Full-frontal insidious attack on Red, by indie director Rian Johnson (2008)

[Jeff Coatney]

Rian is a talented filmmaker, but he should keep his nose out of Graeme's ballpark. It is obvious he's in over his head. What offends me about it is he's been one of the few indie filmmakers to breakout during a product glut, with a unique point of view and he's pissing on one of the best options out there for an indie filmmaker to shoot with.

He's also trying to destroy the business prospects of anyone hoping to make money with their Red system by alleging that Red has made false claims to which Red owners are complicit in advancing. Rian, having attained this new-found level of success, is taking it upon himself to protect all the indie filmmakers of the world from being ripped-off by the scoundrels who made the Red camera and the owners of those cameras that are trying to bilk and cheat filmmakers by getting them to shoot with it. This is the implied message of his post as I see it.

What I love about it is the post is filled with so much hokum and pseudo-science that it actually makes the author look like a jackass. But my deleted post correctly pointed out, as Bob Simon's less-than-nuanced reference reveals, that in presenting his claims as scientific fact, Rian exposes himself to civil action. I presented no threat to Rian. I merely pointed out that such actions are irresponsible and patently damaging to the good people, professionals, who own the camera and whose business interests are harmed by his obviously false assertions. That is actionable, my friends, especially by people who can afford to pursue it. Rian claims to have an audience of 11,000 registered users which makes his "platform" very public and potentially very damaging to Red and owners of the camera.

 

[Iain Stasukevich]

I've accepted Jeff generous offer of a "hands on" with RED. I'm all for getting better informed.

But let me be clear about one thing - I'm very much a proponent of using the right tool for a given job. I understand that the democratization of technology has given us a tool like RED to acheive never before attainable levels of image quality at a lower price point, but to me RED has become a sort of Golden Calf of digital filmmaking. Too often I see talk on the Web and engage in conversation with RED users that skirts the fringes of myopic fanatacism. For all of its apparent usefulness, I haven't heard one compelling story where RED really excelled (as a medium) in a situation where film or HD or DV or analog or whatever couldn't. THAT is my real problem with it.

That being said, if ANYONE out there has a RED story that shines new light on or breaks new ground in motion picture techniques, drop me a PM and we'll talk about an article that extolls the virtues of RED instead of one that downplays them.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

10 pages and mine is the only post to call for reaching out to him to get a look at those raw files he's speaking of.

Too much fan boy knee-jerk crap.

Red should have a department for just this sort of situation (marketing? pr?)

I'll do it. You guys hiring?

If I can get him to retract everything after his footage is cleaned up, is that worth something?

Seems like an obvious call.

To me it is an obvious call. And, RED does have a department for "just this sort of situation". It is called the Legal Department.

As I said earlier, if you distorted factual information, data or specifications for the purpose of creating bad image of a product or a company, it is not an opinion, it is defamation and most reputable companies would not take that sort of "criticism" kindly. Generally he would receive a "nice" letter convincingly requesting removal of the offending material and offering public apology and/or making a "correction". If that doesn't work, they have other, more effective, ways of educating him :w00t:

 

[Peter Majtan]

That being said, if ANYONE out there has a RED story that shines new light on or breaks new ground in motion picture techniques, drop me a PM and we'll talk about an article that extolls the virtues of RED instead of one that downplays them.

Iain, with all due respect, the only motion picture technique Red One has to "shine new light on" is image acquisition - being a camera. I don't own one (yet), but I have been renting couple on a regular basis, mostly for state-of-the-art research into advanced motion imaging technologies. I have more the 15 years in the industry in both technical and creative aspects. I am yet to see a camera available for purchase that will come even close to the image quality I get from Red One.

Here is a 2K still from a sunrise scene I shot recently (at 15220' & 32˚F) - the dynamic range was giving run for its money even to my EOS-30D...:

And here is a 4K still shot at night in the tunnel with only the available light. This was pretty dark even to my eyes, yet the Red One captured the scene flawlessly - if anything would give You compression (or any other issues), it would be scene like this - and I am happy to send You the original R3D file for Your review...:

Keep in mind You are looking at JPEG...

In my books this is just amazing...
And I am not even talking about the price-tag...

 

[shocklight]

To me it is an obvious call. And, RED does have a department for "just this sort of situation". It is called the Legal Department.

