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 :)

I was wrrr...wrrrrong.

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Mullen.....

Cooke S4 vs Primo lenses......
without shutter artifacts fm Pana certainly a difficult distinction.

Viper or HD orig. vs 35m film certainly a pretty evident distinction.

Sorry to have excited you with the "good enough" thought

There are going to be new choices where we use 35mm size sensor on one side and windowed on the reverse to get similiar dof. moving to windowed for tough focus action shots or where we need to see the background more
clearly.

I'm seeing a lot of folks getting ready to shoot the whole show in 4K except for the slomo action stuff etc. I'm thinking maybe better from a consistent image perspective to shoot all in 2k or downconvert 4k immediately in red cine to 2K.

Do you feel changing from 4K to 2K in a sequence is more like switching between cookes/Primos in the same sequence or more like using an HD camera to get some of the shots in a 35mm sequence?
 
There are arguments both ways... (like the argument for shooting a whole movie on a zoom lens with 500T stock because some shots will be done that way) but generally slow-motion shots make up much less than 50% of the total running time of a finished feature, so why lower the overall quality of the project to match the quality of material that only takes up a small percentage? At least, that's my theory.

Also, I tend to feel that slow-motion shots have their own look in a sense and what the viewer really is looking at is the slowed-down motion, so the fact that it is 2K instead of 4K might not matter.

Besides, we've had plenty of 2K efx in non-D.I. or 4K D.I. movies (such as "Spiderman 2 and 3") so viewers have been seeing 2K mixed into movies for years.

But it really depends on how often you plan on using slow-motion; if a lot of the movie will be like that, then yes, maybe it makes sense just to do the whole movie in 2K to match.

I've done some 1080P movies where the slow-motion shots were done in 1080/60i and converted to 60 fps, so essentially the vertical resolution went from 1080 to 540 lines -- and they don't stick out really as being noticably softer. Like I said, the viewer is often looking at the slow-motion effect so may be distracted from the drop in resolution.
 
Hi David,
I think you have a typo there with your 50%, maybe 5%?
I know what your saying about the viewer watching the slow motion
effect, but for scenes that need ramping (starting at 20fps then slowing
the action down to 100 fps) ofen in wide shot with the players close to camera including green screen/ VFX/wire removal, acquisition image quality soon becomes an issue.
I dont think Red 2K windowed is going to cut it for this type of shot.
Keeping in mind how sharp and crisp things have to be going down post and
intermediate film paths prior to release printing.
We seem to be loosing a lot of Red potential to do this kind of HS work.
This type of shot's common in many martial arts and action adv.movies.
I don't think at the moment Red has a viable high speed or ramping solution
for this type of feature drama work. The only option, 35mm film with 35 FOV.
I know I'm being totally unreasonable here as Red comes in at a much lower cost than anything else on the market and I would still save money
shooting Red for lower frame rates and film for high speed.
I would much rather drag a 35mm film camera on set to shoot highspeed than suffer image quality loss and S16mm FOV or similar (small chip) FOV on a highspeed digital camera. That's just me.
I know you do a lot of good work with smaller 3/4" chip HD cameras but I just can't get the hang of the dang things, and I really hate those Digiprimes. I love 35mm FOV.
Sorry, off topic, anyway.
Perhaps Red scaled 2K @ 60fps or even 4K @ 60fps would help me here, shoot 10-50fps for this type of shot and mutiframe it in post, I don't know.
I do know that high speed cinematoghaphy will become a major issue as
digital attempts to get it's frame rates and image quality (at those frame rates) up to that of film, while retaining 35mm FOV.
Cheers Mezmo
 
Hlo Mezmo
Hey at least the box isn't plastic like the Sony!
35mm FOV? Aren't we talking about just using equivalent field of view lenses when using a different size target and desiring for instance the look of an 85mm FOV in 35mm.
I mean the chart is in ACM eh? As for DOF just a stop and a bit open on the windowed sensor and we're back! to 35mm depth of field equivalent?

I really agree about the ramping! no information no reply fm RED team, looks like there is currently no ramping?
I'm hoping the red will ramp and the trusty Birger folks will make the iris corrections....
 
Hi TJ
One of the main things I like about 35mm FOV and subsequent DOF is lens choice. Zeiss make roughly 10mm12mm14mm16mm18mm
20mm24mm27mm28mm32mm35mm40mm50mm60mm75mm85mm100mm
135mm180mm200m30om.I'm sure Iv'e left out a few. All very good glass,
excellent coatings. Red make a cheaper selection for use with 35mm FOV.
Last time I looked they don't make anything in S16/B4 for shootind 2K windowed.?. The S16 selection from zeiss is roughly 9mm,12mm16mm24mm 50mm.Zooms from Zeiss and Cannon 7-64 and 11-110 may help, but if your shooting 2.35:1, I'd steer clear, resolving issues for such a wide screen format. So you've got a grand selection of 5-6 prime lenses for use as a matched set when shooting 2K windowed on Red if you want max optical resolution for 2.35:1 super 35 cinematography in that FOV format. So finding that S16 Lens to match a 35mm DOF equivalent
is a little difficult if not impossible unless you use a S16/B4 zoom. I just don't think these zooms will resolve well enough for Super 35mm (digital) cinematography at 2.35/40:1.
You could use Digiprimes with the adapter, but again these lenses are designed for B4 HD cameras and can't resolve thru the adapter like 35mm FOV glass
I hear people say here you can use Red 35 FOV lenses for a longer lens selection, but mixing Zeiss S16 super Speed lenses with Red 35 FOV lenses
would be a worry,a workaround,a mess, and nothing like the luxury of shooting
35mmFOV with a full set of 35mm lenses designed for the job.
Resolution issues may only become a real problem when going to film-out
and after an intermediate has been stuck and you are producing multiple
prints. Then it's too late. and egg on face time, producers start looking for
someone to blame, and that's one movie I don't wanna be in.
Cheers Mezmo
 
Hi TJ again,
With ramping on film, we do it all in post. Shoot 120fps on set, frames
are pulled for speedchange at the directos/editors request.
If Red could get up to 60fps @ 4K or 2K scaled, something similar may be
possible with digital, while retaining 35mmFOV/DOF.
mezmo
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
I think it was David Mullen that said 99% of today's features are D.I.'d in 2k

Jay
Click to expand...

Yes but...

Those films that are D.I.'d in 2k are sometimes scanned at higher resolutions (ie 4k or even 6k), and even if they are scanned in 2k, it is 2k RGB ! Which is much higher resolution than 2k raw. According to Graeme, the Red 4k sensor outputs an RGB image with a 3k "measured" resolution (according to Adam Wilt's quick and dirty tests, according to him, he will do better tests when possible, show a 2.5k measured resolution). So in the best case scenario, 2k raw will result in images with 1.5k measured resolution.

It seems some people here are confused about this. 2k Red raw is not comparable to a 2k scan (in a best case scenario) or to Genesis, F23, D20, Viper footage. However, 4k Red raw is anther story.

Cheers,
Damien
 
Mezmo

If you are prepared to accept T2.8 for your 35mm lens set, you could add the Ultra Prime 8R (T2.8) to that list? Although I admit it's not the cheapest lens.

Also, if you were going for an ultra-wide shot, maybe still camera lenses would be an option? Their ergonomic disabilities become less of a problem (you're probably not doing fancy shallow DOF rack focus or adjusting iris in slow-mo ultra-wide shot?).

You have a great point that you want optimum quality especially in slow-mo VFX. Unless your actor is extending past the frame boundaries, perhaps you could do the usual trick of zooming in on the element you're shooting against green screen and doing a repo / scale down to change to a wider angle in post?

RE: S16 lenses, I'm surprised - surely a good S16 lens should be able to resolve well enough for a 2K sensor? Most lenses look fine on a 2K Bayer sensor still camera.

RE: only finding out the quality is too low later in the process - if you had someone reasonably smart looking at your dailies at full res I'm sure you'd be able to pretty quickly figure out if there were resolution issues.

I agree that shooting high-speed s35 is the best right now, but think the RED 2K stuff will be good enough for many uses. Combine that with the Phantom cam if you want to do higher frame rates and I think digital is almost there. I've done jobs for movies with big name actors where the footage they gave us was 2.35 letterboxed to HD - that's only 1920x817 res. And it flew (just) when printed to film.

RE: shooting 60fps and multi-framing to make a higher-fps shot in post: it is scary how content-dependent this technique is. That has the greatest chance of being an unexpected post nightmare that you only find out about 3 months later. If I wanted to avoid angry producers, I'd be more worried about getting the VFX team to sign off on those shots than I would about the resolution of the cropped ones.

Agree of course that shooting windowed is a compromise and since Jim is into filming drag cars and such, the Red Five will probably shoot 2000fps 6K... but also that Red One really should be sufficient for most stories we'd want to tell ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
earthling said:
Yes but...

Those films that are D.I.'d in 2k are sometimes scanned at higher resolutions (ie 4k or even 6k)

Cheers,
Damien
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that 35mm film has its own resolution limits and scanning at much higher than about 3.5k... more often than not will just gives you greater detail on the film grain.
 
Important point

Important point

earthling said:
Yes but...

It seems some people here are confused about this. 2k Red raw is not comparable to a 2k scan (in a best case scenario) or to Genesis, F23, D20, Viper footage. However, 4k Red raw is anther story.

Cheers,
Damien
Click to expand...

I think this is an important, often understated or underappreciated point.
 
mesmo
really get your point about the number of available lenses in the Zeiss arsenal. Guess I've worked on too many cheap productions where the only primes were 18 25 35 50 85 set. and yea you did forget the Zeiss 25m speed lens. The zooms certainly are more problematic esp. in wider screen, although I've used some S16 lenses which were very sharp even at the edges until you had to open up.

