I was wrrr...wrrrrong.

[oldphart]

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Not only is that obviously a good point, but we should also keep in mind that there are still a rather low percentage of audiences that will be able to see your 4k masterpiece. They are still installing 2k cinemas, and last I checked they still made negatives from 4k for film release, with the quality loss involved in that extra step.

While they will inevitably change to making release prints directly from digital as soon as market pressures start to grow, the fact remains that having a couple of scenes originated in 2k is not going to matter more than having to shoot some scenes on high-speed film.

 

[Häakon]

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16...

...and it's never been good enough for serious cinematographers looking to find an alternative to film.

...it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Nope - and that's exactly why RED is so special.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Hi Rob,

The question is how will RED 2k windowed compare with a Viper that has 3 sensors with 9,200,000 pixels each or an f23.

Stephen

 

[M Most]

...and it's never been good enough for serious cinematographers looking to find an alternative to film.

"Serious cinematographers" aren't looking for an alternative to film. They are, however, always looking at technology and what it can bring to the table. If the technology is interesting, they will test it and consider using it if the tests prove successful for whatever project they're considering it for.

Film has served and continues to serve as an excellent capture medium for moving images. It does, however, have its own pallette and feel. Having tools that have a different pallette and feel - like what Red brings to the table, for instance, but also what Genesis, Viper, D20, Dalsa, SI, and other products do also - represents other possible choices for "serious cinematographers." That is a good thing, and when projects come along that are appropriate for these alternatives, they are considered.

 

[Häakon]

"The times, they are a changin'"

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, they've never stopped changing, from the beginning, pre-1900.

But that doesn't mean that film today isn't a very reliable process that produces high quality images, so this notion that despite that, it somehow now needs to be junked, belongs in a museum, etc. -- well, that makes no logical sense.

The reality is that we are in a time of transition that will take many years, and meanwhile people have options these days to pick all sorts of interesting formats and processes to use. If our options ever get narrowed-down technically someday, we may look back at this time of unstability with some fondness.

 

[Häakon]

Hi,

I never said that all serious cinematographers are looking for an alternative to film. What I said was that serious cinematographers who are looking for an alternative for the most part haven't found it yet (or they've been left wanting more). Mike didn't read my post well.

In regards to latitude, resolution, and DOF characteristics (the areas that other digital cameras have been largely criticized for in comparison to celluloid film), RED seems to have been able to create something that, for the most part, is capturing images which are acceptable in those areas to a whole lot of people.

Certainly the process of making films has undergone change since its inception, but the shift to begin making major motion pictures digitally in Hollywood is an extremely recent concept compared to the grand history of the practice of shooting film. It's also one of the biggest changes, so yes, I think it's a big enough deal that it deserves special merit. I'm not asking anyone to like it, or even to make it their choice. It's just another option. Then again, these are the RED discussion forums...

 

[mezmo]

Since when is shooting in 2K windowed an "issue with image quality"? Lots of people shoot 2/3" or S16... it's not like you have plenty of other S35 4K options around....

Hi Rob,
How's things.
Yes people shoot 2/3" material but they don't as a rule intercut it with
4k stuff from Dalsa or Red.
Yes you could shoot super 16 but would you intercut it with super 35
stuff on the same 2.35/40:1 wide screen movie? Don't think so.
Mezmo

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But people do intercut 2K with essentially 4K (or non-D.I. 35mm) all the time, whether or not it's the ideal way of doing things, and they generally get away with it. There is a precedent for that. Look at some of the recent 4K D.I.'s of movies with 2K digital efx and titles in them.

And before digital efx, we had movies with original footage intercut with duped material for efx, plus optical fades & dissolves. Again, not ideal, but it was fairly standard practice.

Intercutting 2K and 4K isn't quite the same as intercutting Super-16 and 35mm because there is no obvious change in grain size between 2K and 4K as there is between Super-16 and 35mm (which the movies "City of God" and "Constant Gardener" did intercut, sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously.) There are or were some TV shows that also intercut Super-16 and 35mm, counting on the smaller screen size to hide the differences -- I heard that "Third Watch" did that on some of their seasons.

