Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

Format thought...

Some Thoughts

Some Thoughts

The Most important thing that we must remember is that 35mm film release is the first thing to consider. Then within the 35mm film release you must chose your aspect ratio, let’s say you chose 1:85 like I would because by just by adding the possibility of 16:9 I also have; for now the wide screen television mode of today and for the force-able future. In the future it might change to 1:85 and I’ll be ready. Of course you can chose whatever you want, for whatever your reasons.

Now let’s see what happens to film, in the Andes they projecting a 35mm “Hollywood” film in a theater that has wooden benches and everybody understands the content of the ‘Picture’. When I was in Vietnam, eons ago, we found ourselves in a South Vietnamese Camp one night, just two Americans with about 800 Vietnamese, that night they were screening “North by Northwest”, there was no-translation and no-subtitles; but everyone in the place understood the 16mm print made out of a 35mm film negative. Now that’s the power of a “state-on –mind” called “Hollywood” you don’t have to go there to make a film, you just have to make it in its ‘style-off’. That’s what all films aspire to do, to make a “Hollywood” film, weather you are there or not.

Now to the present, how many time have I heard; “film is dead”, that implies that in the HD film world we are striving for two things; First to make electronic images look like film; Second to make that “Hollywood” film with those electronic images, so we must get an “inter-negative” on 35mm film that closely approaches the 35mm release print in the film that “Hollywood” would make.

Why? Because if the business that the film must first make at it’s; “Theatrical Opening” that will determine it fate forever. Think about it; “Theatrical Opening” lots of money in all subsequent business, and ancillary products of the “Picture”, it has at least a 10 year live if it’s just make a mediocre film, and much longer if it’s really a well made “Picture”, think of; “Lawrence of Arabia” “Singing in the Rain” and many more of the “Classics”.

Now back to the 30mm X 15mm sensor, thank “God” for Jim, he has bucked the trend at every turn, you really don’t care what it was shot in, just how it looked in the “Theatrical Opening” that determines how long it’s going run, and will it live forever? For the near future there is a merger of 30mm X 15mm sensor that combines all the criteria’s into one hell of a camera. I chose the 16:9 frames with a 1:85 with a slight shrinkage, always looking for that optimum quality; it was established way back then in the 30s on the “Three Striped Technicolor” film. That continues to be the “Gold Standard”. We’re heading in that direction, and we can say what we please about it, as a matter of fact it’s welcomed.

So what the the 16:9 Red Camera offer, the merging of two technologies, Film and Electronics’! We have fairly popular “Theatrical Opening” in the 1:85 (in my case, but it could be 3D, or whatever you want) and for now a wide screen DVD release in 16:9. You have additional options with in the 30mm X 15mm aspect ratio, but those are the ones that I would choose.

I suppose I can go on, and on, about all sort of things, but for now, thank “God” for Jim, keep up the good work!

Humberto Rivera
 
When referencing how footage was shot, how about this?

RED ONE, 4K, 24fps (with a Cooke 50mm S4).
EPIC-X, 5K, 24fps (with a 35mm RPP).
EPIC-M, 6K, 24fps (with a 100mm RPP).
Scarlet 2/3 3K, 100fps (with an 8mm MRP- miniRED Prime).
Scarlet-F, 3K, 24fps.
EPIC-645... etc.

....

Jim

While that is useful to Red-shooters, it doesn't help much in comparing other formats and cameras. I'd even bet that the owner of a particular Red won't remember all the details of a different model.

The Scarlet creeps in with the old mythological TV image tube rating of "2/3"
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm
which is itself a fiction, because the quoted TV tube size was the outer diameter, not the active area.

I think there are several key elements:

1) Camera Model

2) Physical size. I propose the diameter in mm of the circle inscribed round the sensor. (Should this be round the whole sensor, or a crop?)

3) Aspect ratio. 1:1 2:1 3:2 4:3 16:9 .....

4) Resolution. Pixels on the longer side of the sensor (or crop).

5) Frame Rate.

I personally think [more from a stills point of view] that the Sensor should be circular, and capture the entire image circle. Then at editing time you can select any aspect ratio you like.
 
The Most important thing that we must remember is that 35mm film release is the first thing to consider. Then within the 35mm film release you must chose your aspect ratio, let’s say you chose 1:85 like I would because by just by adding the possibility of 16:9 I also have; for now the wide screen television mode of today and for the force-able future. In the future it might change to 1:85 and I’ll be ready. Of course you can chose whatever you want, for whatever your reasons.

