Cancel that thought...

[Bruce Allen]

Back to the original topic: I would be very curious to see what would happen if you took 7 different high-end digital cameras, shot them on the same set with a decent DP, then went into one color correction room and spent a week making all the cameras look exactly the same, as much as humanly possible. At least then, the other characteristics would be on an even playing field, and nothing would jump out and look awful or weird.

Totally agree - or how about this as a variation:

1. pick a few reasonably-easy-to-recreate but awesome-looking shots from your favorite movies (awesome in terms of color look, lighting, etc). Preferably old 35mm film movies in my case.
2. try to recreate the same shot, using all of the different cameras (and please, include 35mm film)
3. try to grade the footage to match

Whether to leave lighting as-is or change lighting / contrast ratios to compensate for the differences in cameras is up to debate. Do so both ways if you want.

Personally I promise to do this test. Although I'm waiting until I'm about to shoot my short film - I'm totally swamped with trailer work and besides, need to raise another $40k or so - so that'll probably be the end of 2013! Though the nice benefit of doing it in 2013 is I get to include the Dragon sensor of course Also, I will shoot on 3D mirror rigs to see how much all of that works against creating beautiful colors.

If anyone else who wants to do so beforehand - that would be awesome! It would be fun because personally I'd love to see which shots people love and choose to recreate.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Bruce, it seems like you don't especially like the esthetics from the Red cameras, personally I also find the Alexa look more pleasing at times, but not always. After seeing too many Alexa shot films, I think they look too much alike. But I'm not sure if I agree that there is anything wrong with the clean Red look. Take a look at the trailer for Boardwalk Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5fpNXPVG1k

It's shot on 35 mm and to my eyes it looks very similar to Red footage, what do you think? Maybe you've already seen the series in HD?

 

[M Most]

You prefer regular Sam Adams or their seasonal stuff?

The regular Boston Lager is just fine :cheers2:

I just wish - speaking as a RED nut - that I couldn't spot every movie shot on RED by its "RED colors!" look...

At the rather obvious risk of being redundant, allow me to quote myself:

Accept the fact that all digital cameras have somewhat different inherent visual characteristics, and all of them are different than film. Embrace their particular aesthetic and don't try to make them look like something they're not.

Enough said.....

 

[Mark Phelan]

At the rather obvious risk of being redundant, allow me to quote myself:

Accept the fact that all digital cameras have somewhat different inherent visual characteristics, and all of them are different than film. Embrace their particular aesthetic and don't try to make them look like something they're not.

Enough said.....

Absoutely!

 

[M Most]

I must know at least 50 colorists in LA, and to me, the good ones will generally agree that very often, "less is more." Start with a reasonable correction, and then when you really need to go wild, make those the later layers / nodes / whatever.

One of the reasons I posted what I did is because I believe that our job as colorists - at least regarding "base correction" - has gotten a lot easier with the advent of digital cinema cameras and the adoption of log curves for original sources. Use of digital cameras virtually eliminates a lot of the things we used to have to "clean up" as a matter of course, and use of log curves eliminates a lot of limitations of digitized images in terms of dynamic range. We no longer have to deal with things like chemical inconsistencies, stock anomalies, telecine gate flare, differences between photochemical image interpretation and electronic image creation, or reverse engineering an inexperienced daily colorist's work. You now get to work with what the camera captured, without further manipulation (other than your own, of course), and in a form that retains more information than should be possible. In telecine and tape to tape days, we needed to separate the signal in order to correct for both the creative intent and all of the technically induced anomalies, as well as the inherent limitations of video, so the need to separately address the darker and lighter areas of the image was not only useful, but often necessary. With log coded digital images from cameras like Red, Alexa, and the like, those anomalies have disappeared and the original color pallette is much more easily recovered, because it hasn't been twisted around in the first place. So a simpler approach, and one tailored to log images, is what's really called for. What I outlined is essentially the way we've done film DI's for a long time, but there haven't really been log coded original images in the electronic world until very recently. So the "traditional" approach needs to be revisited.

Back to the original topic: I would be very curious to see what would happen if you took 7 different high-end digital cameras, shot them on the same set with a decent DP, then went into one color correction room and spent a week making all the cameras look exactly the same, as much as humanly possible. At least then, the other characteristics would be on an even playing field, and nothing would jump out and look awful or weird.

