at 24fps. So the compression is from 9MB to 1MB. Even at the 36MB/frame that he mentions, that would still be only 12:1 compression. He clearly doesn't understand RAW Bayer Filtered sensor technology. Is my math wrong here Jarred or Stuart?
 
Let the guy alone, he's having a go at whatever frustrates him... His taking the piss at Michael Bay's website is a good example of his mentality... It takes a lot of energy to just post such a negative page (Bay's), and to quote his own self, probably just to "avoid writing"... If all that time and sweat had been put in creative stuff (or covers, even)... Like my grandfather used to say back in Quebec, opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top