frustrating meeting with Post houses

[Michael Dalton]

The success of Arri's Alexa is build upon Red's weaknesses and, of course, the very good reputation Arri always had in the industry.

Red's RAW workflow IS difficult to understand. The ISO thing that is only virtual metadata is beyond the brains of thousands of DPs, producers and directors. I've met quite a few colleagues that shot tons of stuff with the Red successfully although they never really understood the concept behind the compressed RAW workflow. The only reason why they don't screw up things is that they follow Red's advise and dial in ISO 800 and RedGamma3.

Then RedCineXPro. There are so many variables to tweak, color sciences to chose from, gamma curves no one understands. What's the differences between RedLog and RedLogFilm? Half good, half premium, full or quarter? RedCineProX is NOT made for the 55 year old DP that is forced to shoot digital. It's geekery for the colourist. I haven't met one single DIT that really knew how to deal with RedCineC Pro. In this forum people are red-centric, hardcore freaks, RAW nerds. And even here you read the same questions again and again. No wonder that outside reduser the situations is hardly better.

Posthouses hate to take responsibly for the quality of camera footage. Traditionally not their realm. Hence they use the camera metadata. They use funky metadata settings, even if they don't make sense at all. Mostly they even don't know that something can be changed dramatically to the better. Only a very few understand Red's concept. Who's fault is that? The post house's? Hardly. They been around many, many years BEFORE Red entered the market 4 years ago - and there is finally an alternative: Alexa.

Alexa is easy as it gets. If the footage is crap it's the DP. No transcoding, nothing. And if the DP argues that the Alexa's DR is a tad wider it's hard to prove him otherwise.

Now resolution. Fact is that only a very few projects need more resolution than 1080p. That will change in the future but not tomorrow or in 2 years. Post workflows are build upon 1080p. It took almost a decade to complete the tradition from SD to HD, it will take another decade to make the same happen with HD to 4K. There isn't even a broadcast standard for 4K yet. Only the very small market of films for the big screen will adopt 4k sooner than later.

A ProRes module by Red would solve all that.

Hans

At the end of the day, I'm glad there are people that think like this, because I know I'll never be out of a job. One of my bosses gave me some sound advice once when we had loner of a Flint for a week-end and I asked if someone was going to teach to it to use that wanted. He replied your a pro now, figure it out. I did, 2 months later I quite and became a flame artist. It was sound advice. I'm never scared to try anything new, and I know I can always figure it out. Red work flows are not hard, and they are getting easier. But for now, it's not that bad. A post house should have that same mentality or Bob is right, they will become dinosaurs. Many post house have closed in Toronto already for failing to adapt. The next wave will kill this generations survivors, because the war in camera is heating up.

I used to think a Prores module would be good, but nothing pleases me to grade raw footage to bring out the absolute best in an image. It fucking kills me to look at HD now, and t pains me as a producer/director to have put so much effort into a shitty format. The 2k mentality with mean I make a lot more off my projects in the future.

 

[Ido Karilla]

This is all very subjective!

I did a comprehensive side by side test a few month ago, same shot, same lens different cameras Alexa and Epic.

I set with 3 different DP's and graded to their taste their camera of choice, then I brought the other camera to their grade and in all cases they where indistinguishable in a DCP screening ( unless you new which is which ...Resolution, texture...).

It might not be the case in all grading choices available but given the same shot I believe there will be very limited instances where you can not match this two cameras.

 

[M Most]

Toronto already for failing to adapt. The next wave will kill this generations survivors, because the war in camera is heating up.
.

Equating the forward movement of technology with dinosaurs, killing, and war is not, to my mind, particularly constructive. All of these things offer choices, which offers flexibility. None of this stuff is a secret any more. The availability of commodity hardware and software solutions to match has changed the financial realities of the post industry, and allowed the creation of new players. Some of the larger companies with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead are finding themselves in a challenging position. But this is true of any industry in recent years, even manufacturing industries. It's not always easy to keep up. But this is not about killing, war, and dinosaur extinction. It's simply economics, and doesn't need to be wrapped up in violent hyperbole.

