Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Martin Stevens]

Let's face it... the goal is not to replace film, but to better it. The end product is what counts,
and if you cannot tell what the recording medium is, then it won't matter.

I dream of a digital work-flow that allows full film emulation as well as images that are better than film.
This might mean sensors that have much more dynamic range than film etc.

Also, it will be nice one day when we can push a button and get the old nitrate film stock look etc.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Off-topic, Sanjin how do you like that Nespresso thing; I was just gifted one. I'm hoping to feel smarter every time I have a shot.

Gorgeous!!!

I can't live without it.

Even have one on the road N'coffee machine with a special travel case by Nespresso.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

It's not about to "KILL FILM" it more about to get THE SAME (something like a 4K FILM SCAN)

but much cheaper, easier and faster in all ways of production and postproduction.

So for all other kind of "crippled 2K/HD creatures" like an acquisition @ 2K, HD, etc,...

...there is no way to replace film with that (low) resolution.

It can look as a FILM at 2K or HD but that's a pure and low quality fake!!!

Only digital 4K+ acquisition is a true way to go.


As I head only Aäton and Phantom 65 can follow RED1 @ 4K+ acquisition

and all other like Arri Alexa, F35, Panavision Genesis, Viper, SI-2K, A-cam HD, video HD-DSLRs, etc,...

can be considered as a huge "bunch of bluffers" that just want to make profit in a space (an empty hole)

or place that still didn't get any international industry standardization for digital acquisition that could replace FILM.

All that can lead to conclusion that the main "old school" players still somehow keep holding the standardization of new 4K+ digital acquisition format.

But the question how long it will last?

The brand new sun @ 4K+ slowly but surely is rising up at the digital acquisition horizon.

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

One of my teachers says that we need at least 7K to have the same resolution as film. Can it be correct ?
(I asked him to give me the proof as I saw many shot on RED features that just looked gorgeous !)

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Having been on vacation for a week where I turned off the mobile phone and computer... one of the first things I see is a thread where Graeme and M. Bravin (two of my favorite tech minds) discuss serious topics. Love it!

Michael and Graeme discussing what the new world of digital sensor technology means and how it fits into technical lexicography paradigms is something I would love to see more of!!!

<rant/>

I think it does *zero* good to put cameras side-by-side in any kind of "shootout" methodology. The thing about shootouts is that someone always gets wounded. What the hell good does that do? I have seen dozens of supposedly "neutral" tests done over the years about this camera vs. that camera. And every single one of them is flawed in somebody's eyes. And then the arguments and hostility start.

And at the end of the day, a film shot on SI-2K won Best Picture last year, a film shot on 16mm won Best Picture this year, and one of my top 5 movies of the year was shot on RED (Book of Eli) and it didn't win a damned thing. (I am a sucker for a good post-apocalyptic tale, though...)

I pick up my Alvarez-Yairi and play the introduction to The Rain Song... and everytime I play that guitar, I marvel at the Engineering talent that went into that amount of string tension being supported by such thin slivers of wood. And not only doesn't it collapse, but it delivers such beautiful sounds.

Art and Science are somewhat meaningless terms. There is only Passion and Discovery.

Judge accordingly.

</rant>

Lucas


Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

 

[Jannard]

One of my teachers says that we need at least 7K to have the same resolution as film. Can it be correct ?
(I asked him to give me the proof as I saw many shot on RED features that just looked gorgeous !)

Maybe your teacher is talking about 8x10 stills...

I've posted this many times... once again. One of the biggest Studios did extensive testing on S35 film scanned at 4K. Results- ASA 100 film was 3.2K measured. ASA 500 film was 2.8K. Both less than measured RED at either 4K, 4.5K or 5K Bayer.

Jim

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Random sampling...

I wonder if there's a good plugin that can imitate this effect with digital footage. To generate micro movements in random directions and remove some of the *static* look of digital. I've tested a few of the "gate weave" type but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

 

[Steve Das]

Gorgeous!!! I can't live without it.
Even have one on the road N'coffee machine with a special travel case by Nespresso.

Sanjin..portrayals of you as Red Propagandist are incorrect..you're just very passionate man..but you need to join egullet forum...Nespresso needs you too
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/41402-nespresso/

My one remaining argument against supporting the nespresso system is that it supports the Nescafe empire, with its tendency to view coffee as a bulk commodity and drive prices down to the point that some growers of unusual and interesting beans can't make a living doing so.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin..portrayals of you as Red Propagandist are incorrect..you're just very passionate man..but you need to join egullet forum...Nespresso needs you too
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/41402-nespresso/

Steve,

a bit boring what you suggest.

Let us not talk here about Nestlé empire, Swiss banks, post "meltdown" capitalism destiny,

otherwise I would suggest that you have ASAP drink of N'coffee with sort of "neo-Lenin" at one of Zürich's cafe houses.

 

[Jonathan Smiles]

When I told them it was a Sony HDW 700 (first hdcam feature) it was like I had told them I had just stabbed their entire family to death. I thought they were going to take me out back and beat me.