Now let’s see what happens to film, in the Andes they projecting a 35mm “Hollywood” film in a theater that has wooden benches and everybody understands the content of the ‘Picture’. When I was in Vietnam, eons ago, we found ourselves in a South Vietnamese Camp one night, just two Americans with about 800 Vietnamese, that night they were screening “North by Northwest”, there was no-translation and no-subtitles; but everyone in the place understood the 16mm print made out of a 35mm film negative. Now that’s the power of a “state-on –mind” called “Hollywood” you don’t have to go there to make a film, you just have to make it in its ‘style-off’. That’s what all films aspire to do, to make a “Hollywood” film, weather you are there or not.

Now to the present, how many time have I heard; “film is dead”, that implies that in the HD film world we are striving for two things; First to make electronic images look like film; Second to make that “Hollywood” film with those electronic images, so we must get an “inter-negative” on 35mm film that closely approaches the 35mm release print in the film that “Hollywood” would make.

Why? Because if the business that the film must first make at it’s; “Theatrical Opening” that will determine it fate forever. Think about it; “Theatrical Opening” lots of money in all subsequent business, and ancillary products of the “Picture”, it has at least a 10 year live if it’s just make a mediocre film, and much longer if it’s really a well made “Picture”, think of; “Lawrence of Arabia” “Singing in the Rain” and many more of the “Classics”.

Now back to the 30mm X 15mm sensor, thank “God” for Jim, he has bucked the trend at every turn, you really don’t care what it was shot in, just how it looked in the “Theatrical Opening” that determines how long it’s going run, and will it live forever? For the near future there is a merger of 30mm X 15mm sensor that combines all the criteria’s into one hell of a camera. I chose the 16:9 frames with a 1:85 with a slight shrinkage, always looking for that optimum quality; it was established way back then in the 30s on the “Three Striped Technicolor” film. That continues to be the “Gold Standard”. We’re heading in that direction, and we can say what we please about it, as a matter of fact it’s welcomed.

So what the the 16:9 Red Camera offer, the merging of two technologies, Film and Electronics’! We have fairly popular “Theatrical Opening” in the 1:85 (in my case, but it could be 3D, or whatever you want) and for now a wide screen DVD release in 16:9. You have additional options with in the 30mm X 15mm aspect ratio, but those are the ones that I would choose.

I suppose I can go on, and on, about all sort of things, but for now, thank “God” for Jim, keep up the good work!

Humberto Rivera

Not sure I follow you. And I am trying.
 
Acquisition formats only matter to shooters. Output formats matter to everyone.

Jim

Except for those who need to know the h-aperture for matching FX shots.

Post guys at the very least want to know:

h-aperture.
lens length.

Resolution isn't really important to anyone because they either have the file or they don't. If they do then they can open the file and see what resolution it is (which is pretty irellevant since most tools are resolution independent now.

I see no use for saying what resolution you shot in. It sounds a lot like bragging with very little useful knowledge for anyone involved.

"I shot this project in 8k"
"Ok... cool, good for you. Whatever."

If however you say
"I shot it on a 36mm haperture with a 100mm lens"
then I have a pretty good idea what the shot looks like.
 
"I shot this project in 8k"
"Ok... cool, good for you. Whatever."

If however you say
"I shot it on a 36mm haperture with a 100mm lens"
then I have a pretty good idea what the shot looks like.

I completely agree. Maybe to keep the RED brand, or at least the distinction that its digital:

I shot it RED-36mm, at RC36 with a 100mm lens. (36mm = 5k)

Use standard terms were interchangeable:

I shot it RED-Super35 at RC28 with a 24mm lens at T2. (s35mm = 4k) Or:

It looks like you shot that on RED-16mm, 2:1 at RC28 over-cranked to 96fps on a 18mm lens. (16mm = 2k)


I think resolution is really unimportant. When it's shot right, no one ever leaves a theater saying "I can't believe they only shot that at 2k... it would have been so much cooler at 4.5k". ha, fl, and aperture give clear picture of the aesthetic of the shot. You can shoot 2k at 16mm or at 70mm. But they will look completely different. Somewhere along the line (VFX, etc) will need to know if its 2k, 4k or 9k, but I suspect they are the exception, not the norm.
 
Jarring jargon

Jarring jargon

Can someone explain why 16:9 means (integer)16 : (integer)9 but 1:85 means (integer)1 : (decimal) 1 [implied POINT] 85 and not a VERY wide (integer) 1 : (integer) 85 ? :cool:
 
Can someone explain why 16:9 means (integer)16 : (integer)9 but 1:85 means (integer)1 : (decimal) 1 [implied POINT] 85 and not a VERY wide (integer) 1 : (integer) 85 ? :cool:

I've never seen 1:85.

They probalby meant 1.85

or 1.85:1
 
1:85

1:85

Then within the 35mm film release you must chose your aspect ratio, let’s say you chose 1:85 like I would because by just by adding the possibility of 16:9 I also have; for now the wide screen television mode of today and for the force-able future. In the future it might change to 1:85 and I’ll be ready. Of course you can chose whatever you want, for whatever your reasons.
Humberto Rivera

1:85 ... [OK is this post long enough, now?] :couch:
 
Just a typo -- it's 1.85 : 1. 1:85 would be a rather widescreen format!

Traditionally film aspect ratios keep the vertical to one unit relative to the height, so you get ratios like 1.33 : 1 (4:3), 1.77 : 1 (16:9), 1.85 : 1, 2.40 : 1, etc.

Traditionally video engineers and whatnot have kept to whole numbers for the ratios. Mathematically, 4:3 and 1.33 : 1 are the same ratio.
 
Let me say that I don’t mean to offend anyone, or create cynicism with any one; I’m just simply stating my point of view. If I seem overly excited about Red is because while other companies are standing still, they are moving ahead of the pack. Not only are they moving ahead, they are sharing their prototypes with us before it’s time. No other company that I know off those that. So again I’m sorry for anybody who was insulted by my views, but they are my view nonetheless. If there is a typo here and there, well, I just human.

Humberto Rivera
 
In Vietnam, I was a young Marine, at night we had to stop in a friendly place, wherever it was, what a surprise it was that “North by Norwest” was playing that night, I had seen the film several times, and I was amazed by the crowed of Vietnamese which understood the film in English, with no subtitles, and they spoke no English. I said Alfred Hitchcock was a great filmmaker and I was just sharing that little bit of trivia with you all.

Humberto Rivera
 
Size matters

Size matters

When referencing how footage was shot, how about this?

RED ONE, 4K, 24fps (with a Cooke 50mm S4).
EPIC-X, 5K, 24fps (with a 35mm RPP).
EPIC-M, 6K, 24fps (with a 100mm RPP).
Scarlet 2/3 3K, 100fps (with an 8mm MRP- miniRED Prime).
Scarlet-F, 3K, 24fps.
EPIC-645... etc.

Acquisition formats only matter to shooters. Output formats matter to everyone.

Jim

These formats matter to shooters and rental houses.

Let's remember where this discussion started, with the release of a new sensor size that we will be working with. It's helpful to have shorthand labels that can get most of us talking the same language.

I agree with David that resolution (5K, for example) does not descibe what needs to be communicated in the daily needs of matching cameras to lenses. Within the various formats (2/3 , S35 , X35 , FF35) aspect ratios change these needs, as does resolution in the case of Red, but that's a refinement. It's good to start with a general category and take it from there.

Perhaps 30x15 will never exist outside of Red, but since you have invented this brilliant format that expands the possibilities of 35mm film equipment, please give it a name we can use when needed. Mysterium is too cute to go beyond the Red community. The only thing about this sensor that is 35 is the ability to use a lot of 35mm equipment (depending, of course, on resolution/aspect) , but the label X35 makes sense in that way.
 
Jim, whichever way you swing, consider using the tag "RED" or "R"on all info. RED is synonymous with.... well, you name it.

For Example:
R-ONE, 4K, 24fps
R-E, 5K... (EPIC)
R-EX, 5K
R-EM,6K...
R-SF, 3K...
and so on. Keep the instantly recognizable RED "R" prefix throughout.
 
I was reading the NY Times On-line, and I came across this as part of an article titled; “Memos to Hollywood”

“Give your cinematographers a break — your audience too. Last year, John Bailey wrote an alarming article in American Cinematographer about how he and his colleagues were losing control of their images because of the industry’s move to digital. Most filmmakers no longer watch projected film dailies (which might allow them to actually see what they shot); they tweak the images during the digital-intermediate process. When it was first introduced, the process seemed as if it might expand the cinematographers’ toolbox. But because of their ease of use, those same tools are being usurped by studio executives, producers, directors and even actors who all want a say in how to digitally “fix” the image. The results of this meddling and cost-cutting are apparent in the smeary, degraded images of too many movies.”

Obviously there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding by the author.

Humberto Rivera
 
You need to distinguish between Scarlet 2/3" and S35/F35. Both S35 and F35 Scarlets will let You shoot in 3K. But the footage from each of these cameras in 3K won't be the same. The RC quality is also a major concern and as such should be included in the format name...

:) Peter
 
Back
Top