First Clip from Crossing the Line

[Jason Rodriguez]

Are you presuming that Misterium is 3T design or someone mentioned somewhere that Misterium is in fact 3T design?

Jason has not seen the Mysterium sensor design. So he (nor I) know what it is.

My apologies to the RED team, I'm not trying to spread FUD . . . someone asked why you just can't make a sensor with a global shutter if it wasn't designed with one in the first place, but explaining that the Mysterium was based on a 3T pixel design (which typically requires some form of rolling shutter since you can't read-out and integrate at the same time) was not the best idea since I was not privy to that information . . . I falsely based this assumption of the Mysterium design on the fact that people were commenting on rolling shutter in the PJ video, and rolling shutters are typically intrinsic to 3T designs.

I'm actually going to go back and see if I can edit that post so that it doesn't turn into a rumor . . .

Again, my apologies . . .

 

[Koa M. Stone]

Seeing what's already been done with other "hd cams," looks pretty damn good to me

~Koa

 

[mtnz]

Um, sorry, not very good

Um, sorry, not very good

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

 

[Steve Connor]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Well I think you actually summed up the main advantages quite well there!

 

[Steve Gibby]

Ho hum...another 1st post troll...

 

[Robert Jackson]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away.

Really? So you have access to a lot of cameras that can provide similar results?

This kind of stuff is almost comical. Now we've got a wave of people posting stuff like, "Well, if you're strictly limited by budget I suppose you can get by using a RED." That's the new spin, apparently. Gotta find some way to equate its low cost with low quality.

 

[Andrew M.]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Did you see past stills?

So if it is not better than film then you should buy a better reference screen to look at it.
You can always spend 6.5K on high speed port and get RAW RAW data out of RED and it will look like any other 12PM shot frame by frame. Hay!! You can even apply your own deBayer algorithm to make it perfect.
BTW What reference monitor do you have there?

 

[gcaussade]

Not better than film?!

Not better than film?!

Hmmm, I'm a bit surprised by that comment. OK, "different than film", I can understand, and someone can easily argue that if you have the money, you could use both, and also that there is a place for film...

But to say that without giving the RED credit for price/performance is misleading IMHO.

And, I'm curious to see over the next few years (month!) what kind of post-processing will be available to be able to do a lot more with the RED output!

Man, I guess someone could invent a teleportation device, and some people would complain that you'd miss seeing all the sights while moving from place to place, while completely missing the point of the technology!

(Does the RED do teleportation? :biggrin: )


-Jerry

 

[Brook Willard]

No need to get too upset about mtnz's post, guys... he's entitled to his opinion just as we are. He was respectful and presented his opinion as he saw it.

 

[wshultz]

Actually a dramatic interior would be much easier to produce than making the harsh New Zealand sun look good.

 

[James T Mather]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Interesting that this is your first post though mr, Mtnz.

 

[Kenn Christenson]

Maybe mtnz is the Noms de Web of one of those fun Cinematography. com contributers. This bashing seems a little too conveenient.

 

[Brook Willard]

Guys... it's reactions like this that cause problems. If you don't agree with him, fine, that's cool. There's no need to call him a troll or make any negative assumptions about him. Let's stay cool...

 

[david farland]

I wouldn't read too much into mtnz's guys.
Okay he came across at bit ill informed and 'young' to what's happening but he shouldn't be bashed for that.
What I'm trying to say is his opinion (trying not to look too much behind his comments) was within the range of reasonable public comment.

Okay he strolled into the wrong neighbourhood to say it.

We've got to keep some perspective on how others may look at it and not just discount these comments as subversive!

as brook said, he simply said respectively what he saw.

thanks,

 

[I Bloom]

Jus bought a RED...

Jus bought a RED...

My favorite Island in the Bahamas is Eleuthera and they have a great slogan "Eluethera it's not for everyone". Not everyone is going to see the advantages of this camera or what's good about this footage. I think there are enough smart people who have been studying this problem (how to shoot movies digitally) for a long enough time that all you had to say was that RED has a single Bayer pattern chip, Super 35mm in size, more than 11 stops DR and it compresses with Wavelet transform prior to demosaicing, and the people who know what's up are going to say holy shizzle, FINALLY. Likewise people who look at this quicktime and poke holes in it are missing the point, that the camera I just described went into the field and successfully completed a film.

Its just a fact of life that when you put yourself out there some people are going to find fault, that's true in every part of life, and especially in the film industry. I say put it out there. People who judge this film like its a camera test, don't get it. People who expect RED to be perfect from the get go are also missing what it seems to me is the spirit of the company.

So Jim I hope you go ahead and just put it out there, show those of us that couldn't go to NAB, just exactly what you guys were able to accomplish.

In the mean time here is my suggestion for a RED theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMFj0sWpIAI

Don't you see the big chain
Don't you see the big rims
Wonder who they hatin' on lately
Baby it's him candy paint,
Gator skin seats call me Dun Dee
Pull up in your hood I'm the one that you wanna be
Haters wish they could feel the wood in my '83
Ridin' with no tint so the motherf*!@$%$#s know it's me

Jus bought a [Red]...THROW SOME D'S ON THAT [camera]!

IB

 

[RocketDigitalPro]

I personally thought it looked terrific. I also am glad that there are dissenting views; if no one was negative (it does not matter if they are with/without merit) would you believe your fellow "kool-aid" drinkers?
This is my dream camera (cost effective, superior image acquisition, you could actually have more than one). I freely admit that I buy into it.
But I would love to see the 4k displayed so that I could see what it REALLY looks like. But since there aren't a lot of those available, I am plenty happy to view the Quicktime footage. I am dying to see the whole thing. But none of us that have only seen the QT footage can really say anything about the camera. It's been through post, it's no longer the original zeros and ones, without watching the RAW footage we really don't know what it can do. We just know what THEY DID with it.