I vote this best post of the month!

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Maybe your teacher is talking about 8x10 stills...

I've posted this many times... once again. One of the biggest Studios did extensive testing on S35 film scanned at 4K. Results- ASA 100 film was 3.2K measured. ASA 500 film was 2.8K. Both less than measured RED at either 4K, 4.5K or 5K Bayer.

Jim

Jim, I believe you 100% and was trying to requote you in an argument and was laughed off "of course Red would say that, it's bullshit, film is over 4k", at which point the convo grinded to a "nuh uh/uh huh". Are there any released tests so that I can prove this? Can you get this studio to release their test? Can someone quantitatively neutral release this information in a whitepaper?

Again, I completely believe this, I just need better ammo in discussions. Personally I'd prefer all pixel peeping be dropped from discussion and we could focus on how good it looks and how the image feels, but for some they find it more necessary.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

First - no such thing as a "real asa" for these cameras - if we go look at the definition of ISO, it says for raw that you should "go with what the manufacturer suggests makes a good image", and there is a definition for sRGB JPEGs, but that's about it.

Do you not think that the precise tonal curve used to map the Alexa image into a viewable space is being used to calculate the ISO800 base? I can guarantee that the raw linear light sensor data is way too dark lit ISO800 to be of any use at all. A development curve is needed. Same with the RED - use REDGamma. With the FLUT™ system, it means that the ISO rating set in camera, and when viewed with REDGamma will give you a mid grey brightness that is correct when you measure the scene with your meter and set the lens and camera accordingly.

If you're talking about a sensor - they have one fixed sensitivity, and it's down to how the pixels light gathering is designed and the filters that come before it in the optical chain.

Graeme

I think an easy way to define base ISO here would be to state: "At which ISO do I have the most grading latitude, above (before I clip) and below (the darkness of shadows at which modern post noise-reduction would begin to create objectionable softness). In other words, at which ISO is the most dynamic range present? We don't have MX yet, but people seem to be finding that 800 iso is the answer to that question.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Rob, there's some merit in what you say, but if people think "oh, native 800" they're so used to video where ISO is db gain that they get the idea that you can't shoot below that and they'll have to ND like anything outdoors. Whereas we all know RED is utterly happy down at 320 and below if you're careful to just ETTR and manage your clipping with the nice goalpost indicators. Similarly going up to 2000 still can produce utterly fantastic images even with no NR applied.

ISO800 is our suggested starting point ISO through our knowledge of the sensor and how it performs through post production, but you can shoot 320 to 2000 as a good range, with down to 200 if you're careful with highlight clipping and 3200 if you've judged the noise to be ok through your post workflow - which it could very well be if handled with care (and I don't necessarily mean a post NR applied).

Graeme

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Having been on vacation for a week where I turned off the mobile phone and computer... one of the first things I see is a thread where Graeme and M. Bravin (two of my favorite tech minds) discuss serious topics. Love it!

Michael and Graeme discussing what the new world of digital sensor technology means and how it fits into technical lexicography paradigms is something I would love to see more of!!!

<rant/>

I think it does *zero* good to put cameras side-by-side in any kind of "shootout" methodology. The thing about shootouts is that someone always gets wounded. What the hell good does that do? I have seen dozens of supposedly "neutral" tests done over the years about this camera vs. that camera. And every single one of them is flawed in somebody's eyes. And then the arguments and hostility start.

And at the end of the day, a film shot on SI-2K won Best Picture last year, a film shot on 16mm won Best Picture this year, and one of my top 5 movies of the year was shot on RED (Book of Eli) and it didn't win a damned thing. (I am a sucker for a good post-apocalyptic tale, though...)

I pick up my Alvarez-Yairi and play the introduction to The Rain Song... and everytime I play that guitar, I marvel at the Engineering talent that went into that amount of string tension being supported by such thin slivers of wood. And not only doesn't it collapse, but it delivers such beautiful sounds.

Art and Science are somewhat meaningless terms. There is only Passion and Discovery.

Judge accordingly.

</rant>

Lucas


Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

I'll be my usual rude self and say I find these kinds of hippie-style comments, in a tech forum, massively irritating. We are here to learn about tech, and saying that tech is basically irrelevant has no educational value. Film is not freeform tie-dying and tam-tam playing coming from the Id. It is rooted in many tech and financial considerations - lots of hard maths - and woe be your producer and financing if you do not keep close tabs on these. Are you, by your comment, saying that we should just go "with our passion" when choosing between two 30K-400K investment options without any technical research first? Do you suggest tea-leaves or tarot cards as a better method than the in-detail discussions here?

Sure you can make a great film with a VHS camera etc. etc. But take that same script and those same actors, and shoot it on RED with quality lighting and you have a much better film, with a much wider potential audience and much more profitable distribution. Films are not just stories, they are also (potentially) present beautiful images that both enhance the story and have value in their own right for the audience. I've said this before, but how great was the story in Avatar? It was pretty good, nothing more - the value is from the sheer visual delight that film delivers.

