Dragon uncaged...

[Eryc Tramonn]

I find this argument about skin tones to be academic. Most of the time people have no idea what they are looking at unless they were present on set when it was shot. There have been many times where RED was inter-cut with 35mm film and it was not mentioned.

Seems to be for every "industry professional" that has a problem with RED, there are other "industry professionals" who seem to love it.

To each his own.

Jay

Precisely. Could not have said it better.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

So, Social Network and all the other movies that a few people think do not look great had industry professionals doing the finish. If it is true that these highly trained professionals cannot get a look out of RAW footage from a camera that the producers and directors of these movies concluded were acceptable, then what does that say about those great post people?

I've known people in the past who continually found fault with any and everything in order to appear to have powers that the rest of us do not possess. That would leave us scratching our heads trying to find that discrepancy so we too could be in the same class as the fault finder. Not saying there may not actually be faults sometimes, but many times the fault exists only in the eyes of the beholder... plus anyone they can convince to "see" what they see.

Not saying this applies to you James... just using your post to make a point.

In a nutshell. Awesome post, Elsie.

Most of us here do not ignore shortcomings, or blindly act as evangelists for the RED water.

Nothing is perfect, but in my real-world production experience, this is an issue that has been BLOWN COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION. Literally beaten to death. :beatdeadhorse5: It makes me wonder what people are seeing. Whatever though.

Color and light are definitely subjective, and as with any system of measure, the measurement utility seems to break down under intense scrutiny. We think about anything too minutely and we cross into philosophy, and then paralysis via analysis. I'll see you in the field, or not...that's kind of where we have to leave it.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Great post Elsie. Some of this skin tone conversation has the same feel as wine snobbery, the idea that oenophiles are possessed of a higher sensibility that the rest of us simply don't have access to, especially as it pertains to the cost of the wine. Blind taste testing, however, has put to rest most of the wine nonsense, "experts" having been fooled in test after test after test. This is not to say that enjoying a nice glass of wine is not a fine experience with a complex array of sensations, only to note that those who claim to be experts are often greatly influenced by what they already know about a given wine.

I am fully prepared to listen to the Red skin tone naysayers if they can demonstrate their "expertise" in a blind test. So far, in the very limited experiments here on Reduser, the detractors have been a colossal failure. Even if, however, those detractors were able to distinguish Red originated material every time, I would still argue that we are well into the realm of taste and that accuracy and fidelity to the original subject is a much, much trickier zone.

Exactly. It is very encouraging to witness other shooters in such a similar head space.

Here's a link to a stills page on my website. I love my Epic for its ability to produce what I believe are lovely images, and render faces in a way that is pleasing... at least to me. http://www.veritestudios.com/stills.html

Yep.

Really beautiful work.

 

[Elsie N]

Exactly. It is very encouraging to witness other shooters in such a similar head space.




Yep.

Really beautiful work.

+1.

 

[Andy Roberts]

Here's a link to a stills page on my website. I love my Epic for its ability to produce what I believe are lovely images, and render faces in a way that is pleasing... at least to me. http://www.veritestudios.com/stills.html

Absolutely stunning stills Timothy.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Absolutely stunning stills Timothy.

Thanks for the kind words Andy and others. The digital imaging universe has opened up, due in large part to Jim and the guys at Red. I can pick up a Hasselblad-sized camera and shoot theatrical quality footage at 60 or 90 or 100 frames a second. Half the time, I work by myself, which has dramatically changed my business. I can edit and grade on my desktop with a degree of accuracy and fidelity that would have required a million dollar room ten or twelve years ago. Granted, the original Redcolor was a work in progress, but the new color science is beautiful, and faces are rendered as I see them and light them on the day.

No piece of equipment is perfect, but Epic is the single best piece of cinematographic gear I have ever owned. My old Arri 16SR was a distant second. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but some guys have made a pastime out of knocking Red. I'm with PatC - just go out and shoot.

Tim Eaton

 

[Thor Melsted]

It's easy to see this in the ACES workflow, where RED's CFA produces bad results (according to Jim Jannard—and everyone else) with the default Reference Rendering Transform. That's because "red", "green", and "blue" vary from camera to camera, and thus RAW file to RAW file. (Note: this does not mean RED has a bad CFA; it just means that the RRT in ACES isn't optimized for what RED is recording...).

