Lawrence Karman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Shooting translights?
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
5K 9K come on whats going on!?
- Thread starter Allan Legarth Nielsen
- Start date
Shooting translights?
Tarek S. Kandil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 45
Allan, The new reds' modularity comes from the basic fact that they can capture stills and motion the same way. This means fundamentally that RED now caters not only the film artist and cinematographers.
Someone was thinking of using a 617 on one angle and one setup for an entire shoot, whereas this is not very feasible for film and close ups etc, and could be seen as lazy, it makes you think of several other apps that don't involve movies.
I know if I had the 617 or the 645 I would break the billboards here. Every graphic designer in a town like beirut makes their money off the countless billboards here. That alone can be killed by a 28K signal capture. The printers are gonna start figuring out a way to plug the thing straight in and pump out an actual size of what you shoot. Film printing could change, as well as other output technologies that have been basing their moves on the current capability of the market.
RED has not exhibited this dependency on the current technology, it chose to become the company that others depend on to improve their product. That's what's called a vision. RED is pulling some very self-actualized moves, while most others are satisfying a social need, if you will.
Governments can use 28K sensors in bodies that small in ways that terrify me.
In building
In investigation
FINE ARTS APPLICATIONS (not movies only)
Its mad...
Tons more
Someone was thinking of using a 617 on one angle and one setup for an entire shoot, whereas this is not very feasible for film and close ups etc, and could be seen as lazy, it makes you think of several other apps that don't involve movies.
I know if I had the 617 or the 645 I would break the billboards here. Every graphic designer in a town like beirut makes their money off the countless billboards here. That alone can be killed by a 28K signal capture. The printers are gonna start figuring out a way to plug the thing straight in and pump out an actual size of what you shoot. Film printing could change, as well as other output technologies that have been basing their moves on the current capability of the market.
RED has not exhibited this dependency on the current technology, it chose to become the company that others depend on to improve their product. That's what's called a vision. RED is pulling some very self-actualized moves, while most others are satisfying a social need, if you will.
Governments can use 28K sensors in bodies that small in ways that terrify me.
In building
In investigation
FINE ARTS APPLICATIONS (not movies only)
Its mad...
Tons more
RyanKunkleman
Well-known member
yeah we shot some with 5 x 617 cameras it was pretty interesting. those were film of course. one hour processing on 30 rolls of transparency wasnt cheap.
BTW
i like how one guy that obviously doesnt have a great knowledge of the red cameras or the film process in genera gets you guys all worked into a frenzy.
i kinda feel like at this point threads like this should just get locked or deleted.
eh?
Casey Green
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.redcamcentral.com
Interesting. I wouldn't have called many of the replies here coming from anyone "worked into a frenzy". If anything, I think that the lack of RED fundamental knowledge that was evident in the post has only helped others like him perhaps learn a few things about why RED took this approach and what the benefits are.
Of course, there are always a few people who over react, but in general, there's some good responses in here.
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
??? Are you sure about that???
I'm still not convinced of the DSMC programm. I wouldn't like to use a 10kg 50'000$ epic to shoot stills.
Nor to lend it to the photographer on a shoot to make his stills.
My 2 cents is : specialized tools are best.
Patrick
J. Eric Camp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Allen,
There is a fundamental difference in the programs that are developing the cameras for Panavision, Arri and Red.
The first point is, why shoot higher rez than 1080.
My answer: It looks better. If I shoot 4k, 5k, 6k or 9k and sample it down to 1080 I have more accurate information in that 1080 picture.
Assume a checker board is the subject. If the light bouncing off checker board is covered by one pixel, then that pixel will be a "average" of the different colors. That pixel will register as halfway between the two colors. Now if you have a sensor where the light bouncing off of each individual square is covered by a pixel each, now I have preserved the accurate information in the scene.
Why is RED making these high rez sensors when Panavision and Arri are not. Well first off, the Genesis Sensor is actually slightly higher rez than the RED ONES. How ever how Panavision / Sony chose to deal with light and imaging, that sensor only produces a 1080 image. Different ways of skinning the cat.
The Genesis and D21 are not bad cameras, they have strong points however the D21 and Genesis are two very different cameras.