 

[Corey Culp]

I've watched it on a number of screens and I'm sorry, I was not remotely blown away. I will probably buy one anyway as the price is just too good, but I note we've yet to see a really good interior drama piece.

I mean, if you compare that to 35mm I don't see the advantage apart from lack of scratches/dirt etc.

And of course, cost. But a great leap forward. Not yet.

Okay. I'll bite. Your opinion is what it is. But how do you think "the price is just too good" if you're not impressed with the image? And if you're NOT happy with the picture quality, WHY would you want one?

 

[Samscad]

I have to say, I think mtnz is sharing an opinion you will see more and more as this technology spreads to a wider audience.

Why?

Because this camera is being compared to the best possible image quality we are seeing anywhere from any format in existence. mtnz's comment sounds negative, but in fact it's a victory. This demo RED footage really does stand up to 35mm, no question. Does it look better than 35mm when seen in 1k? Perhaps not. I actually think it is technically better. But I can see how the average viewer might not be aware of that. But you can bet the average viewer was aware of those soft fuzzy shots in 28 days later. The RED team just changed cinema history, (or at least accelrated it) and people are already taking it for granted. That's just human nature. Jim will probably have to make do with being a billionaire second time around, but the avearage guy on the street won't ever really appreciate what he's done.

 

[gcaussade]

Rating Red

Rating Red

I agree, people can have their opinions.

I would love to hear more specifics about what wasn't so good about the image. And...this isn't being dowloaded in 4K either!

Trolling, to me, is making a comment just to get a negative response out of the audience. I usually spot it because thers is no detail.

But, we should invite new people and make them feel welcome, even if they appear negative. (Hmmm, I haven't posted much here, my posts have been DVXuser...)

I'm getting a Red in about a year...

Samscad, I agree with your comments.

I suspect within 4 years much of the features of Red will be available for under $5K, which is even more mind-blowing to me. We live in good times, and the Red team is at the center of the revolution!

-Jerry

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I see all this headache being something that will seriously concern producers and DOPs of FX heavy movies and make them not choose RED for their project, specially big budget Hollywood movies where they can just shoot film or used a CCD camera for fx like they have been doing. I doubt they would make their lives harder if they can afford anything. The ones who will have to learn how to live with it are just poor suckers who can't afford anything else, like myself.

Actually you misinterpreted my conclusions as well. Compensating for a rolling shutter when doing a match move is very very possible. We already compensate for each individual lens (part of the Cooke i technology is to keep a database of lens distortions) this'll just be one more distortion to keep track of, one which actually wouldn't be that hard to analyze compared to many of the other problems people face. With this distortion correction like Flameop mentioned you should be able to easily do a matchmove. Then when you apply the same inverse distortion to the 3D elements they'll match the non-global shutter.

So what I meant was analyzing it is one thing, removing it is another but adding the same effect to new footage is trivial. If for instance it's just a green screen shot with motion control and you use a RED camera for the live action plate and the green screen footage you'll get the "effect" for free and the two will perfectly match. They'll both be distorted but they'll both be distorted in the same way and that's what's important.

Timur and his cinematographer have chosen RED for VFX shots. And "Wanted" is considered a big budget Hollywood film. Again... you are making assumptions based on footage you are seeing from an Alpha prototype.

Jim

Jim it's comments like this which aren't actually helpful in any way. While the comment you were responding to was inaccurate, as I just pointed out, simply saying "you are making assumptions based on alpha footage" doesn't clarify the situation at hand and is the kind of comment which simply keeps the debate running.

If the rolling shutter will be minimized in the release cameras say so. Nebulous "The final cameras will be different" doesn't tell me anything about the current topic of discussion and if the camera does have a rolling shutter in the final product you'll have just opened yourself to accusations of dishonesty for implying it wasn't reflective of the final product.

I'm sure Timur and his cinematographer were also looking at pre-release products and I'm hoping they consulted with their vfx supervisor to see if the rolling shutter would be an issue. And I'm sure you were helpful and cooperative in answering questions like "will the final product have a rolling shutter and should we check to see if this will cause any problems on our end?" Part of the advantage of showing pre-release footage is we can start to think about what we'll need to do to work with RED. If this is one item that is in the final product VFX people will have to take a look at this and evaluate the consequences. If RED keeps their collective mouth's shut on every single concern raised about pre-release footage it shouldn't have been released. I'm not saying the footage shouldn't have been released, I'm saying simple short concise answers are in order any time you show footage.

Will there be a rolling shutter:
"Live with it/It'll be better/No"

Was the Peter Jackson footage run through a pretty heavy noise reduction filter or are the artifact we're seeing the result of REDCode:
"Noise Filter/Redcode/Other"

If Redcode is that indicative of the final redcode compression:
"Yes/No/We're trying to make it better but we'll see."

Those are the three questions that are floating around on this topic and dragging it out to 20 pages. All 3 have importanat consequences "Will we be ablet o shoot VFX on REDCode, should we look into an uncompressed workflow, will we need to find a way to correct for a rolling shutter in our tracks. Any sensible vfx supervisor, producer or cinematographer can overlook mistakes if we *know* to overlook these mistakes.

It's like showing off a new screwdriver at a tool trade show. It's a philips head screwdriver and a repairman walks up to you and asks "Is the final screw driver going to be a philips head?". You reply "It's not the final design." So the repairman thinks "huh so I'll take that as a no" and buys a box of flat head screws. The final tool comes out and it's a philips head and the repairman is angry. You said it wasn't reflective of the final design! "It's not, we changed the handle."