Color is only one characteristic of an image, and although it's dictated by nature and captured through the filter of lighting, lenses, filtration of various types, and a sensor's particular biases, it's basically a "given" of live action photography. All of the other things I like to refer to as "texture." That can and does impart a good deal of the "feel" of a finished image. Texture in this case is, to me, a combination of a number of factors, including but not limited to resolution of both the capture chain and the display chain, overall colorimetry, sharpness (both as captured and artificially enhanced), separation (both in terms of color and depth of field), frame rate (i.e., motion rendition), and overall dynamic range, among other things. Color can almost always be matched, although it might take some specific matrix or secondary work to do it. But texture is not easily matched because it is created by the very devices and methods used to render the image. That's why a 5K Red image, captured through a particular lens at a particular stop and distance and processed through Red's color science will almost never be a seamless match to an "almost" 3K Arri Raw image, even if captured with the same lens, stop, and distance. Same goes for the F65 and Canon C500, when it arrives. And the same also goes for different film stocks, even though a lot of the intangibles in the film world are a bit different than the digital world. But the fact remains that a Fuji print and a Kodak print will always look somewhat "different," as will images captured on different negative stocks - which is one reason that cinematographers have for years in most cases had a personal favorite stock, but a willingness to use other stocks when their particular characteristics were more appropriate. Now, granted, in a digital finishing world, a lot of those differences have been minimized. But the point is that while some things can be manipulated, others can't, and some of those "other" things are the very reasons some prefer one device over another for a particular project or shooting circumstance. That shouldn't be looked at as a "fight" or a determination of one camera being "better" than another for everything. It should be looked at as the beginning - finally - of a maturing industry in which creative choices abound and will eventually provide the same kind of "specialty" alternatives that the film world has had for many years.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Well it was a good idea

Yes, you can always rent them Jim, and do tests.

Still, the thread title is ironic.

 

[Michael Brennan]

Back to the original topic: I would be very curious to see what would happen if you took 7 different high-end digital cameras, shot them on the same set with a decent DP, then went into one colour correction room and spent a week making all the cameras look exactly the same, as much as humanly possible. At least then, the other characteristics would be on an even playing field, and nothing would jump out and look awful or weird.

Allen Daviau's test where he matched the Genesis camera to film was a landmark moment. The Genesis and film were intercut.. seamlessly.
Does this mean Genesis was the same as film.. No. It means that it is possible to "grade down" a superior format (film) to "match" another.

That's why a 5K Red image, captured through a particular lens at a particular stop and distance and processed through Red's colour science will almost never be a seamless match to an "almost" 3K Arri Raw image, even if captured with the same lens, stop, and distance.

Correct, impossible to make 5k out of 3k and Epic into Arri colour. But if the purpose of the test is to "match" cameras, one can reduce Epic to 2k and grade Arri Raw to match Epic to the "almost match" degree.

Could we summarise tests ...
Tests designed to match cameras (Allen Daviau's)
Tests designed to deliver highest fidelity under standardised lighting (Geoff Boyle's)
Tests designed to show what experienced DPs can do with a chosen system under standardised lighting (Zacuto)


Any other categories?

There is the sub group of tests, sponsored by manufacturers, such as the Kodak sponsored f900 tests "There is more to the Story" and Arri's comparison of f900 and film where the results should not be considered in isolation.


Mike Brennan

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Color is only one characteristic of an image, and although it's dictated by nature and captured through the filter of lighting, lenses, filtration of various types, and a sensor's particular biases, it's basically a "given" of live action photography. All of the other things I like to refer to as "texture."

...which is one reason that cinematographers have for years in most cases had a personal favorite stock, but a willingness to use other stocks when their particular characteristics were more appropriate.

I think its really that simple, and that complex. Each sensor and accompanying acquisition pipeline with its slew of software and hardware components is now the replacement for not just one film stock, but for a suite of versatile film stocks.

I know I have my favorite. I don't grudge others' theirs. (I only dislike it when they try to put my favorite down with FUD.)

What would be great now, is if RED can focus on formalizing these pipelines with easy to select settings, so those of us who need simplicity for certain projects, will have it be available.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

That's why a 5K Red image, captured through a particular lens at a particular stop and distance and processed through Red's color science will almost never be a seamless match to an "almost" 3K Arri Raw image, even if captured with the same lens, stop, and distance.

Correct, impossible to make 5k out of 3k and Epic into Arri colour.

If "colour" is the only factor, and not the full "texture" which Mike refers to, matching is possible if material is shot properly.