Good tech even enhances the story communication directly - an actor's facial expression in 4K, grain-free, is easier to read, as is the dirt or absence of dirt in their apartment, etc. In short, cams like Red bring the audience closer to the story AND potentially give them a handful of yummy eyecandy to munch on.

 

[Eisen Feuer]

I wonder if there's a good plugin that can imitate this effect with digital footage. To generate micro movements in random directions and remove some of the *static* look of digital. I've tested a few of the "gate weave" type but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

I could just go into Shake, put in a Pan node and modify the X and Y pan with a noise generator that generates numbers between 0 and 1 (or larger, if you want to get it shakier) It will blur the super fine pixel level detail, but will keep things from looking so sterile and static.

But yeah... that's Shake. It would be nice to have a tool that nicely fits into a modern workflow. (but at the least, it's not a huge technical achievement to make such a tool... aand it's right about now I wish I could code)

 

[Rob Ruffo]

In afters effects you can easily program this all well using linked nodes and motion blur.

However, I think audiences are beginning to like the utra-clean look of HD.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Rob, there's some merit in what you say, but if people think "oh, native 800" they're so used to video where ISO is db gain that they get the idea that you can't shoot below that and they'll have to ND like anything outdoors. Whereas we all know RED is utterly happy down at 320 and below if you're careful to just ETTR and manage your clipping with the nice goalpost indicators. Similarly going up to 2000 still can produce utterly fantastic images even with no NR applied.

ISO800 is our suggested starting point ISO through our knowledge of the sensor and how it performs through post production, but you can shoot 320 to 2000 as a good range, with down to 200 if you're careful with highlight clipping and 3200 if you've judged the noise to be ok through your post workflow - which it could very well be if handled with care (and I don't necessarily mean a post NR applied).

Graeme

Thank you for your clarifications. I look forward to putting an MX RED in my hands soon, and eagerly welcome this further info.

I am curious, would do you imply by "handled with care" other than post NR?

Thank you again for your amazing work and contributions to this forum.

 

[Jason Ing]

I have asked for permission to do so.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Michael Bravin]

I'll be my usual rude self and say I find these kinds of hippie-style comments, in a tech forum, massively irritating. We are here to learn about tech, and saying that tech is basically irrelevant has no educational value. Film is not freeform tie-dying and tam-tam playing coming from the Id. It is rooted in many tech and financial considerations - lots of hard maths - and woe be your producer and financing if you do not keep close tabs on these. Are you, by your comment, saying that we should just go "with our passion" when choosing between two 30K-400K investment options without any technical research first? Do you suggest tea-leaves or tarot cards as a better method than the in-detail discussions here?

Sure you can make a great film with a VHS camera etc. etc. But take that same script and those same actors, and shoot it on RED with quality lighting and you have a much better film, with a much wider potential audience and much more profitable distribution. Films are not just stories, they are also (potentially) present beautiful images that both enhance the story and have value in their own right for the audience. I've said this before, but how great was the story in Avatar? It was pretty good, nothing more - the value is from the sheer visual delight that film delivers.

Good tech even enhances the story communication directly - an actor's facial expression in 4K, grain-free, is easier to read, as is the dirt or absence of dirt in their apartment, etc. In short, cams like Red bring the audience closer to the story AND potentially give them a handful of yummy eyecandy to munch on.

Bob

Hey, if Lucas wants to make Graeme and I sharing ideas into a lovefest, don't bring down his buzz brotha

Aside from personal feelings I think it would be hard to support the argument that the success of a motion picture has any direct relationship to which camera, lens, filmstock or sensor was used in the production. Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity both made a ton of money, Days of Heaven, and What Dreams May Come (both very beautifully crafted works of art) not so much.

While I absolutely do not disagree with your sentiment about quality and I personally prefer beautifully photographed movies, (it's a personal preference shared by many) but it is by no means a formula for success, or a guide for the future of movie making.

 

[David Rasberry]

Bob

Hey, if Lucas wants to make Graeme and I sharing ideas into a lovefest, don't bring down his buzz brotha

Aside from personal feelings I think it would be hard to support the argument that the success of a motion picture has any direct relationship to which camera, lens, filmstock or sensor was used in the production. Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity both made a ton of money, Days of Heaven, and What Dreams May Come (both very beautifully crafted works of art) not so much.

While I absolutely do not disagree with your sentiment about quality and I personally prefer beautifully photographed movies, (it's a personal preference shared by many) but it is by no means a formula for success, or a guide for the future of movie making.

I watched (more slept through) Heaven's Gate on IFC the other night. Four hours of absolutely lovely and lovingly crafted cinematography that might have been a decent drama in half that time if it had any sense of pace and connection to the story. It was like Cimino was a 1st time amateur who couldn't bear to cut a single foot out of his imagery. Boring in the extreme. Beautiful photography that serves and moves the drama is much more interesting.