The Genesis is, while built very well, built on the older HD tech. I feel it will have a ceiling that CMOS will and are already moving past. For instance:
To get a GREAT over sampled 4k image out of a CMOS I am looking at the 6k camera. 4k film out or 4k digital projection. To get a straight 4k image, not over sampled, out of a CCD (current Panavision / Sony builds) I need almost a 12k sensor. As is evident by RED's announcement I fell pretty comfortable saying a 6k CMOS will happen before a 12k CCD.
Who needs 28k? Well right now I see the 28k for very specialized applications. Visual effects will love it. More pixels means cleaner edges. Also that camera is (currently) shaped more like a still camera. A Photographer could just hit record and then sift back thought the video to get the exact frame to use, and use for a large billboard or other high rez application.
As was mentioned, Dark Knight looked good shot on IMAX. If the film version has validity then the digital equivalent surely has merit.
I understand your frustration. I have worked with MANY AC's on their first time with this camera. The RED ONE is already so different and now the DSMC system is yet another leap. Until the dust settles, take a Red Tech / DIT out with you. If they know what they are doing you will never have to think about anything behind the focal plane.
There is a fundamental difference in the programs that are developing the cameras for Panavision, Arri and Red.
The first point is, why shoot higher rez than 1080.
My answer: It looks better. If I shoot 4k, 5k, 6k or 9k and sample it down to 1080 I have more accurate information in that 1080 picture.
Assume a checker board is the subject. If the light bouncing off checker board is covered by one pixel, then that pixel will be a "average" of the different colors. That pixel will register as halfway between the two colors. Now if you have a sensor where the light bouncing off of each individual square is covered by a pixel each, now I have preserved the accurate information in the scene.
Why is RED making these high rez sensors when Panavision and Arri are not. Well first off, the Genesis Sensor is actually slightly higher rez than the RED ONES. How ever how Panavision / Sony chose to deal with light and imaging, that sensor only produces a 1080 image. Different ways of skinning the cat.
The Genesis and D21 are not bad cameras, they have strong points however the D21 and Genesis are two very different cameras.
The Genesis is, while built very well, built on the older HD tech. I feel it will have a ceiling that CMOS will and are already moving past. For instance:
To get a GREAT over sampled 4k image out of a CMOS I am looking at the 6k camera. 4k film out or 4k digital projection. To get a straight 4k image, not over sampled, out of a CCD (current Panavision / Sony builds) I need almost a 12k sensor. As is evident by RED's announcement I fell pretty comfortable saying a 6k CMOS will happen before a 12k CCD.
Who needs 28k? Well right now I see the 28k for very specialized applications. Visual effects will love it. More pixels means cleaner edges. Also that camera is (currently) shaped more like a still camera. A Photographer could just hit record and then sift back thought the video to get the exact frame to use, and use for a large billboard or other high rez application.
As was mentioned, Dark Knight looked good shot on IMAX. If the film version has validity then the digital equivalent surely has merit.
I understand your frustration. I have worked with MANY AC's on their first time with this camera. The RED ONE is already so different and now the DSMC system is yet another leap. Until the dust settles, take a Red Tech / DIT out with you. If they know what they are doing you will never have to think about anything behind the focal plane.
- Thread starter
- #47
Allan Legarth Nielsen
Member
RyanKunkleman
Well-known member
eric is such a sweetheart. (how are you man?)
i guess that what i was getting at is that there are MANY threads that contain all the information that this gentleman would need to answer his questions. I think people should just be reminded/encouraged to go looking on the forums themselves.
i guess that what i was getting at is that there are MANY threads that contain all the information that this gentleman would need to answer his questions. I think people should just be reminded/encouraged to go looking on the forums themselves.
J. Eric Camp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm doing alright. Doing an indie film right now. Low pay, long hours. You know, one of the fun ones.
Yes people should look around to try and find answers, but with the new announcements, things are getting lost quick.
Plus I just love to hear myself talk.
I suppose I should clarify one point. CCD's are not necessarily older HD tech. CCD's were the predominant video imaging sensor and CMOS has stormed in with gusto. CCD's have their advantages and CMOS's have their advantages.
Now I REALLY am just talking to hear myself. Or typing to read my self.
Yes people should look around to try and find answers, but with the new announcements, things are getting lost quick.
Plus I just love to hear myself talk.
I suppose I should clarify one point. CCD's are not necessarily older HD tech. CCD's were the predominant video imaging sensor and CMOS has stormed in with gusto. CCD's have their advantages and CMOS's have their advantages.
