Does RED have it's own aesthetic?

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I just saw Crossing the Line at IBC and thought it looked really plastic and fake. And so I was wondering if any of you lucky people had any opinion yet on whether RED has an aesthetic? When you work with it in Scratch can you take it anywhere? Is the look completely created in the Grade (and the DoP's work of course of course..)?
I don't want to go on too much about Crossing, and I'm sure loads of people thought it was beautiful, which is fine.. But by way of an example I'd offer Love is the Devil, filmed by John Mathieson as a film that I think is really beautiful..:umm:

 

[Evin Grant]

I definately think Red has it's own aesthetic, that being said I like it better than any other electronic image I have ever shot. I do think with experience and the right tools you can take it pretty much wharever you like.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

It definitely does have it's own aesthetic. I happen to like it a lot, but some might not. One thing to keep in mind is that because it shoots RAW, the look is very malleable. Think of how many movies are shot with the same stock of Kodak film, yet they all look very different from each other. This is no different. I can't wait to see all the different looks possible with this camera!

 

[Rick Darge]

Speaking of 'looks' Anyone from the 26-50 camp unwrap their cameras yet? How do they look?

 

[Joel Kaye]

I just saw Crossing the Line at IBC and thought it looked really plastic and fake.

Have you ever seen anything else projected in 4K? I kinda think if we saw fine grained 35mm projected in pristine 4K it might be a similar feel to CTL.

Also, the shipping cameras have more dynamic range.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

I love what i've seen so far.

We're just at the beginning...

Wait until we explore all the possibilities...

 

[liquidigital]

Here's the thing. I saw Zodiac having no knowledge that it was digital and was totally blown away when I found out that it was. To be honest, I couldn't believe Superbad was shot digital.

A lot of purists that would argue for the aesthetic of film, but even well-lit stock needs color grading. Watch the deleted scenes of Constantine. Or Layercake. I watched the deleted scenes over and over because I was really blown away by the color correction.

And ultimately, digital looks sharper out of the gate because it's not scanned, but I'll tell you what, I'd rather start out with tack sharp footage and degrade it later to my preference.

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

thanks people, I really respect your opinions.

:bleh:

 

[James T Mather]

.....?

 

[Seung Han]

A poster on another forum who spent most of his time in the screening room at IBC commented about Red. He said it didn't look like 35mm film scanned at 2k or 4k but resembled 'pristine 70mm footage scanned for 4k.' He said the other 35mm scans at 2k or 4k got nowhere near the resolution and noise free images of Red's. He said Red, Dalsa and 70mm were way ahead from other formats being projected at 4k.

What you saw was Peter Jackson's interpretation of Red's raw files. You can always add grain and give it the texture you want if that is the way you want to interpret your raw files.

 

[goal]

Just watched Crossing the Line in 4K at IBC, and yes I think RED footage has it's own aesthetic. Whatever it looks like anyway, the most important thing it did for me was taking me to a 'surreal world', like film can do too. I know this is not just due to the camera, but it is something only few digital cameras can in my opinion.

I have been following RED for a while now, put in a reservation a few months ago and am completely soaked up in the hype, but today I was skeptical on arrival whether RED could live up to my expectations. It's all really nice to read good stories about it and see some impressive stills on the internet, but the thing I was still a bit worried about is what it looks like when it moves on a screen.

Most of the shots I saw in Crossing the Line looked simply awesome. Especially the shots with the airplanes.. wow.. I was just stunned that this sort of technology and quality is now coming within my reach, complemented with a promising workflow in FCP. However there is one thing that still has me a bit concerned about the footage, and I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this as well (maybe also in order to overcome this problem on shoots). The thing is that Crossing the Line has a lot of action going on in the shots, and in many shots the camera was tossed around itself as well, also with many fast pans and camerashake. I noticed that some of these shots came across a bit flickery to me, even though I did not want them to. I realize this is (at least partially) due to framerate, but somehow this tends to be a bit more forgiving on film (at least from what I've seen on movies in cinema myself). The frames just seem to follow up each other just a bit smoother in action packed shots shot on film. Does anyone understand what I mean and feel the same way? Maybe it was just me because I was really curious and focussed on this particular thing.

I've had this 'flickery' problem on some shoots with DVX and HDX900 before as well where I shot 25P on fast moving objects, but I am not sure what the best way is to eliminate this as much as possible. I've played around with shutter speed a bit and where I thought that getting a fast shutter speed should help, it actually made things worse as all the images got super sharp and lost their blend. Anyone with similar experiences or even solutions?

Anyway, there is no freakin' way I will cancel my reservation after todays show RED footage is by far the most stunning digital image I have ever seen and I can't wait for spring. Cheers to Jim and team RED!