Has that changed?
I just read that the DI for Elysium used ACES.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I bet you'd have no idea what camera gatsby was shot on if it wasn't explicitly known beforehand... epic or alexa... also like you'd probably be unable to tell what film stock was used for most of the movies put out in the 90's without explicitly researching it.. unless you're a savant....

I am the first to argue for the merits of digital. Especially in that digital could be made to look exactly like film with the proper LUT. But that's not to say that there isn't a big difference in the look between film and digital.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two. I don't see why people are so vehemently opposed to striving to offer a more filmic LUT option.

Another two good examples that are more apples to apples:
http://clorstudios.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/storm-copy.jpg
http://www.filmconvert.com/examples/

I wouldn't say that takes a wine snob to tell the difference.

 

[Phil Holland]

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two. I don't see why people are so vehemently opposed to striving to offer a more filmic LUT option.

You can, it's just really up to you in post. A good colorist will give you any look you want. Film-like, digital crispy lettuce, and everything in between.

 

[Andy Roberts]

Seems like it is mostly a grading choice...

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

You can, it's just really up to you in post. A good colorist will give you any look you want. Film-like, digital crispy lettuce, and everything in between.

That's the entire point. Some people seem to "get it." Others -- not so much.

 

[Matt Ryan]

That's the entire point. Some people seem to "get it." Others -- not so much.

So Academy Award winning DP's don't "get it?" You guys need to stop circle jerking each other. There are plenty of "looks" you can't achieve on Epic that you can on Alexa and vice versa. Same for film. Is the Epic great, yes! Does it have room to improve? ALWAYS..... Captured color could be improved, DR could be improved, apparent sharpness could be improved, compression could be improved, etc... In comes the Dragon (may improve all of those things)... To say any camera is perfect as is is well, short sighted. We wan't to keep pushing the limits and always improve. Guess what? Dragon will be outdone in 2 years and we will be on to another sensor. Maybe you guys are just lost, but continually pushing to improve things is good, not bad. We just wan't RED to succeed so were willing to call out what could be improved. Don't be shortsighted and put those people down. They're the reason the RED exists, it's about pushing boundaries and improving. Keep that in mind.

I'm as big a fan boy as any, but things are getting more and more ridiculous around here.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I basically agree with you Gavin, but in comparing these two movies it makes me think not only of the evolution of acquisition (ie...from film to digital), but to the evolution of production as well. Romeo and Juliet, from what I remember, appears to be shot mostly on location, or on set. Whereas Gatsby seems to have relied heavily on Greenscreen, compositing, and VFX.

The difference in your two frames seems to be heavily influenced by BOTH these factors. Yes, the digital image is cleaner, and with much less grain. But the lighting, and the way the background forms around Dicaprio in the Gatsby frame, has a contemporary VFX look that contrasts markedly with the in-camera simpleness of Romeo & Juliet.

For example, movies shot on RED with little to no VFX look much more classic to me. Take Beginners for example:

Or Blue Valetine:

Or even Dragon Tatoo for that matter (I don't remember it being very VFX heavy):

I am the first to argue for the merits of digital. Especially in that digital could be made to look exactly like film with the proper LUT. But that's not to say that there isn't a big difference in the look between film and digital.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two. I don't see why people are so vehemently opposed to striving to offer a more filmic LUT option.

 

[Andy Roberts]

Matt, the posts started in response to this
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?103365-Dragon-uncaged&p=1236087&viewfull=1#post1236087
I don't think anything could be more ridiculous than that post.
Yes everyone wants improvement, but some just want to bash Red... so like any long standing feud, the strong reactions will continue. But for this thread, that post was the incendiary spark.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The reason why people don't like the skin tones from the MX is because the output is much sharper and cleaner than other cameras. I suggest using old lenses. That might fix the problem.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

You've provided two images with different colour temperatures. The second one is soft. I found Gatsby had great skin tones. The problem with that film was not the camera!

So Academy Award winning DP's don't "get it?"

