Che

[10s]

This forum is fun! OK, lets say Film101 is correct. The "Che" film visually stinks, so what? This "Che" film simply doesn't discount the evidence from other users and productions, unless film101's visual discernment is superior.

Let's say the film does look bad as film101 reports. If the film appears flawed, then I would suspect "Che" is blown out and crushed on purpose, because the film makers want it to be that way. Maybe they're after a documentary/newsprint grit style. That would make sense given the subject matter. The "Che" production team has the talent, experience, technical assistance, & money to get the results they're after -- afterall they're at Cannes! Do you think they're not prepared? Think about it, their reputaion is on the line. Do you really believe they're showing up wih a crappy looking film because they're stupid?

On the other hand there are plenty of RED shooters getting beautiful results and not seeing these problems. What's going on with this situation? How can they be getting it right?

This issue comes down to:

1. film101 has superior visual discernment, others don't.
2. Che is the way it is intended to be.
3. The projection is poor, but the other digital films are projected better.
4. The RED cameras used on Che are poor, or the production doesn't know how to use them.
5. The Red community are just "Fanboys" and don't know what they're looking at. They simply don't have dispassioned critical observational skills.
6. The cameras of "Three Monkeys" & "24 City" are much better than RED, yet no one can see the obvious difference in testing. (this is a dead give away that Che's look is due to the film makers intention)
7. Someone is scared of RED.

This will all come out in the wash. Relax everyone!

Jim are you enjoying the ride?

 

[dorko76]

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

I have no other choice but to harbor serious doubts about the credibility of anyone making such bold claims, yet not even knowing that Steven Soderbergh is his own DP (a la Peter Andrews).

 

[jacknusa]

Ok, I'm sure this has been said before in a thread that I'm sure will be long...

Who would like to take a stab at saying something about the dynamic range of 35mm film after seeing TRAFFIC?

 

[Jason Ing]

I have an Oscar for Visual effects.

Hi, my name is Jason Ing. This is Jim Jannard. And this is Graeme Nattress.
We are professional adults who like to keep it real. And you are... ?

Maybe the DP did not care of the sky blew out and clipped...
Maybe the Che DP wanted the highlghts to clip and the shadows to be flat. That's possible.

Well, you said it yourself twice. So maybe there's hope for you yet. Maybe you can back-track, take your foot out of your mouth, become self-reflective, and admit your first post's tone was inflammatory, unprofessional, and narrow-minded. You placed a lot of "blame" on the camera. Do you usually jump to conclusions and point your finger at just one thing when problem solving image issues in your line of work? I hope not. You, as a supposed Oscar winner, should know there is so much in between the original capture of an image and the final projected image (one of them being VFX! Wow, imagine that.) And yet, you still failed to take into account all those other factors and possibilities. Hmmm... does that Oscar have your specific name on it or where you just part of a "team"? Maybe you're just one of the many rotoscopers...

I would love to have a cheap 4K digital camera that generates an image approximating film.

If this is true, then you'll be buying a Red or Epic one day. And you'll have to suck it up like so many others.

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.

These are your first posts that you've written. But is it the first posts that you've read?

If you've lurked around here enough, reading, learning, and, in general, doing what a fair, open-minded, professional individual would do to prevent shoving his foot in his mouth, then you would know Jim and the Red Team are the FIRST to admit limitations and not only have been fixing them, but improving on them at a phenomenal pace.

"Love is blind"

So is ignorance and stupidity. One is curable, the other is not. If you're the former, cure yourself and read and watch more. If it's the latter, sorry, I can't help you there.

Film101: This isn't a church. You've stumbled upon a forum that is filled with highly intelligent, highly talented professionals. You're posts are just going to get soundly ripped apart with convincing hard facts and you'll get bitch-slapped. You're going to have to step up to the plate and really try harder. I hope you can handle it.

Be professional. Be mature. Be intelligent.

Engage us.

Please.

If you really earned that Oscar, you might have something to contribute. I really would love to get true, helpful insight from top VFX people.

 

[Julian Banos]

Film 101:

I agree with you that we should know the limitations of our cameras. And I do. This is why I put my money on the table.

The point is that if you are going to claim 5 stops of DR. Back it up.

 

[Robert Berger]

lets go to work again, have fun ,enjoy life and follow your owe road and let nobody put a monkey on your shoulder, waist of time! Let everybody believe what they want to believe and try noy to convince someone who has no open mind and is probaly afreed for the future of filmstock or his own skills.