Rian Johnson:
1. Is a talented director
2. Produced/received some inaccurate facts/advice
3. Is seemingly (based on posts on his own forum) interested in discussing this in an open and civilized manner.

Also, Iain has generously offered to suspend judgment by testing the Red One and considering other, more positive, experiences with the camera.

Personally, I think the chud post had an obnoxious "gotcha" tone. They feel this was necessarily reactionary given certain prevalent attitudes towards Red. The article it linked to was amateurish at best (no data, screenshots, etc...). The reduser response had a few unfortunate posts (litigation?:wacko: ). If the flames could be extinguished, the smoke dispersed, and all party's brought together for some civilized chat, then this could be the sort of post that lures professionals to these forums to participate and add valuable on-set experience.

I am not a poster, just a lurker and pre-orderer thus far. I post this for purely selfish reasons: the pros offer so much to this board. Rian Johnson is a pro. If he were welcomed as a distinguished, though perhaps misinformed, guest everyone would benefit.:biggrin:

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Rian Johnson:
1. Is a talented director
2. Produced/received some inaccurate facts/advice
3. Is seemingly (based on posts on his own forum) interested in discussing this in an open and civilized manner.

Also, Iain has generously offered to suspend judgment by testing the Red One and considering other, more positive, experiences with the camera.

Personally, I think the chud post had an obnoxious "gotcha" tone. They feel this was necessarily reactionary given certain prevalent attitudes towards Red. The article it linked to was amateurish at best (no data, screenshots, etc...). The reduser response had a few unfortunate posts (litigation?:wacko: ). If the flames could be extinguished, the smoke dispersed, and all party's brought together for some civilized chat, then this could be the sort of post that lures professionals to these forums to participate and add valuable on-set experience.

I am not a poster, just a lurker and pre-orderer thus far. I post this for purely selfish reasons: the pros offer so much to this board. Rian Johnson is a pro. If he were welcomed as a distinguished, though perhaps misinformed, guest everyone would benefit.:biggrin:

He is always welcome for a debate and he can freely express criticism and opposing views here. Denan, Graeme, Jarred, Peter and many others (me included) can offer him technical explanations and assistance with relevant technical data and concepts if he struggles with understanding technology, maths or factual aspects of the debate - all well-intended. But, thus far he is not prepared for a debate. Instead, he pubishes false statements out of the woods damaging the image of the RED camera that can not be refuted or opposed directly where it is published. It is not cool.

Let's not forget, everyone here is a Guest on this forum. The site belongs to RED. But, this doesn't stop any poster from debating often different and often critical views. You can complain about any feature, quality or lack thereof to your heart content. It is a great venue. He may learn, we may learn something. No problem with that and, I am sure he can also contribute many useful insights and engage into meaningful and revealing discussion with what appears to be very respectable and diverse film making community. That's what RED is all about. It is bold and brave, up-front, opened, and damn fresh new approach to work constructively and progressively.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I'd prefer to keep such discussions educational. Let's keep it to how the technology works, why it works, and about some of those nuances I mentioned earlier.

Every time you discuss cameras and how they make images, there's always the "ah but..." moment, when you realize yet another nuance. It's always "welcome to the next level."

I learn new stuff on these forums every day.

Graeme

 

[Dan Carew]

I personally think both the posts
a)suggesting legal action against Rian might be appropriate, and
b)that Rian might be in cahoots with another camera manufacturer trying to damage Red
are inappropriate and quite unfortunate.
As for a), that's Red's call I think. In my un-lawyerly opinion, Rian hasn't crossed the line to slander. As for b), one should only make that claim with very strong proof.

It seems to me clear that Rian is open to dialogue and that he's having a few second thoughts about his article (or at least its tone). See e.g., Rian's posts on the topic here
http://www.rcjohnso.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32245&highlight=#32245
e.g., 6th post down. Good.

I'm not of the school that everyone needs to reach consensus on everything and "just be friends". But I do think it would be useful if Rian (and Iain) could get some expert advice on Red shooting and workflow--and make a more informed judgement--as they seem open to doing. Perhaps they'll never shoot on Red and don't prefer it's look. No prob. But perhaps also they'll stop creating ammo for Red-haters who do have an axe to grind and who profit if Red fails (and digital cinema does not progress).