 

[M Most]

This is all very subjective!

I did a comprehensive side by side test a few month ago, same shot, same lens different cameras Alexa and Epic.

I set with 3 different DP's and graded to their taste their camera of choice, then I brought the other camera to their grade and in all cases they where indistinguishable in a DCP screening ( unless you new which is which ...Resolution, texture...).

It might not be the case in all grading choices available but given the same shot I believe there will be very limited instances where you can not match this two cameras.

Such tests are not really realistic and are not indicative of what's being mentioned here. You can come close to matching things, but in order for that to happen, you need to have both. Footage taken individually, without a side by side comparison, will lend itself to being timed based on its inherent visual characteristics, not those of another device. The native appearance of footage from, say, an Alexa, is simply different than the same shot done with an Epic, and the tendency of any colorist would not be to make one look like the other without having the other as a visual guide in the first place.

 

[Ido Karilla]

Such tests are not really realistic and are not indicative of what's being mentioned here. You can come close to matching things, but in order for that to happen, you need to have both. Footage taken individually, without a side by side comparison, will lend itself to being timed based on its inherent visual characteristics, not those of another device. The native appearance of footage from, say, an Alexa, is simply different than the same shot done with an Epic, and the tendency of any colorist would not be to make one look like the other without having the other as a visual guide in the first place.

I get what you are saying, and I agree that each of the cameras deliver a uniqe look.
But probably you can achive allmost every look in mind no matter wich of the two you are shhoting with, given that the the DP knows what he is doing.

 

[Mike P.]

I get what you are saying, and I agree that each of the cameras deliver a uniqe look.
But probably you can achive allmost every look in mind no matter wich of the two you are shhoting with, given that the the DP knows what he is doing.

Given that the DP knows what he's doing with each specific platform. Even the coveted Deakins (or whoever was cam-op) rated Epic at ISO400 when testing for Skyfall and then he ended up not liking how it clipped highlights so digitally compared to Alexa. Now I'm not saying that ISO800 would have magically made the Epic trump Alexa's latitude/look, but try telling Deakins that the camera was set up (objectively) wrong... It'd be preposterous.

For all of RED's "We don't apply sharpening or anything, we let you choose" mantra, the fact of the matter is the footage should look as much like the film standard as possible out of the box. The "raw-ness" and "non-destructiveness" of the footage should never *need* to be leveraged (unless the circumstances are extremely extenuating or for an incredibly "alternative" look afterward).

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think there are two points to glean from all of this:

1) If you own a post company, you should try to master working with every type of footage.

2) If you own a camera company, you should try to make your footage as easy as possible to work with.

If either party above does not do this, they are in effect saying to their customers, "You have to adapt to me." Which will be okay... until a competitor comes around who is easier to deal with.

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

...the fact of the matter is the footage should look as much like the film standard as possible out of the box. The "raw-ness" and "non-destructiveness" of the footage should only *need* to be leveraged in extenuating circumstances or for an "alternative" look afterward.

And the flip side of this is that if RED does want to say that we need to add on a look that we need, and work with the footage in post, then it must make the post pipeline easy as pie and not require us to invest several thousand dollars in old tech (and debatably, with reliability issues) like the Red Rocket. I feel there are some decisions that are not post friendly from RED lately and that has been disappointing. I hope NAB reverses this, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jon Jones]

In a fanboy convo like this, it's going to be hard to say something that doesn't offend everyone here and activate the mob mentality. But I would say who cares which camera they use. I love the images off of the Alexa, even more so off the F65. I also love the EPIC images as well. If the DP wants to use a 5D, or an F65, or an Alexa big deal. RED is like a fine wine literally. They have been sour to the industry but will continue to sweeten and mature over time. Give them another ten years and they will be just like every other large camera corporation.

 

[Peter Moretti]

:frown2: :confused5: