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 :)

Bad RED footage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"6. Forget to add ND filters and shoot everything outside at f22"

I used a pair of ski goggles in a pinch last year when I forgot to take ND's to Mammoth. No shit. I actually got several compliments on the shots. They were Smith's... ummmmm sorry. :whistling:
 
Wrong WB? Never - because you shoot RAW!

Graeme
 
createra said:
Just like digital cameras help individuals to become better photographers, a camera like RED will help individuals become better cinematographers. The possibility to test things and play around helps you develop your talents.

You could also draw a parallel to 3D. A few years ago, most things looked really bad, but now there are a lot of really great artist "popping" up.

Better and cheaper tools helps individuals to become better artist.
Click to expand...

One thing about digital cameras is people do "machine gun photography". not being selective on shots, not composing them well...ect. sometimes with a digital medium people aim shoot and pray they hit some thing. it will be easy to have bad RED footage, just as it is easy to have bad digital photos. But with the ability to shoot a lot, eventually people are going to get some ting that looks really good, even if they are a horrible cinematographer.
 
Jannard said:
It is a real question... great images are possible with RED, but so are bad ones. It is important to know why. I don't want a customer thinking that just because they bought our camera, great footage automatically falls out the back end.

Jim
Click to expand...

Most of us are experienced enough to know how true that is. But at least, with Red, we can only blame ourselves for bad footage, the camera has all the potential in the world!! But good point.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that if bad RED footage is posted... it is not our fault... :-)

Jim
 
Having walked out of Miami Vice from its long lense blury grainy look, I'd say that that was not a tour de force for I think the Genesis or whatever camera. Superman - looked nice and clean like RED... except RED Im sure would look better. Thank God, Blair Witch was not shot with RED... we'd all be sick.
 
With MV they did use a 360 shutter on night stuff, which would give a very blurry look. They traded some grain for blur, effectively.

Graeme
 
They also used a 360 degree shutter on certain sequences in Apocalypto. There really needs to be a warning...

"Warning: you have selected a 360 degree shutter. Your footage will look bad by all common definitions of good."

I'd rather underexpose by a stop than deal with that look.
 
Greg Voevodsky said:
Having walked out of Miami Vice from its long lense blury grainy look, I'd say that that was not a tour de force for I think the Genesis or whatever camera. Superman - looked nice and clean like RED... except RED Im sure would look better. Thank God, Blair Witch was not shot with RED... we'd all be sick.
Click to expand...

Viper actually... Michael Mann wanted that look for MV so you can't really blame the camera. But still, point taken. Red rules!
 
That's right - if it's the director's decision, all you can say is that you don't personally like the look. But it's always good to have those tools handy if you need them.

Graeme
 
Jim makes a very important point..

I think everyone should know that RED probably wont, will not turn anyone into an artist. It will definately be the key enabler in removing limitation, and allowing experimentation (profoundly important factors in creating art), but other then the camera, all the good ole rules apply. There are plenty of crappy looking 35mm shot films out there.

Ive said it before, but there will be a few redusers who will switch on their camera, shoot a few a scenes and then be shocked to realise their imagery looks no better than it did on DV (other than the ridiculous detail, depth of field and chocolatey smooth dynamic range). Because along with this great tool, has to come great talent and artistry to live up to it. Halfhazardry in DV will not be acceptable in s35 (or DV for that matter), it will show.

I see too many independant filmmakers on DVXuser.com, obsessing over the technology of the HVX and discussing the ins and outs of certain settings, picture modes, post production techniques etc, and paying no attention to an actors hair or lighting up skin properly, and consequently, (sorry) crap is produced. This doesnt just apply to scripted style filmmaking either. This paradigm will no doubt exist with every artistic tool that is released, RED no exception.

For those just starting out in the filmmaking field, REDs are big shoes. Aspire accordingly.
 
In defense of Michael Mann and "Miami Vice", it's clear when comparing that movie to something like "Zodiak" (also shot on the Viper, though Mann also used other cameras like the F900 for some shots) that Michael Mann is not even attempting a classic film aesthetic.

He's attempting to discover a unique "digital aesthetic" in which the artifacts of the medium are enhanced and exaggerated, not hidden in an attempt at a film look. He doesn't even try to hide the increased depth of field of the 2/3" CCD camera. And instead of using the Viper in FilmStream Mode (RAW), he used it in HD-Stream Mode so that he could process the signal on-set, use gain, white-balance, etc. So I don't think it is fair to compare the movie to something like "Superman Returns" or "Flyboys", which clearly fall into a traditional film aesthetic.

It's sort of like using a synthesizer to create music and whether it is set-up to emulate traditional instruments or to create a uniquely electronic sound.

Also, it's the nature of some filmmakers to try and "break" their tools, push them to their failure point, either out of need or for artistic reasons.

---

In regards to technology, one of my professors in film school was director Alexander Mackendrick ("Sweet Smell of Success", "The Ladykillers", "The Man in the White Suit") - he once said: "Technology is inherently seductive... and often a director spends time dealing with technical problems as a way of avoiding dealing with human problems." (i.e. it's more fun to play with the camera than learn to talk to actors and get a performance out of them.)

Technology should be in the service of art, not the other way around. You can't start out with a tool and then decide how to use it -- you have to have a creative idea first and then find the right tool to implement it. Often I get this question from film students: "I have to light a night exterior - please tell me how I should light it" to which I usually reply "What do you want it to look like?" Technology is no substitute for having an imagination.
 
Don't want to start a debate on the artistic decsions made but I loved Miami Vice and loved the grainy night look.Don't recall anything blurry. Its a look that for some works. Too clean an image can be just as distracting to me.
 
David, I agree. The grainy night scenes to me were most definately a deliberate Homage to Television reality drama.
 
Jim, you know, I came away from NAB astounded at how well RED had thought everything out, from acquisition to post and even eventually display. Your question makes me realize the gaping hole in your master plan - the cinematographer. Or are you actually setting us up for introducing "The Missing Link" in the plan:

The RED Fully Integrated Field Upgradable Cinematographer Microchip Brain Implant, or RED FIFUCMBI!

Please, say it ain't so! We promise, we'll continue to hone our craft and never ever release footage from our REDs that isn't up to snuff! Promise! Don't make us go under the knife!

It's like having children; at some point they are released into the world and they're on their own. RED can make the best camera possible; the rest is up to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top