Final comment: "seeing is believing". My impression is that there are many, many Red projects in the works that people are not free to talk about (or show clips or stills from). Once these hit the big screen, we'll all have the proof we're looking for.

But as an anti-elitist Rian's article got me upset: filmmakers with money and resources know better (i.e., that Red can produce amazing footage and has many advantages); but new and starting filmmakers and filmmakers in remote places, e.g. in Asia are highly likely to be influenced by Rian's article. Red should not be a competitive advantage for those with resources (there are enough of those already). And Red knowledge should not be a jealously-guarded "secret sauce" used to competitive advantage--in this Web 2.0 world we live in, of which this forum is a beautiful (warts and all) example.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Iain, thank you for joining the conversation. I think that's bold of you to step into the spotlight here. RED is not perfect, everyone in this forum is not perfect (just look at my silly post earlier in this thread). And you are 100% entitled to your opinion. There have been growing pains with Red. There were problems early on with certain things, such as no audio, heat issues, etc. Red has come a long way since those early days. I think it's only fair now that the naysayers at least give some credit to Red for fixing problems and getting the camera to the point where it's pretty rock solid. Here are some counterpoints to your article.

1. Red Drive does not drop frames when you use a different drive mount than the Red Cage. Even then, it was only under certain conditions that involved heavy vibration. I've been shooting with Element Technica's drive mount with NO issues.

2. Workflow. Improving by the day. Did you know that you can capture directly from the camera in real time at 10 bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? I'm surprised how good it looks. In fact, I'll put my Red footage up against any HD camera, especially the HVX or EX1 using this realtime 1080P capture method from Red. So I get realtime workflow into 1080 ProRes or Uncompressed and yet, there is no workflow for Red? Or I can use the proxies to edit (right off the Red Drive if I want to) immediately, send the XML through Crimson, convert to hi-res and have a great product. Or just render the proxies in the timeline and be done with it if the quality is good enough for that delivery medium. Yes, Scratch makes this all easier. But it is not a requirement by any means.

3. There are a lot of fanboys, I admit that. Yes, Jim has done wonders with the marketing of this camera. And yes, some people are just flat out annoyed with all of the buzz surrounding it (you might be one of them). But make no mistake about it, when this camera is in the hands of people who know how to use light and composition to make motion pictures, the camera delivers.

4. I agree with your stance that the right tool for the right job. But let's not shoot down Red for the sake of a contentious article.

5. I recommend any filmmaker, independent or Hollywood to contact people who know how to use this camera and can show them the proper tests. Even if you don't like the images, at least you see the footage properly and can reach an informed decision. But please, do not spread bad press about it without first hand experience. It really does make our jobs harder.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

What annoyed me most about this article is, "Shoot on film or a high-end HD camera..." EXCUSE ME?! RED is THE HIGHEST END HD camera, it doesn't get any better than the RED One. Well, until the Epic comes out. Nothing else is even CLOSE.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

RED vs. HDCAM (or other "high end" HD camera)

RED vs. HDCAM (or other "high end" HD camera)

I'd prefer to keep such discussions educational. Let's keep it to how the technology works, why it works, and about some of those nuances I mentioned earlier.

Every time you discuss cameras and how they make images, there's always the "ah but..." moment, when you realize yet another nuance. It's always "welcome to the next level."

I learn new stuff on these forums every day.

Graeme

The following is nothing new for you Graeme, but I agree, it is important to highlight (again) how the technology works.

What many people find difficult to understand is compression, when and how it is applied. There are many aspects to it:

1. Ratio
2. Algorithm
3. What is compressed (RAW, RGB, YUV, at what quantization, etc...)
4. How human eye perceives it

Most peole look just at 1. - the compression ratio. As we discussed. for Red One, it is somewhere around 9:1 to 14:1, depending on settings and other factors. But, as a number alone, it is meaningless to compare it to other compressed or uncompressed data, like HDCAM, HDCAM-SR, etc.. unless all other things are equal. And, they aren't.

Despite "unfavourable" compression ratio, visually RedCode somehow produces incomparably better result to that of HDCAM, which is say 7:1 and uses DCT intra-frame codec. I have shot about 150h of my own HDCAM material owning my HDCAM camera for almost 7 years (upgraded to Red One recently). Yet, when I look and compare the RED footage against my best HDCAM footage, they are just not comparable. Almost a blind can see evident problems with HDCAM compression artefacts where as RED footage, even at RedCode 28, seems as clean as the best images form the best DSLR camera and DR is just as good. Why is that?

RedCode is much smarter! Instead of being applied on processed signal (downstream of DSP) it is applied on RAW sensor data. It captures what the sensor sees and compresses it as much up-stream as possible. This leaves all the DSP stuff for later (and better) post processing, where it can be made look as contrasty or as flat as you like - the lettitude is there (~11 stops), and unlike the "baked-in" HDCAM format, you can make RED Raw footage look any way you like: film-like or better than film - your choice - the data is there!

The algorithm is also smarter and, instead of creating MPEG-2 type "block-noise" that ruins smooth gradations (like blue sky or water) or fine motion detail, it applies wavelet algorithm which, when used correctly, to human eye, is undistingushable from an uncompressed signal.

5. Compressed vs. Uncompressed

The advantage of using compression is that you do not need a fridge-sized storage teathered to your camera or spend millions of dollars on storage and post processing of massive, redundant and relatively unimportant data.

6. Data Rate (bandwidth)

At 36 MBytes/s Red captures more information and more relevant information than HDCAM and significantly more than P2 cameras.

7. Resolution

Last, but not least, it is easier to compress 4k than 2k with the same level of artefacts. So, the increased resolution (4k) allows higher compression ratios than those used in HD or 2k without sacrificing quality.

Conclusion:
Comparing just compression ratio is simplistic, flawed and meaningless. This is one of the traps that the author of the article fell into and did not seem to understand (in addition to obvious incorrect data and maths). The whole concept of Red One is extremely well thought out and is the smartest approach thus far.

Agreed, DALSA Origin II may produce better images. It is a nice camera, but for most applications and budgets, it is a loser: too costly and too cumbersome. I can't even buy one. Red One achieves comparable level of quality and in a small, managable and affordable package.

 

[Sean]

I saw Che last week at Toronto International Film Festival. It looked gorgeous. I was obviously paying attention to the image, knowing it was shot on Red. And I just didn't see anything I had a problem with. Even the already mentioned "over-exposed" moments were fleeting and very few and far between. I'd never have noticed them if I hadn't been scrutinizing the very big screen.

I also saw Pontypool, a new Canadian horror feature shot on Red, and more recently completed than Che. Also looked really beautiful on a huge screen. This was NOT a small QuickTime movie on my computer. A big, new movie house. What more do you want?

 

[Peter Majtan]

Just adding to Pawel's nice break-down - the best example is DV vs HDV. They both use almost the same data-rate (in fact HDV is little lower), yet the amount of pixels captured is 345,600 (720x480) vs. 1,555,200 (1440x1080) or 4.5x more. That makes the HDV using 4.5x stronger compression. Now does anyone really thinks that HDV either "is" or even "looks" worse then DV? Apples and Oranges, or actually more appropriately Apples and Mushrooms...

That's about the compression ratio. Now about resolution:

Used lately any DSLR? They use sensors based on the exact same bayer technology, yet no one says that 12 MPx sensor is really only 8.4 MPx... Resolution and Resolved Detail are two different things:

- When it comes to Resolution - Red One beats ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger... I won't repeat Graeme's math here...

- When it comes to Resolved Detail - the only way You can judge that is with resolution charts (as once again pointed out by Graeme). Even here Red One beats ANY HD camera by whole nine yards... Scarlet will do this easily at $3K LOL...

So which ever way You look at it (compression ratio, resolution and/or resolved detail) - the information and assumptions claimed in that article are just plain WRONG...

Peter

 

[Tom Lowe]

Peter, I am not sure that is true regarding Red One "beat[ing] ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger." The Genesis, for example, produces an extremely clean 1080, and has the benefit of the entire Panavision company behind it. The Arri D21 is said to be a fine camera as well, although it might be categorized as slightly more than "HD."

Regarding DSLRs. They work best when significantly downsampled. Bringing the image down to, say, 60% of its original size produces much cleaner images than trying to say a CMOS/Bayer chip with a given resolution will hold up pixel for pixel, which it will not. Some say an 80% downsample is all that is needed. But especially in low light, I think the number is closer to 70% or 60%. That's just my opinion, though.

Graeme has stated that Red One has basically 3.2K of resolution (if I am not mistaken). Others have claimed 2.4K, 2.5K, etc.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I've accepted Jeff generous offer of a "hands on" with RED. I'm all for getting better informed.

