Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Son of "Red Bull" - "Red Facts"

Interesting

Interesting

I actually like to hear from someone with a very different perspective than myself. That being said.


If 2K plenty, and is perceptually just as sharp as 4K then is 35mm just as sharp as 70mm? IMAX could save a lot on film costs.

The author also ignores a huge benefit of the additional resolution, which is the ability to zoom in, and reframe if desired. Something you can't do with HD.

The arguments are defined within an arena that seems narrow to me. Most comparisons are make relative to choosing between the Red, the Genesis, and the F23. Why? Why not discuss at least one other company's offering as well, like SI? Dalsa? Arri D20?

I also find it interesting that there is little mention to no discussion of the most common HD format choice for lower budget TV and Indies, the Sony F900. Because it's compressed?

Price. Only a quick nod was given to price. A simple graph comparing the costs of the cameras would be good.
 
I find it laughable that we are all taking such exception to what some film director says. Have we all forgotten that people direct films because they are good with people, not necessarily technology?

Good directors surround themselves with DPs to deal with the technical stuff, executive producers to deal with the money, distributors to deal with the deals, and producers to deal with everything else. Listening to most directors rant about gear is about as useful as having the cable guy tell you how to launch a satellite.

It is exceptionally rare that I find a director who knows anything more than the most fundamental things about the technologies we use. They "have people for that." Perhaps the bigger issue here is finding out who, if anyone, put these ideas in his head.
 
If a picture is worth a 1000 words, I have to wonder how many words it will take to offset the "Knowing" trailer?

Jim
 
I actually think the article, bias excepted, is very good this time (whereas the initial rant is laughable...)

If I was in a scenario where quality and speed of post production were paramount, and the little matter of cost and access to pre-existing post production equipment like an HDCAM SR deck where not an issue - then those other cameras would come into consideration.

However - Cost is an issue, it's an issue for a lot of people, and the fact that the there even has to be what amounts to a subjective arguement between a piece of equipment that not only costs a fraction of their competitors, but puts a useable workflow in the hands of people with $$,$$$ post production equipment (rather than $$$,$$$ or $,$$$,$$$) then who can't be sold.

I don't really care if RED is better than 35mm or Genesis or F23 - as long as it's comparable. And this article is forced to compare it and make very slight distinctions which are based as much on workflow decisions as they are camera technology.

RED gives everyone another choice - except it also gives those who could never or rarely choose Genesis or F23 or 35mm a choice as well.

That's pretty unbelievably awesome if you ask me...
 
Caliban said:
I actually think the article, bias excepted, is very good this time (whereas the initial rant is laughable...)

If I was in a scenario where quality and speed of post production were paramount, and the little matter of cost and access to pre-existing post production equipment like an HDCAM SR deck where not an issue - then those other cameras would come into consideration.

However - Cost is an issue, it's an issue for a lot of people, and the fact that the there even has to be what amounts to a subjective arguement between a piece of equipment that not only costs a fraction of their competitors, but puts a useable workflow in the hands of people with $$,$$$ post production equipment (rather than $$$,$$$ or $,$$$,$$$) then who can't be sold.

I don't really care if RED is better than 35mm or Genesis or F23 - as long as it's comparable. And this article is forced to compare it and make very slight distinctions which are based as much on workflow decisions as they are camera technology.

RED gives everyone another choice - except it also gives those who could never or rarely choose Genesis or F23 or 35mm a choice as well.

That's pretty unbelievably awesome if you ask me...
Click to expand...

agreed. I remember last year when the first cameras came out there was a lot of comparing RED with F23, with many people explaining why the F23 had the edge. And even then I was totally comfortable with that. I'll be happy to pay 1/10th of the price for a camera "almost as good". not that I necessarily agree ;)
 
Man I'm getting tired of this director. If this whole thing was started by someone I had respect for I would read the whole article about this vs that. I've been chalking this guys rant up to the same level of BS I heard at NAB about Red.

But when the dust settles its all about how much gets me what. For the price of the Red camera vs everyone else it's a deal that has no downside. Except for your camera doesn't say Sony or Panavision on the side of it.
 
Red is awesome. The Red One has given hopes to many filmmaker (me one of them). With that said, Johnston, from a technical perspective does make some good points. Only because he doesn't agree with everything Red doesn't make him a "sony shareholder".

Mark and Brian, the duo that directed Crank, shot with Red and then decided to do their next movie with cheap Canon cameras. They went on record to state that they just didn't like the RED workflow. Doesn't mean they have hidden agendas against Red or they have investment in Canon stocks. No. It just means they don't agree with RED.

It's just opinion. Relax.
 
manymoosh said:
Red is awesome. The Red One has given hopes to many filmmaker (me one of them). With that said, Johnston, from a technical perspective does make some good points. Only because he doesn't agree with everything Red doesn't make him a "sony shareholder".