It also depends on specific shot factors as cameras behave in extremes differently and are much more difficult to match compared to perfect conditions.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Ironically, the biggest barrier to Red getting wider appeal is the noise created by redusers. People come here looking for pertinent information and what they receive is noise. People in this industry are busy, they don't need to wade through thousands of posts. They just need succinct information on how to achieve the best footage from the camera.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Shot on 70mm. Trailer released on HD internet on Vimeo. Obviously a great DOP:

http://vimeo.com/40974947

Start with the best resolution even for HD distribution.

If you can't afford 70mm film, then try for the best resolution you can get. 4K raw is within a lot of budgets.

As for release to cinema, here are the reactions of the film shown on 4k by audiences.

http://vimeo.com/40324770

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Ironically, the biggest barrier to Red getting wider appeal is the noise created by redusers. People come here looking for pertinent information and what they receive is noise. People in this industry are busy, they don't need to wade through thousands of posts. They just need succinct information on how to achieve the best footage from the camera.

I whole heartedly agree. Egotistical people often are too busy to answer questions, even if only busy not working. That is why we needed the frequently asked questions page, searchable wiki knowledge data base, professional constructed but that posters submit new information to and moderators filter out, and summarising at the beginning of the thread allowing thread starter and moderators to post new posts to the beginning of the thread for summaries and announcements. Flagging a post as important information and useful for the wiki or FAQ are other options. For this we could have an important post button along with red team button, to take you straight to the next important post (also need a button for your on posts, starting at last post, or last viewed post (so you can restart where you were before).

By the way, any relation to Clive?

 

[Elsie N]

I'm guessing big players can get a conduit opened to learn what they need to know about RED Digital Cinema cameras. More specifically, I imagine they talk among themselves rather than come to Reduser for information. But for the smaller participants (who outnumber the big players by a large number, I would guess) Reduser seems to be working just fine. Otherwise, why would it have been so hard to buy Red cameras and accessories for the past six years. '-)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Because people like lemmings....

 

[Elsie N]

Because people like lemmings....

To eat, or for pets? '-)

 

[Felipe Leite]

Go RED!

REDCODE RAW and REDCINE-X Professional + upgrade program, no one can beat that!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

To eat, or for pets? '-)

People who are like lemmings, who will buy in despite the hassle.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Ironically, the biggest barrier to Red getting wider appeal is the noise created by redusers. People come here looking for pertinent information and what they receive is noise. People in this industry are busy, they don't need to wade through thousands of posts. They just need succinct information on how to achieve the best footage from the camera.

RED desperately needs a wiki. There should be a page for each type of workstream (i.e. tv realty, tv episode, heavy fx, low budget feature/adobe, high budget feature/adobe/davinci, a work stream for each major product that tv/movie people use, also work streams by different DI approaches). These workstream pages shouldn't be debates on what is best, but just explains how to do it ... what works and is tested. There should be pages on EXACT setups, like different power and battery configs, lighting for digital, lighting for 4k skin. there should be "theory" pages, on things like spatial frequency. There should be pages on black shading, installing updates to redmotes, where it's EASY to find and specific to windows or mac (and avoiding the debate which is best). All that stuff is randomly in reduser, but the search in reduser does not work, and the google search often requires you to know the answer before you do the search. Also the concept of "testing" each setup might be for features and/or camera "techie's", but most people just want to copy something that works and focus on production.

 

[Petri Teittinen]

RED desperately needs a wiki.

+10^1000

 

[Elsie N]

RED desperately needs a wiki. There should be a page for each type of workstream (i.e. tv realty, tv episode, heavy fx, low budget feature/adobe, high budget feature/adobe/davinci, a work stream for each major product that tv/movie people use, also work streams by different DI approaches). These workstream pages shouldn't be debates on what is best, but just explains how to do it ... what works and is tested. There should be pages on EXACT setups, like different power and battery configs, lighting for digital, lighting for 4k skin. there should be "theory" pages, on things like spatial frequency. There should be pages on black shading, installing updates to redmotes, where it's EASY to find and specific to windows or mac (and avoiding the debate which is best). All that stuff is randomly in reduser, but the search in reduser does not work, and the google search often requires you to know the answer before you do the search. Also the concept of "testing" each setup might be for features and/or camera "techie's", but most people just want to copy something that works and focus on production.

That should be a RED knowledge base or Whitepaper section and should be written by RED personnel (when they have the time.) '-)

The forum is broken down into sections already for discussions. Personally, I've found the way the discussions evolve on Reduser have led me to answers to questions I didn't even know to ask.