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 :)

Che

Of course you get more than 5 stops! You can get 5 stops above mid grey and still have 5 or more to play with below mid grey. Anyone with access to a camera and an understanding of exposure can do that for themselves and see - it's not hard. You've got to have a light meter though... And know how to use it. And a Stouffer will show you all too.

RED does not clip like consumer video. Absolutely not. It does not crush blacks - absolutely not.

Perhaps it's time to stop feeding the trolls....

Graeme
 
Yes Jim - never heard a single complaint about the footage we showed at NAB. It looks superb. It still looks great after watching it x number of times too. The anamorphic stuff has a fantastic feel to it. The flat footage is incredibly dramatic because of the wonderful levels of detail. Can't wait to see the finished movie. Soderberg, from what I've seen, has done a fantastic job.

Graeme
 
I have a feeling this is going to start getting really ugly guys. I'm not going to name names, as it will do no good, but let's just say there were some people working in other camera vendors booths at NAB who seemed to be really bitter about RED. I was overhearing some things that seemed like sour grapes to me. I'm not saying they are sabotaging the forum, but there does seem to be some people who want to see RED fail, for no other reason than there is a lot of attention being paid to the camera right now.

I respect all of these other camera companies, and I try to keep up on what they are doing, and I will use their cameras if they are appropriate for a given situation. But, man, you guys have really got under some of their skins. :-)

I think posts like film101 do very little for me. If this was a person who's posts I've followed for a long time, and who I trusted the opinion from, then maybe it would be interesting. But this poster doesn't give a name, first sign that there's trolling going on.
 
film101 said:
The highlights clip exactly like video, in many shots no better than consumer video.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Never saw a digital camera clipping this beautifull like RED, and five stops....he? Ever figured out if the projector was the problem?
 
No one believes them...And yes they have no qualms about sabotage...Anyway its too late, the cats out of the bag...There is no turning back the tides of progress.


DogDay
 
Yeah, the week before NAB and during there were a ton of new trolls on this board running their mouths spreading mis-information. Even at NAB there were people floating around the show floor talking crap about Red. Like they still didn't believe the camera was real.

This Film101 guy has the Sony stink on him.
 
Jason Ing said:
Not one person believed him.

Too much contradicting, hard evidence.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I (obviously) have not seen Che, but I have seen RED footage output to film and I've seen it here on the forums. The camera speaks for itself. This guy's post means nothing, because the cream always rises.
 
And to be clear about all of this, so that those who might detect a bit of defensiveness from redusers, I think a lot of us welcome constructive comments, even when they may not necessarily shine the best light on RED. But the discussions always work much better when there are names attached, especially ones with websites, IMDB listings, etc. It gives people a reference point for the comments.

I think the problem with this particular poster is that there is no reference point. Otherwise, we could have engaged in a legitimate debate. I've seen some of the Che footage and I agree with Evin's comments.
 
so... film stock is crap! I saw soderbergh's "traffic", and is everything totally blue or totally orange, without detail!!!
and the grain!!! was terrible!!!

J/K...
 
I am a Red Owner and have shot with film and video cameras for over twenty years. Every time I get a job with the Red I can't wait to pull it out of the case. I can't wait for the job to start. Shooting with it is addictive, and the Red experience has allowed me to really enjoy working in this business again. It is the funnest and most interesting camera to own. It makes me happy, and it satisfies my artistic need to make a beauitful image.

I have never experienced this with any other video camera. Thanks to Jim and the team for making this possible. While I don't post often, I have found this forum to be a great online community., The folks on here are very generous and constructive. We all know that the camera is awesome. It's a done deal, and no one can tell us otherwise.

-Dave Dessel

Director/Cameraman
 
Che - Expanding on my original post

Che - Expanding on my original post

I am a first time poster, but I would like to think I 'm not a poser. I have an Oscar for Visual effects. I've studied images a bit. Amongst other things, I fancy I know dynamic range and clipping when I see it. I think I know the difference between great image quality and sub-standard image quality.