Awesome. Glad you accepted the other Jeff's invitation.

Also, I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone in my neck of the woods, Denver, CO and surrounding areas. Seriously, if there are any skeptics out there who would like to discuss, please PM me. We can talk about it and perhaps arrange a demo if you have an upcoming project that could potentially use the RED One.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Peter, I am not sure that is true regarding Red One "beat[ing] ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger." The Genesis, for example, produces an extremely clean 1080, and has the benefit of the entire Panavision company behind it. The Arri D21 is said to be a fine camera as well, although it might be categorized as slightly more than "HD."

Regarding DSLRs. They work best when significantly downsampled. Bringing the image down to, say, 60% of its original size produces much cleaner images than trying to say a CMOS/Bayer chip with a given resolution will hold up pixel for pixel, which it will not. Some say an 80% downsample is all that is needed. But especially in low light, I think the number is closer to 70% or 60%. That's just my opinion, though.

Graeme has stated that Red One has basically 3.2K of resolution (if I am not mistaken). Others have claimed 2.4K, 2.5K, etc.

Red One has 3.2K Resolved Detail - not resolution. It has 4K Resolution (soon 4.5K). Also I am not saying that Genesis is a bad camera - not at all. We are only talking numbers here... Even if genesis resolved the full 1920 - it would still fail when compared to the 3.2K Resolved Detail from Red One. Again - when we compare the numbers...

Image quality is a very subjective theme and here really the beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I know what You are saying Tom - and believe me I am not trying to say that Red One is the GOD and every HD camera is a crap. I m only responding to his "mathematical" claims based on numbers - not personal perception...

Peace...

EDIT:

i.e. there is a difference between:

"When it comes to Resolution - Red One beats ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger..."

and

"Red One beats ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger..."

I hope You can see my point...

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Please do not exaggerate...

Please do not exaggerate...

5. Compressed vs. Uncompressed

The advantage of using compression is that you do not need a fridge-sized storage teathered to your camera or spend millions of dollars on storage and post processing of massive, redundant and relatively unimportant data.

Please do not exaggerate, it confuses people.

You can do a uncompressed 4K DI one reel at a time to filmout and discard the unneeded files that can be regenerated if needed again, and probably keep the storage cost to less than $20000, even under $8000 maybe if you only keep the essential files. 500GB are now $89 and by next year you may see 2TB under $100 so the costs are falling fast.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Please do not exaggerate, it confuses people.

You can do a uncompressed 4K DI one reel at a time to filmout and discard the unneeded files that can be regenerated if needed again, and probably keep the storage cost to less than $20000, even under $8000 maybe if you only keep the essential files. 500GB are now $89 and by next year you may see 2TB under $100 so the costs are falling fast.

Dan - he is talking about recording directly from camera, not the DI process...

 

[Tom Lowe]

Red One has 3.2K Resolved Detail - not resolution. It has 4K Resolution (soon 4.5K). Also I am not saying that Genesis is a bad camera - not at all. We are only talking numbers here... Even if genesis resolved the full 1920 - it would still fail when compared to the 3.2K Resolved Detail from Red One. Again - when we compare the numbers...

Image quality is a very subjective theme and here really the beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I know what You are saying Tom - and believe me I am not trying to say that Red One is the GOD and every HD camera is a crap. I m only responding to his "mathematical" claims based on numbers - not personal perception...

Peace...

EDIT:

i.e. there is a difference between:

"When it comes to Resolution - Red One beats ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger..."

and

"Red One beats ANY HD camera to the ground without hardly lifting a finger..."

I hope You can see my point...

Keep in mind that not everyone agrees that Red One resolves to 3.2K. Many tests have pegged the visible resolution closer to 2K. Direct shootouts between the Genesis, Red One, etc, are usually pretty close. Of course, the Genesis, F35, D21, etc, cost about 10 times as much! I'm not saying this to diss Red One. I'm just saying, there are many nice HD cameras out there. Most of them cost more than a new Ferrari...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Tom, it's quite verifiable that luma resolution is visible out to around 3.2k. If someone can't see that in their measurement, it's their measurement that's just not good enough. You can also look at resolution tests of any DSLR out there. They all routinely measure their resolution to be a very similar percentage of the pixel count that we achieve.