Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • 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 :)

Good enough...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Liam Hall said:
You must have had a stock fault. I've had stock faults shooting for Eastman Kodak!
Click to expand...

I have had minor magenta shifts on Kodak in the past, & 16mm film that was too wide to run in the camera again Kodak. I shoot Fuji by choice & have NEVER had any issue of any kind using Fuji.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi James,

I find that dirt on the negative is usually caused by sloppy loading. I have never had any issues with Labs, Xrays etc. Not everybody can handle film reliably, it's a people problem.

Stephen
Click to expand...

People problem? Clearly you've never shot for two weeks at 20,000 ft in an ash storm. Even after spending three hours in the tent every night cleaning, the really fine particles get into everything, even the most guarded changing bag. I've loaded film well below zero on Everest, and well above 90 in the Amazon, and while being digested by a billion mosquitoes in the arctic, and never been called sloppy. I'm glad you've had great luck with labs, because it really sucks to lose unrepeatable moments from halfway around the world.
 
Jannard said:
If 1080P is really "good enough"... then there is no reason for RED.

We started this business because we believed that 1080P was NOT good enough a film alternative/replacement.

Film has much more resolution than 1080P (almost 4 times).

If the industry really believes that 1080P (or 2K) is good enough... please let us know so we can shut down and go on a forever vacation...

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim - It sounds as though you have been pushing yourselves pretty hard. Instead of shutting down a "good enough" vacation would be better. :)
 
Tim H. said:
The fact is that Avatar had very little 1080p footage in it. It was almost entirely computer generated. Most ASC members laughed when it won for best cinematography. What an insult to the craft.
Click to expand...

You're saying that physically placing cameras on a physical set with real electricity and bulbs is what makes a cinematographer valuable? What an insult to the vision and direction a DOP offers to a film.

If Avatar had won for "Best Gaffers and Electricians" then you would have a point. It's a DP's job to direct lighting and framing. Not C-Stands and dollies. Lighting on a computer and lighting in the real-world are pretty much the same, only in the computer you have more flexibility and can rig lights considerably faster.
 
Jannard said:
And what about the future? Movies AND tv shows will be re-released on 4K in the near future... at least those shot on film or RED 4K.

"Welcome Back Kotter"...

Jim
Click to expand...

Production has changed a lot since "Welcome Back, Kotter". Even an episode of a straight forward drama like Law & Order.

Let's pretend it's 5 years in the future and Law & Order now wants to re-release
on REDRay. Let's pretend Law & Order was convinced to spring for 4k acquisition this year in order to Future Proof their show. Are they also going to Future Proof their Green Screen shots and set extensions? If the answer is Yes then you're fine. But even if they don't mix any 1080p B-Roll into a show. Even if they are willing to spend the extra penny to edit r3d instead of pro-res or DNxHD. They still have to create all the vfx in 4k as well.

I don't think there will be an economic incentive to redo the VFX in 4k on any TV-Shows that aren't of major historical significance. And I don't believe shows will be willing to waste time on detailing out VFX for shots that for the foreseeable future will only air in HD.
 
1080p has no k after the numbers... so that is not enough...

all we need are k and that 4 or more times.... thats it thats all....

The best way to illustrate is the way that the ARRI laser works to get our filmprints... it is working in 4k... nothing to add more... that speaks for it self....

thx RED for your work... keep that way you go....

best,
rainer
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
You're saying that physically placing cameras on a physical set with real electricity and bulbs is what makes a cinematographer valuable? What an insult to the vision and direction a DOP offers to a film.

If Avatar had won for "Best Gaffers and Electricians" then you would have a point. It's a DP's job to direct lighting. Not C-Stands. Lighting on a computer and lighting in the real-world are pretty much the same, only in the computer have more flexibility and can rig lights considerably faster.
Click to expand...

You are kidding me right? Visual Effects do not belong in the Cinematography category. I don't know how much 3D you have done in your life but I've done over 10 years of it. I can tell you now that lighting in the computer is no where near the same thing as lighting on set. Shaders just don't work that way.

Cinematography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematography

In any case, this is so off subject of this thread. I agree that the visuals were good and that some of the camera moves and angles were good and that the live action (what there was of it) was good. However, it's an insult to the craft in my opinion and takes away from the work that the hundreds of artists did behind the scenes. The Academy gets a lot of things wrong. Look at the time they put Roger Deakins up for two films at the same time. All that does is split his votes which caused him to lose. Not so smart ey'
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Production has changed a lot since "Welcome Back, Kotter". Even an episode of a straight forward drama like Law & Order.

Let's pretend it's 5 years in the future and Law & Order now wants to re-release
on REDRay.
Click to expand...

RedRay, hmmm, I think you got a little brown spot on your nose. :lol:
 
Tim H. said:
You are kidding me right? Visual Effects do not belong in the Cinematography category. ...
However, it's an insult to the craft in my opinion and takes away from the work that the hundreds of artists did behind the scenes. The Academy gets a lot of things wrong. Look at the time they put Roger Deakins up for two films at the same time. All that does is split his votes which caused him to lose. Not so smart ey'
Click to expand...


Wow, I'm surprised how many people never ate their wheaty's this morning. :thumbsup:
 
Tim H. said:
You are kidding me right? Visual Effects do not belong in the Cinematography category. I don't know how much 3D you have done in your life but I've done over 10 years of it. I can tell you now that lighting in the computer is no where near the same thing as lighting on set. Shaders just don't work that way.