You are not suggesting that professionals don't have flaws in their thinking? I wish Spielberg would tone down the fucking music in his films. And Lucas made a mistake in adopting digital too early - he took a step backwards, IMO. I have no respect for the notion that a DSLR can be used to shoot medium or high budget movies, despite what some professionals think is hip. Does Michael Bay think that Linkin Cry Baby Park is going to help sell more movie tickets? What if Wally Pfister is wrong about digital vs film projection (maybe, maybe not)? I wish that Lynch had not shot Inland Empire with a video camera. And Kubrick should have made more movies, damn him!

apparent sharpness could be improved

It's way sharp. Probably too sharp! Things are not ridiculous here. Except maybe when people ask the same question twenty times without reading the thread first.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

So Academy Award winning DP's don't "get it?" You guys need to stop circle jerking each other. There are plenty of "looks" you can't achieve on Epic that you can on Alexa and vice versa. Same for film. Is the Epic great, yes! Does it have room to improve? ALWAYS..... Captured color could be improved, DR could be improved, apparent sharpness could be improved, compression could be improved, etc... In comes the Dragon (may improve all of those things)... To say any camera is perfect as is is well, short sighted. We wan't to keep pushing the limits and always improve. Guess what? Dragon will be outdone in 2 years and we will be on to another sensor. Maybe you guys are just lost, but continually pushing to improve things is good, not bad. We just wan't RED to succeed so were willing to call out what could be improved. Don't be shortsighted and put those people down. They're the reason the RED exists, it's about pushing boundaries and improving. Keep that in mind.

I'm as big a fan boy as any, but things are getting more and more ridiculous around here.

Umm, I kinda think we're all sayin' the same thing. I'm not saying the camera is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If you doubt that, go back and read some of my prior posts -- even in this thread. Do I think it is good? Resounding affirmative. Does that mean the Alexa, isn't? I have NEVER once said that.

I am saying some of the debate surrounding certain "issues" is silly...yes, I am.

As Phil points out, maybe his voice holds more water than mine, the image is malleable in the hands of talented colorists. And here it comes.......what is a "'Talented' colorist, and why do you need one to arrive at a decent image." Oh goodness.

Not implying you would ask that question, Matt, or do not know, sir. I'm just saying I can hear someone, somewhere, thinking that.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

It's way sharp. Probably too sharp! Things are not ridiculous here. Except maybe when people ask the same question twenty times without reading the thread first.

Haha, this is a perennial issue. No worries though. Most forum members are gracious enough to simply answer as though they are hearing the question for the first time.

Much love everybody. Get along. Be happy. We have new tools heading our way.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Has that changed?
I just read that the DI for Elysium used ACES.

Well, the RRT is constantly being tweaked, so it might be better now for RED-originated material.

Although...you can actually just use you own RRT (that's what I do), in which case, the ACES pipeline would work for any footage (in principle).

ACES is actually just a standardization of what many people already do, which is why I think it'll be adopted widely in the future.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

For example, movies shot on RED with little to no VFX look much more classic to me. Take Beginners for example:

Comparing the aesthetic of a movie is like comparing the aesthetic and look of of paintings in a museum. Most people in the art world don't look at a painting and start criticizing what paint brush the artist used. But movies ... WOW ... everyone is an expert.

In a creative, supervised color correction - a director and a sometimes a cinematographer makes choices in the final color correct. Prior to OFFHOLLYWOOD selling our post production operations to Light Iron - we color graded and delivered dozens and dozens of features shot on RED including the Academy Award winning Beginners used as an example in this thread. I have been a part of the production and post production process of dozens of films shot on the same sensor that look ENTIRELY different.

Which ones look "better" .... well ... that's totally subjective. The reality is - they each look the way the director, or cinematographer ... and even sometimes the producer wanted them to look. Whoever is directing the colorist in a DI on a film shot on RAW R3D's has a lot of room to swing - and the swings they choose may or may not be what you think is best. Guess what ... it's not your movie. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. It's just as valid as mine. And just as valid as the director of a given film. Guess who has the power to make the choice?

You can debate and compare what movie you think "looks better" all day long if you want. What is a little more relevant to this forum would be to appreciate how DIFFERENT all the movies shot on RED actually look. There's a CRAZY range.

My 2 cents.

 

[Nick Morrison]

You can debate and compare what movie you think "looks better" all day long if you want. What is a little more relevant to this forum would be to appreciate how DIFFERENT all the movies shot on RED actually look. There's a CRAZY range.

My 2 cents.

Favorite quote of the day. Thanks for chiming in Mark. Appreciate it.