Now I REALLY am just talking to hear myself. Or typing to read my self.
David Dennis
Well-known member
One thing that might make this easier for you is to compare it to what happened in digital still cameras.
If you remember, many years ago there were 1 megapixel cameras, perfect in theory for producing 640x480 pictures as you might use on the web sites of the time. Eventually the early DSLRs came in, producing (in the case of my Canon EOS D30) 3.5 megapixel images.
On paper there is no reason at all to produce a 1 megapixel image with a 3.5 megapixel camera, but in reality you could see by just glancing at the two images at the 1 megapixel resolution that one was made with an expensive camera and the other by a piece of junk. So the D30 was worth the money even if images of greater than 1 megapixel were never actually displayed.
I finally got a Nikon D300, which is a 12 megapixel camera. Images on the web are maybe two megapixels (1280x1024 or slightly higher) today, so on paper there was no need for my purchase, since my D30 still works fine. The huge advantage is that I can crop small pieces out of the images and still get solid photographs. And the image quality, thanks to the advance of technology, is much better than the D30 I had previously.
This kind of flexibility makes many hungry for even the massive 267 megapixel images the 617 produces. The simple truth is that as our tools improve, people find a use for them.
Of course there is also the very real lust for the latest and greatest. Everyone loves to brag about their new gadgets. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will buy 9K Epics just so they can say they have them, or so they can rent out their cameras to those lusting after the latest and greatest without even seeing a clear advantage.
I think that's the real frustration that you're seeing - if you have friends with RED Ones, they know they will have a harder time renting their cameras when the biggest and best is now 9K EPIC. Truthfully there's plenty of life left in those cameras because as you pointed out few people really need more than 4K in their productions.
We have people here who are extremely wealthy, and versed in the super-expensive world of major motion picture production. For them something like an Epic is a tiny line item on their budget. They could pay cash for it and barely even notice. In fact, the catering bill for the wrap party (featuring a crew of hundreds of people!) is probably a more expensive line item for them. The important thing is not the money, but that the image is great. Those people are going to buy things like 9K Epics almost regardless of cost.
When you think of those nice folks, you might feel class envy, but you should not. They help Jim deliver the camera at a much lower price, because they provide substantial demand and let him spread those staggering research and development costs over far more units. Those who buy ten EPICs make it possible for Jim to offer you one Scarlet at a price you can (barely) afford.
Hope that was of interest.
D
If you remember, many years ago there were 1 megapixel cameras, perfect in theory for producing 640x480 pictures as you might use on the web sites of the time. Eventually the early DSLRs came in, producing (in the case of my Canon EOS D30) 3.5 megapixel images.
On paper there is no reason at all to produce a 1 megapixel image with a 3.5 megapixel camera, but in reality you could see by just glancing at the two images at the 1 megapixel resolution that one was made with an expensive camera and the other by a piece of junk. So the D30 was worth the money even if images of greater than 1 megapixel were never actually displayed.
I finally got a Nikon D300, which is a 12 megapixel camera. Images on the web are maybe two megapixels (1280x1024 or slightly higher) today, so on paper there was no need for my purchase, since my D30 still works fine. The huge advantage is that I can crop small pieces out of the images and still get solid photographs. And the image quality, thanks to the advance of technology, is much better than the D30 I had previously.
This kind of flexibility makes many hungry for even the massive 267 megapixel images the 617 produces. The simple truth is that as our tools improve, people find a use for them.
Of course there is also the very real lust for the latest and greatest. Everyone loves to brag about their new gadgets. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will buy 9K Epics just so they can say they have them, or so they can rent out their cameras to those lusting after the latest and greatest without even seeing a clear advantage.
I think that's the real frustration that you're seeing - if you have friends with RED Ones, they know they will have a harder time renting their cameras when the biggest and best is now 9K EPIC. Truthfully there's plenty of life left in those cameras because as you pointed out few people really need more than 4K in their productions.
We have people here who are extremely wealthy, and versed in the super-expensive world of major motion picture production. For them something like an Epic is a tiny line item on their budget. They could pay cash for it and barely even notice. In fact, the catering bill for the wrap party (featuring a crew of hundreds of people!) is probably a more expensive line item for them. The important thing is not the money, but that the image is great. Those people are going to buy things like 9K Epics almost regardless of cost.
When you think of those nice folks, you might feel class envy, but you should not. They help Jim deliver the camera at a much lower price, because they provide substantial demand and let him spread those staggering research and development costs over far more units. Those who buy ten EPICs make it possible for Jim to offer you one Scarlet at a price you can (barely) afford.
Hope that was of interest.
D
Steve Ellington
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The sensor on the Panavision Genesis is 12 megapixel, which is approximatley 4K. They are downsampling in the camera to 1080p. So why not have the option of using all the resolution a chip can produce? Also, no one is asking questions about why we need higher and higher megapixels on still cameras. I think the same applies to cinema. The higher the resolution, the better -- no matter what the final output format is.
Another interesting benefit of a 28k camera is the ability to reframe in 1080p. Check out the REM "Imitation of Life" music video for an example of the possibilities of high rez reframing in post.
Another interesting benefit of a 28k camera is the ability to reframe in 1080p. Check out the REM "Imitation of Life" music video for an example of the possibilities of high rez reframing in post.
Top 10 reasons for more resolution.
1. Repurposing of content
2. Visual effects....ie what if every third pixel was made ir sensitive to create a separate ir tracking image...woohoo realtime 3d capture without multiple cameras ...ala star wars.
3. Repurposing of content.
4. Dynamic range increases from pixel averaging and application of motion vectors for scene reconstruction.
5. Repurposing content.
6. Have you ever shot IMAX? it is a bitch, but its beautiful in the detail.
7. Repurposing content.
8. More detailed motion vector analysis allowing for statochistic compositing methods. ie bojou's magical replace tool.
9. Repurposing content.
10. So when the first time AC bumps the camera on the take the director wants the most, you have plenty of resolution to stabilize it in post.
Finally, the repurposing content statement. From high res prints, to utilizing hdr techniques to insert after film shot product placement. It ultimately comes down to more efficient ways for films, TV shows, and commercials to make money. Data mining is a proven method of utilizing every last drop of value within a product....so we as an industry have a better shot.
1. Repurposing of content
2. Visual effects....ie what if every third pixel was made ir sensitive to create a separate ir tracking image...woohoo realtime 3d capture without multiple cameras ...ala star wars.
3. Repurposing of content.
4. Dynamic range increases from pixel averaging and application of motion vectors for scene reconstruction.
5. Repurposing content.
6. Have you ever shot IMAX? it is a bitch, but its beautiful in the detail.
7. Repurposing content.
8. More detailed motion vector analysis allowing for statochistic compositing methods. ie bojou's magical replace tool.
9. Repurposing content.
10. So when the first time AC bumps the camera on the take the director wants the most, you have plenty of resolution to stabilize it in post.
Finally, the repurposing content statement. From high res prints, to utilizing hdr techniques to insert after film shot product placement. It ultimately comes down to more efficient ways for films, TV shows, and commercials to make money. Data mining is a proven method of utilizing every last drop of value within a product....so we as an industry have a better shot.
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Hi,
Whilst you can stabilize the footage it may well be blurred rendering the shot useless.
Stephen
shin sugino
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Allan
Allan
when high end digital camera backs came into picture for high end advertising
photography many photographer said digital will never be as good as film.
It was only five years ago. Today you will find extremely hard to find photographer who uses film. Same thing will happen on motion picture film.
Five years from now film stock will be practically gone.
I remember hearing same thing on CD disc. Sounds too digital! Is anyone recording on vinyl now? Time and medium change. It's about learning how to use it. Ditto with 5k,6k,9k,28k. get excited about possibility.You might not use it but don't say useless. You are ac and I assume you are young. Don't act like an old fart DOP who refuse to accept time is changing and have no energy nor
brain to understand digital.
Allan
when high end digital camera backs came into picture for high end advertising
photography many photographer said digital will never be as good as film.
It was only five years ago. Today you will find extremely hard to find photographer who uses film. Same thing will happen on motion picture film.
Five years from now film stock will be practically gone.
I remember hearing same thing on CD disc. Sounds too digital! Is anyone recording on vinyl now? Time and medium change. It's about learning how to use it. Ditto with 5k,6k,9k,28k. get excited about possibility.You might not use it but don't say useless. You are ac and I assume you are young. Don't act like an old fart DOP who refuse to accept time is changing and have no energy nor
brain to understand digital.
- Banned
- #56
Chuck Z
Banned
Why can't the RED One or future RED cameras simply oversample the image in the camera and store it as RAW?
donatello b
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
why shoot 35mm ... super 16 has 1920x1080 resolution ...
why do most evening TV series shoot 35mm ?
when the broadcast standard was SD NTSC they shot 35mm not 16 not S8.
if you really believe HD is the tops.. then IMO your camera career ends at AC .. but then your dream is to direct ...
the standard that all is compared in the world is 35mm - from there you down rez/convert ... 4k is good ..maybe 5k or 6k is closer to the standard ...
perhaps 9k is near 65mm ?
why do most evening TV series shoot 35mm ?
when the broadcast standard was SD NTSC they shot 35mm not 16 not S8.
if you really believe HD is the tops.. then IMO your camera career ends at AC .. but then your dream is to direct ...
the standard that all is compared in the world is 35mm - from there you down rez/convert ... 4k is good ..maybe 5k or 6k is closer to the standard ...
perhaps 9k is near 65mm ?
Christian Munoz D
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 762
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 58
- Website
- www.christianmunozdonoso.com
Casey,
Here there is some info about Allan Legarth
http://www.allanlegarthnielsen.com/CVandReferences.html
Not much, but I am sure he will learn a lot at the forum.
Welcome Allan!
- Banned
- #60
Nova Invicta
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Mixing Motion & Stills
Mixing Motion & Stills
Some of Allan comments are valid and should not be simply dismissed, yes the goal of larger sensors is to increase the dynamic range but equally the color space is important as is the software that finally converts that raw data into the finished picture you desire. In increasing that dynamic range the relationship with optics changes and one of the failings of large format lenses is they have suffered from lower R&D than has been directed at 35mm lenses and thus many of them are not as good at handling chromatic aberations, veiling glare & high contrast and its worse in a moving as opposed to still image they are also generally slow by comparison to 35mm lenses.
Some stills cameras compensate for chromatic aberations using software and in theory Red can include this but the megapixel war is not the only issue to consider to get visually pleasing pictures. Many digital still cameras with lessor pixel count have in the past given better looking pictures because their processors & software worked more in harmony with the hardware.
He also states another valid point often conviently overlooked by arrogant commentators and I will point it out in a way thats now often used. If I want to paint in oils then I should be able to, if I want to paint in watercolor then I should be able to why should I be forced to use one or the other? Likewise we should be able to use digital or film and its not always simply true to say digital is cheaper than film for starters on film you dont need a DIT!
I have seen tests on HDX-200 P2 material taken out to film and when exposed and lit well look pretty good, same for F900R and in the end the public go to see the story whether we like it or not and whilst we strive to deliver the best possible picture the arms race much of the time is subjective as has been proven on shows like the BBC "Blue Planet" so 28MB sensor maybe the holy grail for some but for many its just a number.
Mixing Motion & Stills
Some of Allan comments are valid and should not be simply dismissed, yes the goal of larger sensors is to increase the dynamic range but equally the color space is important as is the software that finally converts that raw data into the finished picture you desire. In increasing that dynamic range the relationship with optics changes and one of the failings of large format lenses is they have suffered from lower R&D than has been directed at 35mm lenses and thus many of them are not as good at handling chromatic aberations, veiling glare & high contrast and its worse in a moving as opposed to still image they are also generally slow by comparison to 35mm lenses.
Some stills cameras compensate for chromatic aberations using software and in theory Red can include this but the megapixel war is not the only issue to consider to get visually pleasing pictures. Many digital still cameras with lessor pixel count have in the past given better looking pictures because their processors & software worked more in harmony with the hardware.
He also states another valid point often conviently overlooked by arrogant commentators and I will point it out in a way thats now often used. If I want to paint in oils then I should be able to, if I want to paint in watercolor then I should be able to why should I be forced to use one or the other? Likewise we should be able to use digital or film and its not always simply true to say digital is cheaper than film for starters on film you dont need a DIT!
I have seen tests on HDX-200 P2 material taken out to film and when exposed and lit well look pretty good, same for F900R and in the end the public go to see the story whether we like it or not and whilst we strive to deliver the best possible picture the arms race much of the time is subjective as has been proven on shows like the BBC "Blue Planet" so 28MB sensor maybe the holy grail for some but for many its just a number.