Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

check out how these guys feel about red one

Not taking anything away from any of these guys but for years video has been attempting to emulate film both in dynamic range and depth of field. To say that in the UK TV shows are shot in 16 and that's all the viewing public expects totally misses the point. In a controlled situation you can light for the dynamic range of the media but without a big sensor or a contraption like a pro 35 you just are not going to get the 'look' of a 35mm shoot. The Red, being native 35, gives you options just not available otherwise.
End of evenings rant. :bye2:
(if anyone is interested we still have two Ikegami EC-35's available)
 
Keith Neff said:
Not taking anything away from any of these guys but for years video has been attempting to emulate film both in dynamic range and depth of field. To say that in the UK TV shows are shot in 16 and that's all the viewing public expects totally misses the point. In a controlled situation you can light for the dynamic range of the media but without a big sensor or a contraption like a pro 35 you just are not going to get the 'look' of a 35mm shoot. The Red, being native 35, gives you options just not available otherwise.
End of evenings rant. :bye2:
(if anyone is interested we still have two Ikegami EC-35's available)
Click to expand...

Can't get the video to play so I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. But in my experience it's been way easier to shoot S16 for TV and have it look like 35 than to shoot HD and have it look look like 35. Even with a lens adapter. Red may change this, but from what I've seen Red has it's own very nice look, which doesn't look much like 35 to me. Not necessarily a bad thing though, just a new thing.
 
"Im so excited! , any negativity towards this product is simply that people
(film guys) are scared"
Blablabla Im so scared that I ordered one.
BS aside, a certain amount of scepticism is in order when a new camera is released. RED still has noise and latitude issues.
I will shoot RED and continue to shoot 35mm film as apropriate for som time to come.
 
I agree - I'm a film guy and I'm taking delivery next month. I'm not scared of digital but film offers incredible dynamic range, high speed photography in a standard camera, robustness in multiple conditions, proven workflow, proven archive system and has been a proven delivery medium for a century. Video (or "digital" for the noveau-tech buzzworders) has it's own problems (reduced latitude due, in part, to a linear exposure response, motion cadence characteristics due to temporal sampling rate, CMOS shear due to rolling shutter, download and conversion times between formats, dropped frames, digital files are expensive to archive, workflow issues etc). Either system has it's issues and strengths - thats why Dp's exist.

Simply put, that the great viewing public are prepared to watch daytime soaps doesn't constitute proof that 3 chip digibeta video cameras are a good enough delivery medium for drama. The "film guys are scared" nonsense is just that - nonsense. People are sceptical and the Red, like all cameras, has had it's growning pains but seems to be overcoming them at a ferocious rate.

As I said to a producer the other day If this revolution were going the other way - ie: from digital to film then there would be a storm of protest - hairs in the gate, lab problems, scratches, missing rushes due to couriers, delayed gratification in seeing your rushes, enormous expense for processing and stock, putting enormous faith in your DP to deliver a healthy neg etc.

The film guys are not scared - but people, specifically professionals, are cautious - the stock and camera costs are a tiny percentage of a shoots overall budget so why take a risk? - people will move when they are ready - Usually that's after someone else has embraced the tech first. That said I personally think Miami Vice and Collateral look like garbage IMVHO for the most part (why go to all that trouble and expense then film on a gained up Tv camera? "Wow! it looks like sh*t - roll camera!" - the mind boggles.) - and will date quicker than a 1981 Blondie video shot on a tube video camera. (back then it was the ""death of film" too). Buying a 20,000 camera doesn't make you a DP of note any more than buying a paint set doesn't make someone an artist.

Lots of people with big dreams who have shot a couple of corporate videos see this camera as their break into the big time and seem to think that the film guys will fall by the wayside because they will refuse to adopt the tech - this is not true - film guys have already adapted (the f900, the 750, the d20, the genesis). Anyone who has shot reversal has the chops to handle digital.

Enough with the "film guys are sh*tless" rubbish. It-just-ain't-so.
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
"Im so excited! , any negativity towards this product is simply that people
(film guys) are scared"
Blablabla Im so scared that I ordered one.
BS aside, a certain amount of scepticism is in order when a new camera is released. RED still has noise and latitude issues.
I will shoot RED and continue to shoot 35mm film as apropriate for som time to come.
Click to expand...

yes its a bit of a blatant comment i agree ,
i cant afford to shoot motion35 and if anyone can it usually means they work for someone else. So for me its great to see a lot of speculation in regards to how Red is received within the industry .Red has Issues (for the time being) but I'm prepared to compromise because i simply don't have a choice. These Issues are not something that can't be worked out without compensation (excuse the double negative ). Anyway i need not compare.... Red is in a class of its own!
 