I saw two HD movies, "Three Monkeys" and "24 City", at Cannes, in the same theater, the Lumiere. Both were digitally projected via the same digital projector used for Che. I don't care, by the way, whether a movie is shot on HD, film, Genesis, RED or the new Martian film capture medium.

I hate to be burned at the stake for heresy in the church of RED, but folks, Che did not stack up to the tone range of either Three Monkeys or 24 City, or motion picture film. I wish it was not the case, because I've followed RED's development and would like it to deliver on its promise.

I did see the Peter Jackson short at NAB, and its shadow detail in the airplane cockpit scenes was flat. The detail in the distant green tree lines was clumped up. Just my eyes and my opinion.

I would love to have a cheap 4K digital camera that generates an image approximating film. What I saw in Che, which you will see soon enough, particularly in the the second Che movie, was a serious disapointment.

Maybe the DP did not care of the sky blew out and clipped, or that many times when Che was in shadow, and his face was under a hat, you could not see his face in the shadows. The shadows were dead.

I don't disrespect the RED efforts. I don't think it's ready for prime time. Yet. The fact the director of Che chose RED doesn't mean its image quality is not to be criticized. Image quality may have not been his main concern in weighing his camera options.

Based on what I saw in Che, which spanned many real motion picture lighting situations, what has clearly not been solved are two big issues.

The highlights do not roll off cleanly into white. They clip as soon as the dynamic range of the scene is outside what the sensor can deal with. That's what I saw time and again in Che. You can see this with complete clarity in a night scene where there is an explosion. And you can see it in Che part 2, when the sky overexposes through tree branches. It looks very much like how video handles the limits of its highlight dynamic range.

The shadow tone dynamics have a similiar problem, but in reverse. The dynamic range of the shadows in a normal day scene was not even close to film, nor were the night scenes.

Maybe the Che DP wanted the highlghts to clip and the shadows to be flat. That's possible.

It's either a simple problem for RED to solve, to get the highlights to roll smoothly into white, or it's not. Either the sensor needs to be replaced or the software-electronics. I don't own a RED, but apparently many of you do. It's up to you to pressure RED to fix these problems instead of defending the current limitations. From the beginning of film, cinematographers and VFX artists pressured Kodak to fix their film grain and dynamic range and it worked. Kodak doesn't get its panties in bunch over the limits of their film stocks, they admit limitations and fix them as best they can.

I hear little objective expression of these current dynamic range limitations coming out of RED, which should make you as owners curious. I don't hear "we know the highlights clip and the shadows clump up and we're going to solve the problem". Where are the examples on the RED website of the good, the bad and the ugly? It would have zero impact on sales, so why not a list of "known image bugs".

You all know that soon enough, in one or two years, the current sensor will be dumped for one that has a greater dynamic range and hopefully rolls off into white as elegantly as motion picture film currently does. Why defend what will soon enough be obsolete?

Clearly, film or digital have to be worked within their limitations. The real world limitations imposed by the RED sensor in bright daylight and in shadows were, in Che, as described above. Show me a full length RED movie shot in conditions similar to Che that disproves this. I'd like to see it.

It's useful to get real and respectfully criticize Kodak or RED, and demand more. Being in love with Kodak or RED can make you feel good, but didn't some wised-up lover once admit "Love is Blind".
 
I love this forum it`s such a fun here
 
Not having seen any of the two films i have no reason not to believe what film101 observed during the screening. However, having a RED camera and knowing what it does, i know that it's limits are not as dramatic as he describes.

The 'problem' could be any combination of color grading, old camera build, wrong exposure or artistic decisions.
 
film101 said:
I am a first time poster, but I would like to think I 'm not a poser. I have an Oscar for Visual effects.
... really? What was it for? Background like this is important info.

