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 :)

First Clip from Crossing the Line

No, it hasn't been discussed before to my knowledge. But I asked Graeme in another thread a while ago if they would consider doing a lossless mode in the Redcode RGB codec which he newer answered (Probably missed it)

This is indeed a missing piece for doing work in RGB, and it sounds real good to me. Especially if that 32 bit workaround inside FCP turns out to be a good solution.

For a basic lossless mode it could be pretty simple just skipping the wavelet transform, but still utilising the encoding for reduced size. But we all know Graeme and Rob might go even further...
 
Hi Rob!

Rob Lohman said:
1) Did you see the movie in our theater digitally projected at 4K?
Click to expand...

No I didn't. And I don't think that it's really essential since very few people in the coming years are going to watch RED output on 4K systems. There is no doubt in my mind that RED looks super sharp and super clean projected @ 4K. To me the only thing important is how it's going to look broadcast at 1080 och 720 (or even SD) or how it will look distributed Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.

Rob Lohman said:
2) Mr Jackson shot this in two days with 1.5 - 2 weeks of post. The footage was graded etc. to his liking. I sometimes don't like how certain movies look, it rarely if ever has something to do with the camera.
Click to expand...

I agree on that one completely.

Rob Lohman said:
3) If it's too sharp or too clean you can easily add grain / noise / soften filters etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that easy to remove certain types of detail. Not without affecting overall focus. Removing detail in areas and keeping overall perception of sharpness could involve rotoscoping and that's not a great workflow. 65mm wrestles with this exakt problem too.

Rob Lohman said:
4) Why would you love for us to integrate with Cineforms NEO 12-bit lossless codec? We have our own 12-bit codec in both lossy and lossless forms.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought it was 10-bit.
 
Fix said:
Hello Munthe and welcome to the forum! Im a little confused about your post, where did you read that this was a 35mm vs Red test? I agree with you that It dident look like 35mm. But should it?
Click to expand...

I didn't read that anywhere. And I don't have a hang up on 35mm. Digital is the future. Not a doubt in my mind. But since RED is focusing on beeing a filmmakers tool as opposed to an ENG alternative I do think cinematic magic is critical. What the camera delivers has got to connect to a cinematic tradition. 65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience. That may very well change. There are already films shot digital that has breached that barrier - but they are almost all heavy effect movies like Star Wars and Sin City.

Fix said:
I dident like the grading of the clip. Thats my honest opinion. Though i do see tons of potensial for this camera only judging from photos and smal clips.
Click to expand...

I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.
 
Munthe said:
I didn't read that anywhere. And I don't have a hang up on 35mm. Digital is the future. Not a doubt in my mind. But since RED is focusing on beeing a filmmakers tool as opposed to an ENG alternative I do think cinematic magic is critical. What the camera delivers has got to connect to a cinematic tradition. 65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience. That may very well change. There are already films shot digital that has breached that barrier - but they are almost all heavy effect movies like Star Wars and Sin City.



I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Well you clearly know more about 65mm film than I do. Interesting reading. I guess we just have to wait and see what this camera can do in low light conditions regard the focus. :)
 
I'm referring to the mid close up shots in the RED gallery of course. I understand that they are prototype shots.

I wouldn't mind seeing Darius Khondji having a go with the prototype. Or better yet, Allen Daviau who is still responsible for the single best looking effort in the realm of digital cinematography with the short film Sweet he shot back in the 90's. And also considering he shot it with a Sony DVX1000.

Both those DP's are masters at interior drama lighting. :weight_lift:
 
65mm and things like Showscan flopped in that area not because they are expensive - any mainstream Hollywood film could afford 65mm - but because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience..
Click to expand...

What about Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, 2001, Ryan's Daughter? I think the reason is that 65mm is too expensive - not because they step away from a tradition that connects with the hearts of the audience.

I see a ton of potential too. But I am concerned about close ups of actors faces and about what happens in the world of focus pulling when you open up in low light conditions. From what I've seen so far the camera brings out problems that films used to wrestle with before the days of really fast stock. If your @ 50 and opened up to 2.0 and you're in a medium close up of an actor and the actors nose is in focus but not his ear your puller will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem accurate to me - T2.0 on a s35 sized gate will deliver the same depth of field regardless of uptake medium - in short, if you don't like the DOF at 2.0 - light your set to 2.8 or 4. The Red camera won't change the depth of field any more than a film camera will.

Further 65mm has half the DOF of 35mm (and therefore half the DOF of the RED (assuming you're shooting 35mm REDCINE sensor) - anamorphic has inherent focus issues of the kind you are describing (very shallow depth of field) and similarly has to be lit to T4 to ensure that the lenses bite. The problem you describe is not exclusive to RED but cameras and film in general.



In my experience exterior shooting (as is the kind exhibited) is the most problematic from the point of view of latitude - exteriors on sunny days frequently reach contrast ratios that exceed even film's limit as the shadow to highlight distance With interiors controlling the contrast range is no problem -

In short I'm saying that the footage we've seen is the tougher test of the camera. The Grade on the footage (something that the less experienced on the board seem to take exception to) has nothing to do with the look produced by the RED - the footage to me looks like clean, neutrally graded 35mmm film. I imagine if a post crush and desat had been applied there would have been a storm of concerned posts regarding shadow detail and colour rendition.
 
Jarred, when we will be seeing new clips from Crossing the Line?

thanks!
 
The million dollar question.

Its funny you should ask...I myself have never seen this film...yet it was this very footage that made my decision to move forward with the inevitable turns of time.
 
Christian Edwards said:
its a three step process,

1.Grab yourself a gun or two :gun:
2. Head down to weta :cold:

3. Demand to see it! :angry03:
Click to expand...

Weta! here I come :D

I'd buy it in a DVD if it's released! Peter Jackson is my film school and those clips of this short are what really got me excited about RED camera!
 
3568_1230389898.jpg


http://www.broadcastpapers.com/cont...echnology-September-October-AV-Group-2007.pdf
 
excerpt from article : Adding to the challenge was the fact that Jarred Land,the RED team authority on the actual operation of the camera, was stopped by US customs due to an expired passport and so didn’t make it to Wellington until the day the shoot started.​

....Always letting the team down Jarred :)

The real concern here of course is not the fact they did'nt let him out of the country its the fact they let him in in the first place ! lol


 
This doesn't seem accurate to me - T2.0 on a s35 sized gate will deliver the same depth of field regardless of uptake medium - in short, if you don't like the DOF at 2.0 - light your set to 2.8 or 4. The Red camera won't change the depth of field any more than a film camera will.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not entirely correct. If you crop away your frame (or use a smaller sensor on the same optics) you need to enlarge it accordingly to reproduce to the same screen size. That enlarging affects DOF, hence cropping a given format do affect DOF.
This is true for both stills and motion photography, and was the most debated issue some years ago when cheap dSLR's reached the masses. If you look up your CoC formulas, which is the sole parameter for DoF, you will see that one of the factors is enlargement factor, and smaller sensors needs more enlargement to reproduce the same as when using the full image circle.
Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
MHO.
 
Juste resurrecting this vintage thread... Is there a way, now that we're in 2019, to watch the full movie or at least download a 4K of the trailer to console ourselves ?

Cheers,

Kristin
 
Kristin Stewart said:
Juste resurrecting this vintage thread... Is there a way, now that we're in 2019, to watch the full movie or at least download a 4K of the trailer to console ourselves ?

Cheers,

Kristin
Click to expand...

I believe music licensing caused the film to disappear online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top