 

[Rick Darge]

The flickering may be due to the fact that these were prototype cameras and as such, were only able to record at 24 fps 1/48 shutter. I imagine that as Red progresses, we will get higher shutter speeds which will cause less flickering in quick panning shots.

 

[Michel Hafner]

Anyway, there is no freakin' way I will cancel my reservation after todays show RED footage is by far the most stunning digital image I have ever seen and I can't wait for spring. Cheers to Jim and team RED!

The Dalsa footage is in the same league, but at what price? Their sensor alone costs more than the Red 1. Red is miles ahead of anything with their price performance ratio and concerning absolute quality in the top 5% with Dalsa and 70mm origination. Congratulations to the Red team as well. Can't wait to get a pocket Red.

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Goal: Yes I also noticed ghosting when the planes and the camera jumped around. I assumed it was a propotype thing, or maybe that they had tried to steadyshot it in post..?

I was very impressed with the technical quality of the footage: it compares very favourably with the Dalsa footage, which comes off an impossibly huge and expensive camera of course. I am interested that no one else has agreed yet that they found the look of Crossing the Line unattractive. I felt it was flat, almost cartoon-like. I think it is a challenge with DSLR type footage to make it really beautiful, and I don't claim to have the answers; which is why I posted about it..:nerd:

I can't wait to see what Guerrilla, The Argentine and Wanted look like...

 

[goal]

Flat I can't really agree with, I thought it actually had a lot of depth in it. Some of the shots did have a sort of CGI feeling to it (for example the shot where only the knife on the rifle is on screen), but I loved that.. it looked amazingly surreal to me. The look is definitely what I like on the footage.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Goal: Yes I also noticed ghosting when the planes and the camera jumped around. I assumed it was a propotype thing, or maybe that they had tried to steadyshot it in post..?

I was very impressed with the technical quality of the footage: it compares very favourably with the Dalsa footage, which comes off an impossibly huge and expensive camera of course. I am interested that no one else has agreed yet that they found the look of Crossing the Line unattractive. I felt it was flat, almost cartoon-like. I think it is a challenge with DSLR type footage to make it really beautiful, and I don't claim to have the answers; which is why I posted about it..:nerd:

I actually agree, I didn't like the CTL look as much as I expected to. But I'm personally chalking that up to directorial and coloring choices more than the camera. I can understand RED pimping the fact that Peter Jackson is all agog over their camera -- when you spend a year having to defend yourself from jealous idiots, having something like that is the best revenge -- even though the footage might not be the best the camera has to offer. It depends on the lenses they used, the way they colored it, etc.

Like others said, I think the beauty of RED is that it can have any aesthetic you want based on the choices you make. I didn't like PJ's choices on this occasion, but that's what the creative process is all about.

 

[Thor Wixom]

Just watched Crossing the Line in 4K at IBC, and yes I think RED footage has it's own aesthetic. Whatever it looks like anyway, the most important thing it did for me was taking me to a 'surreal world', like film can do too.

Goal,

I agree that CTL looked amazing, but I disagree about the reason.

If anything, I think the aesthetic of Red footage tips the scale toward real more than surreal.

As I watched CTL, I got the feeling that I was there. My eye wasn't distracted by things that it doesn't see in real life, like film grain.

It has been said before that grain is one of the characteristics that makes film seem dream like. I can agree with that, and that is why film (or a film look in post) may be desirable.

But, once you start with grain, you don't really get to go back. That is why I like the idea of starting with a clean, pristine digital image and tweaking it from there.

-Thor

 

[Floris Liesker]

I'm positive that the look of CTL is 95% Peter Jackson and 5% Red One.
I think this camera, more than any other digital camera, hasn't got a look 'baked in'. You can adjust every aspect of the image any way you want in post. You can even turn off the matrix and the LUT and start totally from scratch if you would like that.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

The thing is that Crossing the Line has a lot of action going on in the shots, and in many shots the camera was tossed around itself as well, also with many fast pans and camerashake. I noticed that some of these shots came across a bit flickery to me, even though I did not want them to. I realize this is (at least partially) due to framerate, but somehow this tends to be a bit more forgiving on film (at least from what I've seen on movies in cinema myself). The frames just seem to follow up each other just a bit smoother in action packed shots shot on film. Does anyone understand what I mean and feel the same way? Maybe it was just me because I was really curious and focussed on this particular thing.

I always found the motion blur generated by digital cameras different to film cameras. Different beasts.

Haven't shot with the D20 yet. I think it has a rolling shutter. Might be closer to 35mm and therefore different to RED, F900 and the likes in this particular regard.

Hans

 

[Timur Civan]

I agree that it looks plasticky. But i kinda like that...