I tried out the vision Research Phantom camera at last NAB they are currently doing 150fps in 4K perhaps if you want to be more consistent in recording similiar digital media this would be another option rather than a HS film camera.

I'm one of the people who really can't make sense out of the red raw 4K being equal to 3.5K RGB then the 2K raw is not as good as the D2 viper etc. So is the 2K Raw in the RED as good as the 2K SI camera? Is there any way to get a sense of how much difference we are talking about. Maybe I'm getting blind in my old age but I was pretty impressed by the look of the SI camera at last years NAB. I brought a commercial producer friend to their booth who also thought the footage the were showing looked quite nice. Any way of making more sense out of these comparisons will sure be appreciated!!!
 
Hi Bruce,
Stills lenses would have to be starting at about 6 or 7mm for
use with Red 2k windowed, thats a mega fisheye for a 35mm
SLR lens.
I should point out that resolution issues would not be a problem
for S16 zoom lenses if you intend to finish in HD, or if you only
plan on making a few prints from a burned 35mm neg to be shown
in small venues, 2K windowed may be OK.
Going the extra generation and making an intermediate/interpos and
then a another generation for a 2nd negative from which say, 200 prints
are struck requires a really sharp crisp clean original to stand up to this
kind of printing generation loss.
This is where things get interesting and you only see problems when
the first trial print is struck from the 2nd printing negative, that's about
$100-150K U.S. down the post road.
It's important to get the best possible quality from a camera like Red if
you plan on doing this kind of Super35 Digital 2.35:1 work.
Yes, shooting 60fps and multi-framing would not be ideal, Red 2 doing 120
fps at 4kRaw with a 35mm FOV would be my dream camera.
Mezmo
 
Hi TJ,
Yes, the Red image does look a bit sharper than the SI 2K.
The SI footage I've seen looks a tiny bit soft but very filmic.
They do have a 35mmFOV adapter from P&S, but this is again
another hunk of glass in the optical path.
We really need to test a lot of these cameras side by side
and take them thru a full multi generational post path to determine
the best box for this kind of 2.35:1 wide screen work.
I must say I find Red with it's big chip and 4K raw capture one of the
most interesting with perhaps the most potential.
At a guess Red 2k scaled (in the works) may look sharper than Viper/d20 footage.
One of the guys could test 2K windowed up against the Viper/d20 now.
I'd love to know the results . Mezmo
 
I can't say how RED's 2K window/crop mode looks compared to the Arri-D20 or SI camera or any HD camera... but consider that the RED has a 4520 x 2540 sensor (11.5MP), so in 2K window/crop mode, you only have 2260 x 1270 sites (2.9MP) from which to derive 2K RGB.

Whereas a 3-CCD HD camera like the F23 (forget the price issues for the moment) has separate 1920 x 1080 pixel sensors (2MP each) for each color.

The Arri-D20, in comparison to the RED in 2K window mode, has a 2.9K single sensor that is 35mm in size, versus RED's effective 2.3K sensor that is 16mm in size.

At least with 2K scaled, you'd have the benefits of oversampling and keep the 35mm depth of field. But at 2K windowed, it's hard to see why the RED image would be superior to a good 3-CCD 1080P HD camera. Of course, there is still the cost advantage and the ability to use your cine lenses.

Obviously I'm just throwing around meaningless numbers here and what matters is the actual performances of the cameras being questioned.
 
Hi David,
Thanks for the info, I think Jim was riiiiiii...riiiiiiight in the first
place, let's stick with getting the best possible pictures out of Red.
2K windowed or 2K raw as it is at the moment seems less than ideal
for higher end work and Jim seems to be cherry picking camera features
to make what could be considered a biased point.
Red's a good thing in 4K raw, it just needs that firmware/software upgrade
to get it running at faster frame rates.
I know all good things come to those who wait but having a camera out
there that's not performing to the best of it's ability seems like an odd
marketing ploy if it's to be tested up against other systems.
Cheers Mezmo
 
Häakon said:
Actually, that's the very reason RED is so revolutionary - they're all three.
Click to expand...

I was listening some business audio cd recently and the guy said "fast, cheap, good..pick any two. That was 10 years ago. If you still think that way you're making a mistake because your competitor is figuring out how to deliver all three."
 
joelnet said:
I was listening some business audio cd recently and the guy said "fast, cheap, good..pick any two. That was 10 years ago. If you still think that way you're making a mistake because your competitor is figuring out how to deliver all three."
Click to expand...

That terminology was never meant to apply to equipment. It does, however, still very much apply to anything that is being done by human beings, even if equipment happens to be involved, and has little to do with the technology used.
 
Clint Johnson said:
Just pointing out that 35mm film has its own resolution limits and scanning at much higher than about 3.5k... more often than not will just gives you greater detail on the film grain.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I tested using an Arri Scanner 6k down scaled to 4K, and 3K down scaled to 2 K, the images were then scanned back to film & projected. The 6/4k scans clearly had more resolution when sitting at the front , middle or back of the cinema.

Stephen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top