Geoff Boyle mentions in the video that the camera is set up to output pretty images for marketing purposes and not the flat raw look that in the end provides more dynamic range. Geoff mentions that the camera is however able to get more dynamic range but red just set it up "wrong" so the camera will give pretty images on output rather then haveing the gama set to afford the highest DR possible. Geoff says his tests showed 7.5 stops of DR. I am not saying his statements are right but it may explain why many of us are finding the camera to have 7.5 to 9 stops of DR.

Any thoughts on this? How are people setting up the camera or redcine to get the flat raw higher DR images?
 
Geoff Boyle mentions in the video that the camera is set up to output pretty images for marketing purposes and not the flat raw look that in the end provides more dynamic range. Geoff mentions that the camera is however able to get more dynamic range but red just set it up "wrong" so the camera will give pretty images on output rather then haveing the gama set to afford the highest DR possible. Geoff says his tests showed 7.5 stops of DR. I am not saying his statements are right but it may explain why many of us are finding the camera to have 7.5 to 9 stops of DR.
Click to expand...

Build 15 may address this?
 
I don't understand this statement....the raw files from red when exposed properly are anything but "pretty images"
Aloha
-A
 
Jtm,

Wise words indeed, and don't feel the need to precede the crappy qualification of Miami Vice and Collateral with a "IMVHO", those films do look like complete, absolute and utter crap. But then, when you're Michael Mann, or soderbergh for that matter, you get away with those "artistic" decisions. And as for the "pretty" images the RED produces, I don't know, they don't look all that pretty to me, though they are leaps and bounds ahead of the look of the Viper for example. RED raw looks a lot more like what the NIKON NEF raw images look like, "closer" to the final look but still infinitely malleable in post. I don't know, Geoff doesn't love the RED, but then he's in love with the SI which produces far "prettier" images out of the box than anything else out there...But I do agree that RED's achilles tendon is still the latitude and noise.
 
If I can take Geoff quote from Finner as accurate, Geoff doesn't understand exposing raw images. I know "Geoff is highly respected blah blah blah" at the very least that quote would mean it is agenda driven.
Aloha
-A
 
Just to back Geoff up:

I believe the test Geoff talks about is the shoot David Stump did was with the breadboard (Or early prototype) camera, and offline developing by RED.
That means that Geoff didn't see the RAW files but the Tiff conversion done by RED. It turned out that some setting in the conversion was set so that contrast was maximised but some clipping occured limiting DR.

This is clearly what he is talking about. Not camera settings, but the settings RED chose in the conversion/Developing of these early tests.

Remember this was back in 2006...
 
several of the comments made in this "discussion" are simply wrong.
several times opinion is presented as fact.

several times -everyone- here simply was laughing. (I like very much the ""you cant backup 4K!!" (interesting, as 4K is a -pretty small- amount of data to any typical industrial IT application...), the "Hollywood hates HD!" (sure, several HDCAM movies are among the top 25 revenue films of all times...).

what i found interesting - an internship here, who didnt know who was talking on the screen, said after listening from another room: "these guys really have a lot to catch up".
 
I've actually just done tests with a RED camera and are having problem with low-light situations. Enough for me to stay on 35mm until that's solved. To me what Geoff said seemed very justifiable.

(Don't get me wrong I love what RED wants to do but I found vulnerabilities that hopefully will be fixed)

fred
 
No, I think Geoff is anything but agenda driven, he just seems to be one of those irascible, grizzeld old schoolers that love the the possibilities afforded by digital but have zero tolerance or patience to deal with the inevitable growing pains of bleeding edge technology. They want the advantages of digital with the predictability of film, and we just ain't there yet.

However, having played with some files from the SI, I have to say that there's far more consistent noise reduction and/or management across all channels than there is in the RED, and even, there I say it, more Dynamic resolution so far, and I just can't believe that the Altasens sensor is more sensitive than the Mysterium...so what gives?
 
Red give the L-B's men and woman to compete on almost the same level as these guys so no complaining from red user
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top