Cinematography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematography

In any case, this is so off subject of this thread. I agree that the visuals were good and that some of the camera moves and angles were good and that the live action (what there was of it) was good. However, it's an insult to the craft in my opinion and takes away from the work that the hundreds of artists did behind the scenes. The Academy gets a lot of things wrong. Look at the time they put Roger Deakins up for two films at the same time. All that does is split his votes which caused him to lose. Not so smart ey'
Click to expand...

I think Avatar winning best cinematography is completely valid, after all somebody was "directing" the "photography" in the virtual environment as well as a real environment and got the two to blend... right?

Also isn't the academy made up of industry professionals who work on movies? So the ASC can only blame itself for Avatar winning best cinematography... oh and Avatar won best visual effects, work of vfx artists is duly noted ;)

SO ANYWAY... 1080p is a good delivery format for certain things, it's nice to have the option of acquiring images at a higher res.
 
Brad Olsen said:
I think Avatar winning best cinematography is completely valid, after all somebody was "directing" the "photography" in the virtual environment as well as a real environment and got the two to blend... right?

Also isn't the academy made up of industry professionals who work on movies? So the ASC can only blame itself for Avatar winning best cinematography... oh and Avatar one best visual effects, work of vfx artists is duly noted ;)

SO ANYWAY... 1080p is a good delivery format for certain things, it's nice to have the option of acquiring images at a higher res.
Click to expand...

Good thing we all have our own opinion but lets just accept yours. That means that indeed 1080P is good enough. After all it was used to shoot a film that won best Cinematography and the movie has made how much money so far?
 
Tim H. said:
I didn't but I did have cereal :) hahaha.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine, was shooting a big budget piece back in the 90's in Alberta and I remember him saying to this little boy who was freaked out about riding this horse. He said, "don't worry kid, it's just a movie.".

I got one of ya to smile, Tim, my work is done here :seeya:
 
Tim H. said:
You are kidding me right? Visual Effects do not belong in the Cinematography category. I don't know how much 3D you have done in your life but I've done over 10 years of it. I can tell you now that lighting in the computer is no where near the same thing as lighting on set. Shaders just don't work that way.
Click to expand...

I started 3D in 1997. I know my way around a 3D app. ;)

It's not about the Lights. It's about the look. Having a truck full of lights no more makes you a cinematographer than having a 3D app. It's all about the end result. Lighting a 3D face is the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES as lighting a real face. Setting up a camera is the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES as setting up a physical camera. You set your lens. You set your focus. You set your shutter speed. You lay out 'track'. You hit record.

At the end of the day it's just about intensity, focus, color and direction. With GI becoming economical thanks to point cloud based GI solutions in Renderman and hardware raytracing solutions just about to come online you could even setup flags and bounce cards just like on set if you really felt like it.

Cinematography is Lighting and Composition. Are you saying shots rendered on a computer were neither lit nor composed? It's like saying something shot on RED doesn't deserve an academy award because it was shot digitally. It's idiotic and insulting to the creative vision of the DP.

I bet I could bring David Mullen over to a computer. Show him how to setup a cg light. Give him a scene and he could apply his craft just as well as in the real-world with a day or two of practice. Or at the very least have him direct a TD like he would a gaffer or grip to achieve his desired vision. If cinematographers can't apply their creativity and vision to digital lighting then the technology needs to improve.

Cinematography is Cinematography regardless of the tools employed. Many cinematographers admire painters and other artists because despite using oil paints and canvas they have similar creative goals.

Which is also why I feel like RED is selling itself short. It's a fantastic tool regardless of the resolution it's capturing. Why denigrate your own tool as only quality because of some esoteric statistic. If RED was 8k and had 4 noisy stops of dynamic range my interest in it would be pretty close to 0.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Some of you are missing the point -- I did a TV series in 1080P 4:2:2 and I wasn't allowed to shoot Log mode because the production wanted to only make straight dubs for editorial, no Log to Rec 709 step despite the fact that it would only add a few bucks to the cost of post and give me another two stops of dynamic range to work with in the final color-correction.

So with that mentality, how do you convince them to shoot 4K RAW and spend the time & money doing conversions in post to 1080P, even if it's very little time & money?

It's not a question of passing the image purity test here, we are just acknowledging that some TV productions want broadcast-ready 1080P material right out of the camera, they don't even want to wait for a real-time RED Rocket™ conversion in post and they certainly don't want to pay for it if anyone is charging.
Click to expand...

Amen. And as soon as there is a native 1080p option with similar image quality (and a rock solid brand) giving ProRes files, there goes almost all of RED's broadcast work. This is not theory or conjecture, this is happening now with Alexa orders.

I'm a fan of RED, and yes, I understand that one can acquire at one resolution and edit at another - its just that a lot of people don't want to. In TV, things are not made to last for eternity.

Why make a camera affordable to TV people, and then ignore their post needs. I'm sorry - posting comments like this will drive people away from RED who assume there will never be a proper 1080p workflow.
 
if you are not getting a 1080p full debayer prores or dnxhd mxf files for each clip from your red tech/dit/dap/ whatever you want to call him or her, then you need to find one that does provide them as part of their day rate. pure and simple it should not be extra, it is a baseline to give post these files...they should demand them and we should accommodate.

one man's opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top