Mark and Brian, the duo that directed Crank, shot with Red and then decided to do their next movie with cheap Canon cameras. They went on record to state that they just didn't like the RED workflow. Doesn't mean they have hidden agendas against Red or they have investment in Canon stocks. No. It just means they don't agree with RED.

It's just opinion. Relax.
Click to expand...

The difference between Rian and Mark/Brian, is that M/B didn't feel the need to explain to everyone in a blog why RED is all hype and why you should shoot with something else. Again, his facts might be accurate, and by all means, it's a free country, speak what you wish. It just seems odd that he'd spend the time on it. To save others from the pain and embarrassment of doing something as silly as shooting with a RED ONE?

Plus, I believe he said that while everyone says the footage looks great, they're looking at it on a computer monitor, and he was able to see it projected and wanted to world to know that the footage looked splotchy and smeary on a big screen... As if there aren't thousands of other people who have seen RED projected and think it looks amazing, myself included.

And don't misinterpret the discussion, Manymoosh, no one is loosing any sleep over this. It's a user forum, we like to talk :)
 
Brandon said:
The difference between Rian and Mark/Brian, is that M/B didn't feel the need to explain to everyone in a blog why RED is all hype and why you should shoot with something else. Again, his facts might be accurate, and by all means, it's a free country, speak what you wish. It just seems odd that he'd spend the time on it. To save others from the pain and embarrassment of doing something as silly as shooting with a RED ONE?

Plus, I believe he said that while everyone says the footage looks great, they're looking at it on a computer monitor, and he was able to see it projected and wanted to world to know that the footage looked splotchy and smeary on a big screen... As if there aren't thousands of other people who have seen RED projected and think it looks amazing, myself included.

And don't misinterpret the discussion, Manymoosh, no one is loosing any sleep over this. It's a user forum, we like to talk :)
Click to expand...

I think this guys is a good thing for the RED community. Much like religion, the more different views we get, be it from athiest, fundementalist, or ordinary people, the better WE can make make our own conclusions. What if we read books only published by the Roman Catholic church or by Muslim Imams? We would be greatly blindsided. The more different perspectives we can get on any given subject the better it is for our own knowledge. People should be happy that this guy published this. Now you have RED's point of view (which is biased) and you have Johnsons point of view (which biased as well). With these two pieces of information you can better form an opinion. Bottom line: Criticize the work not the person.

I just think a lot of redusers (I'm guilty of it myself) become a little inhumane and uncivilized when any one says anything negative about RED. But then again, the more I see of how man treats his fellow human beings, the more I like dogs.:)

Peace. I'm out
 
manymoosh said:
I think this guys is a good thing for the RED community. Much like religion, the more different views we get, be it from athiest, fundementalist, or ordinary people, the better WE can make make our own conclusions. What if we read books only published by the Roman Catholic church or by Muslim Imams? We would be greatly blindsided. The more different perspectives we can get on any given subject the better it is for our own knowledge. People should be happy that this guy published this. Now you have RED's point of view (which is biased) and you have Johnsons point of view (which biased as well). With these two pieces of information you can better form an opinion. Bottom line: Criticize the work not the person.

I just think a lot of redusers (I'm guilty of it myself) become a little inhumane and uncivilized when any one says anything negative about RED. But then again, the more I see of how man treats his fellow human beings, the more I like dogs.:)

Peace. I'm out
Click to expand...

Wow, now that's a leap. To try and say that the argument between different religions and non-religions is in some way similar to the argument over cameras is way past a stretch. Arguing about religion is rather pointless because people can always use the end sentence, "Well how do you know." You can argue all you want about the effect religion has had on man and how it has shape our culture and you would be getting somewhere with that. Same thing goes for arguing about different cameras because they can be tested and measured for comparison. When something can't be measured its like arguing that the air in the living room tastes better than the air in the dinning room and that's the reason why I eat in front of the TV.

The problem with this director is that he's just trying to belittle the Red camera so he can sleep better at night or to make it seem like Panavision or Sony are the only ones in the game that are worth of capturing the light of the scenes he's trying to direct. At least that's what I'm taking away from this whole thing. Plus this guy has way too much time on his hands. Shouldn't he be making a movie or something.
 
manymoosh said:
I think this guys is a good thing for the RED community. Much like religion, the more different views we get, be it from athiest, fundementalist, or ordinary people, the better WE can make make our own conclusions. What if we read books only published by the Roman Catholic church or by Muslim Imams? We would be greatly blindsided. The more different perspectives we can get on any given subject the better it is for our own knowledge. People should be happy that this guy published this. Now you have RED's point of view (which is biased) and you have Johnsons point of view (which biased as well). With these two pieces of information you can better form an opinion. Bottom line: Criticize the work not the person.

I just think a lot of redusers (I'm guilty of it myself) become a little inhumane and uncivilized when any one says anything negative about RED. But then again, the more I see of how man treats his fellow human beings, the more I like dogs.:)

Peace. I'm out
Click to expand...