I don't disrespect the RED efforts. I don't think it's ready for prime time. Yet. The fact the director of Che chose RED doesn't mean its image quality is not to be criticized. Image quality may have not been his main concern in weighing his camera options.
You are judging the image quality solely on DNR? Remember, we have seen this footage also and heard feedback from hundreds of "trained professionals" at NAB.

Maybe the Che DP wanted the highlghts to clip and the shadows to be flat. That's possible.
RED does not have the DNR of film. We never claimed it did. SS shot these movies on pre-production prototypes. But no one is making any excuses, even if the RED image has come a long way since then... SS's decisions are his to make. Everyone I have talked to thought the footage was amazing. Even the critics that have been hard on the movie.

It's useful to get real and respectfully criticize Kodak or RED, and demand more. Being in love with Kodak or RED can make you feel good, but didn't some wised-up lover once admit "Love is Blind".
Click to expand...
It is an interesting time for your 1st post. What motivated you to come here now? Any reason you don't sign your real name? What other "current" footage have you seen besides that shot with prototypes?

Jim
 
It's up to you to pressure RED to fix these problems instead of defending the current limitations.
Click to expand...

Film101, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Che films were shot on PROTOTYPE REDs. The image HAS improved since then. Maybe the reason us RED owners aren't complaining about highlight clipping is because we use our REDs everyday and DON'T have this problem.
 
Film101,

No no no, you see there are over 12.000 threads here covering every imaginable facet of this camera its plus and minus capabilities the whys and wherefores ad infinitum, so there is no issue about discussing improvements when the intent is constructive in nature.

You use the words "Respectfully Critisize" but;

1. Your 1st post is quite disrespectful and verging on mocking even gloating over what you deem to be failure.

2. Your cool detatchment in the face of our reactions tells of intelligence how then can you not know the nature of your actions unless of course they are by design?

You are a VFX guy so you know that its a choice don`t you? A modern equivalent to bring something to a modern audience. You know this.


Why have you never posted earlier?

Personally I think its also a matter of etiquette you don`t barge into someones living room and the first thing you do is take a shit in the middle of the floor without even introducing yourself or saying hello.

So you waited this long to take your dump...You said what you wanted to say? why? to help make it better? Than why not before engage in one of the 12.000 other conversations?

No you didn`t just post, You started your own thread. Pretty bold for a 1st time poster if you ask me. And to add to that you hold up your "Proof" as if it were the head of a conquered enemy. The bravado gave you away. Its over the top.


I think before you start trying to weasel through some clause you should maybe take a step back and present yourself and maybe apologize not for what you say but the way you said it.


And lastly, I dont react so much to the so called RED issues I react that you basically are calling Soderbergh a moron he has an Oscar and was nominated for three. So why oh why does he chose to use RED for these projects even when it was a prototype and why is he using them right now as we speak?

Where ever this conversation leads and ends I say this: if the RED is good enough for him and countless other ARTISTS of STATURE then its good enough for me! If they have chosen it as the tool for their expression then I have great faith in their judgment.

We have heard what you wanted to say...Anything else you want to get off your chest before you go?

M2C

DogDay


P.S.

You also went in and doctored your 1st post pasting in so as to repeat parts of your last one. Do you need to make the same point twice in the same thread? Hoping for numbers? You have message?

What are you up to here pray tell?

And about "Your Oscar" , Anyone can paint a Butt-Plug gold ... How does it feel? ... Not so nice huh ... Learn some Manners.




_
 
But..... The sensor, as it should be, is very linear. If you want to see what's in the shadows, you've got to grade for that. If you want a smooth highlight roll-off put your mid grey at a lower code value in the raw data and grade in whatever highlight rolloff you want.

When you state 5 stops of dynamic range you are measurably wrong. Saying "I have an Oscar for Visual effects" is meaningless unless you name yourself. We love discussion at RED. That's why we have the forum and the people that design the cameras post here. But both you and I know, you can't judge a camera from graded footage, and only the director can tell you if the camera aloud him to put the visuals on screen just as they wanted to see, and if there was any issues or limitations from the camera that made the vision less than perfect.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top