Robert

 

[Uli Plank]

Every electronic sensor is clipping hard, other than film. This is a fact of physics and nobody here is going to deny that. The only thing you can do to get a smooth roll-off into the highlights is simulating it after the fact.
So, you can do it in the camera with knee or faked film-curves like others do, or you can leave it up to the user, as Red does. I like the freedom to decide how I want to shape me curve, thank you, Red!
Plus, we own a Red and saying it has only 5 stops latitude is pure BS. And I've been working with film for more than 20 years.

And you can have my full name:

Prof. Uli Plank, Braunschweig University of Arts, Germany

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes Uli. You're right.

 

[Tim Lüdin]

Yeah, 5 stops is total BS.
It is more around 8-9 stops and with build 16 and the new infos how to get the most out of the sensor it will go even higher.
So far I have never seen a digital cam that has such a nice white roll off.

Ah and the media here in Europe is praising Ché. It seems to be a realy great movie. It could win Cannes. Now that would look good on the RED website.
First all RED Movie wins Cannes Film Festival.

Can you hear me Jim? :biggrin:

Cheers
Tim

 

[Steve Sherrick]

state your name and this could turn into a worthwhile discussion. That's all we're asking. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but a name will really help us out. Otherwise, those who have cameras know the real story and we can move on.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

I've got the solution!!

Soderbergh should simply rent "my" Red camera, 'cause it sure can take some white clouds and still have nice shadow details… just to say:clown2:

Shot without any Mattebox or filter.

Emmanuel

 

[Francis Kenny]

People always forget how difficult it is to shoot a feature. When I sit and discuss films with the truly great DP's we talk about how we solved problems. The viewing audience never knows how cold or hot it was outside, or that a producer was yelling at you to wrap in 15 mins, when the director wanted a 360 degree shot. Yet we manage to pull it off. Shooting with the Red Camera has enabled us to shoot quicker, be more mobile, use less gear and manpower, many things that critics do not take in to consideration. The fact that the Red Camera exists has enabled films like Che to be made. This adventure is just beginning. There will always be the mega budget film. Yet it will be the smaller films that will win the awards. I screened some of Che and was blown away by the work. I know the difference between what is good and bad cinematography. Mr. Soderberg is a great filmmaker. I ask those who have never been out in the field to look at the entire picture, no pun intended.

 

[Movies for the Mind]

I've got the solution!!

Soderbergh should simply rent "my" Red camera, 'cause it sure can take some white clouds and still have nice shadow details… just to say:clown2:

Shot without any Mattebox or filter.

Emmanuel

He can rent mine as well!

 

[film101]

Che - Expanding on my original post Part 2

Che - Expanding on my original post Part 2

Would it be useful for all RED users would be for RED to publish sensitometric curves or linear expressions for its sensor?

And MTF measurements?

Kodak does this for every film it sells.

What are the real, measurable. sensitometric values for the RED sensor for its red, grren and blue sensors?

Search the RED site and you'll never find either its sensor sensitometric values or MTF.

Why is this factual information not published?

Shut up and shoot is not sufficient.

Given the hysterical reaction to my post, the last thing I will do is give out my name.

See the film. Use your eyes.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Why, because no other digital camera manufacturer does either... And, because they're not curves, but basically a straight line....

Graeme

 

[Jason Ing]

Because the Red site, like most sites, have a crappy search engine. I recommended they get the google mini hardware. But someone came up with a good tip: search the red site with google. there's a thread somewhere that showed how.

Edit: I guess since Graeme points out there isn't one, then I there's not point in searching.

 

[Vincent S]

I really couldn't give a &^$% about those details or any of that. This cam makes great images and it helps me tell stories like I never could before.

 

[Jason Ing]

Why, because no other digital camera manufacturer does either... And, because they're not curves, but basically a straight line....

Graeme

So which one is it really?

The first reason seems a little un-Red like. Since when does Red do, not do, or care what the other manufacturers do or don't do? Red blazes new trails and does what's best for Red and it's users.

If it's the second reason, then you're saying there is no point because it's just a straight line?

 

[Jason Ing]

Given the hysterical reaction to my post, the last thing I will do is give out my name.

Subtext 1: "After everyone's assistance with helping me be more self-reflective, I'm really embarrassed by my posts and too ashamed to reveal who I am."

Subtext 2: "I'm a big fat liar."

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Or put the question another way - if I gave a "curve" (straight line) of how the sensor responded to light, what would you do with that? What on earth use would it be to you? It doesn't tell you anything - just like the film curves Kodak give out don't tell you that the blue channel looks all nasty and that the grain gets in the way of the image at this brightness level here and so on and so forth.

Quite frankly, the only useful measurements that you do are the ones you do yourself, under your controls and conditions. There's no such thing as an "independent test".

Graeme