I don't think i said anything inhuman, but point taken. As long as it's factual, I of course support Rian's right to speak out on this. But he wrote a paper on something that directly relates to us (redusers), it makes sense we'd discuss it :) I like dogs too
 
Good points. I'm absolutely fine with negatives, like everything the camera isn't perfect.

What frustrates me is when people don't use the best workflow or experienced people on RED to create their images, yet feel free to comment as if it were fact.

I know a dozen different ways to make a bad picture on RED, or get artifacts in my final image.

But after spending a year studying every aspect and tidbit of information I could find, I also know how to get a great one.

Is it any different than film? I'll bet if I picked up an Arri and made a film today, I wouldn't be very impressed with my results. But imagine if I wrote an article saying it's all hype?

I would certainly have the restraint and foresight to consider the vague possibility that I wasn't getting everything I possibly could out of the image.

Anyway, from my point of view, this is the biggest issue, not fanboyism.
 
Drew599 said:
Wow, now that's a leap. To try and say that the argument between different religions and non-religions is in some way similar to the argument over cameras is way past a stretch. Arguing about religion is rather pointless because people can always use the end sentence, "Well how do you know." You can argue all you want about the effect religion has had on man and how it has shape our culture and you would be getting somewhere with that. Same thing goes for arguing about different cameras because they can be tested and measured for comparison. When something can't be measured its like arguing that the air in the living room tastes better than the air in the dinning room and that's the reason why I eat in front of the TV.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is a stretch. A lot of things can't be measured but we still discuss it and examine it from different view points. You can insert, instead of religion, which is an abstract subject, a subject that is more scientific such as, the big bang theory, evolution, quantum physics. And you would still get to the infamous but "how to you know for sure" conclusion. If we discussed subjects that we could only get concrete conclusion from, we would be missing out on a lot.

But Drew, I understand what your saying: that with cameras you can come to a "more solid conclusion". But my point wasn't the END conclusion, it was that we should look at all perspectives and come to our OWN conclusion. Instead of getting fed information that comes from ONE perspective we should look at ALL perspectives.

A lot of Muslims would be better off if they read the Bible, and similarly alot of Christians would be better off if they read the Quran. Many people see the RED as the holy grail of Digital film making, instead of what it should be, which is a tool. (:nuke: Analogy Overload :nuke:)

Brandon said:
I don't think i said anything inhuman
Click to expand...

I didn't mean you Brandon :), I meant the community in general picks up a negative tone when anything negative is said about RED products.

But back to my original point. The man shouldn't be criticized, his work, process, and results should be.

Johnson had some good valid points, while some of his other arguments were flawed. But, nobody gets anywhere when you start accusing people of things they are not, because they hold a different opinion.
 
I posted this to get the two main points addressed by RED STAFF. Instead, they "moved" it to "off topic," while the points aren't "off topic" at all.

"1) Red's 36MB DPX frame is inferior because it was from a more compressed source.

2) Red doesn't meet the 10 bit per channel / 30 bit color data required for a full quality "standard" cinema image.

(It looks like Red is 12 bit per channel though, but he implies otherwise...)"

What is the truth here? Is this silence an admission that he's correct?

There was lots of huffing and puffing over technical minutiae regarding Johnson's first article. No technical response at all to this one?

Is he right or not?

Is the compression a serious issue or not?

Has the compression improved since he shot his "splotchy" footage?
 
RED AtoD and codec are both 12bit through and through. Is the compression an issue? I don't think so. The images stand up great whenever I've seen them on a big screen or small screen.

AFAIK, Rian hasn't shot any footage on RED....

Graeme
 
Truth or fiction

Truth or fiction

What is the truth here? Is this silence an admission that he's correct?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Its so far off base with the technical arguments its actually quite entertaining.

You don't really need a point by point rebuttal do you? The images speak for themselves.
 
yes

yes

"You don't really need a point by point rebuttal do you? The images speak for themselves."

Yes, I want a point by point explanation of just what is compressed, and what is lost during this compression.

Is the color space compressed below 12bit, or 10bit at some stage to achieve a higher efficiency?

What is the source of this alleged "clumping" that I've been trying to get an explanation about for a week now?

Does the compression algorithm group areas of the image into sections like MPEG does?

As far as the images speaking "for themselves" I haven't seen any images projected on the big screen. The first article ("Red Bull") evidently addresses this very issue of the images speaking for themselves -- not in a good way.

Others have mentioned how a "RedCode72" would be welcome (less compression ratio/higher bitrate). Is that in the pipeline? Where would the improvements be evident?

Where can improvements be noticed between RedCode28 to RedCode36?

I realize that this is probably a very sensitive issue, bordering on trade secrets, but this challenge is not trivial or meaningless. Less compressed options are available to filmmakers, including some that are completely uncompressed.

In making my educated decision on which camera to film a feature film, I want to know what risk there is in RedCode showing compression artifacts and what they will look like. That's the bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top