 

[mezmo]

Exactly. There are a few posts in this thread pretty far off from reality here. Seems like a bit too much "2K windowed will never intercut with 4K" paranoia. To that I say RELAX, there is more than one way to "skin that cat" -

1) software based upres, or scaling, can be done with a number of different algorithms - in Scratch if you scale, you can actually select from a palette of scaling algorithms - depending on what is happening in your clip, you can get better results with one scaling algorithm over another.

2) there are many post tricks to improve lower resolution material when scaling. I am not going to give them all away here because ... it's part of my business. But, for example, there is a high-end plug-in suite for denoise and degrain that allows you to work on the color channels separately. Works MAGIC. LOTS of things can be done in post, ESPECIALLY WITH RED, as a matter of fact, a facility could in-fact master 2K windowed material with better results than another facility working with 4K - if they didn't know the very best way to work with the material.

3) Major motion pictures intercut lower resolution (and digital) shots in action sequences of major motion pictures shot on 35mm more often than you think - and they pass delivery QC.

I think there are many concerns posted on REDUSER that are "valid" because there is not enough information out yet and not enough "published" tests. In time, there will be plenty.

Offhollywood is currently preparing a film record out of 4K and 2K material that hits the Arrilaser very, very soon -

Hi Mark,
Excited about your 4K & 2K windowed tests. The proof will be up on
the big sheet, but for those of us who don't have access to Offhollwood
post magic a high quality acquisition solution is the only answer.
As for uprezed denoised and degrained footage, most I've seen looks
bad and these systems just don't work in many situations.
Please don't tell people here that everything can be fixed in post because it's
just not true. There is no substitute for high quality acquisition.
I've have not been to your facility and you may be very talented with
what you do but I have been to some very well regarded post houses
and they will tell you in no uncertain fashion that you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[mezmo]

But people do intercut 2K with essentially 4K (or non-D.I. 35mm) all the time, whether or not it's the ideal way of doing things, and they generally get away with it. There is a precedent for that. Look at some of the recent 4K D.I.'s of movies with 2K digital efx and titles in them.

And before digital efx, we had movies with original footage intercut with duped material for efx, plus optical fades & dissolves. Again, not ideal, but it was fairly standard practice.

Intercutting 2K and 4K isn't quite the same as intercutting Super-16 and 35mm because there is no obvious change in grain size between 2K and 4K as there is between Super-16 and 35mm (which the movies "City of God" and "Constant Gardener" did intercut, sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously.) There are or were some TV shows that also intercut Super-16 and 35mm, counting on the smaller screen size to hide the differences -- I heard that "Third Watch" did that on some of their seasons.

Hi David,
Take your point about 16 & 35mm intercutting, my example for Rob was a little over the top. In the good old days I've had opticals looking so bad the
director refused to cut them into the finished film. Thank god for D.I.
I've intercut super 8 into 35mm myself to create an effect. That's different.
I agree S16/35mm scanned frames are intercutable between 2K and 4k.
My beef here is intercutting Red 4K material and 2K windowed material in
the same scene in a super 35 digital movie for multiscreen theatricial release.
With a martial arts movie this Hspeed cinematography (shot 2K windowed) can make up 50%+ of a scene. I have one director who likes to shoot many
scenes offspeed @ 40 or 50 fps, even dialogue , ADR later.
Shooting Offspeed on film is bulletproof, the look is the same, the quality is
the same. Red has the ability to achieve this for a 4K 60 fps result with a firmware/software upgrade. Dare to be great Red, Jim and the team.
Red has the opportunity to be the first 0-60 fps 4K raw camera on the
market and achieve this at a fantastic price point.
I don't understand the opposition to this from a lot of people posting here on this thread. And the lack of any positive response from the Red team.
I know they have a lot on the plate at the moment, but I really don't think
2K windowed should be promoted as a solution for Super35 digital acquisition. At this
precise moment Red does have the ability to be that much better than anything else out there and live up to it's original promo/hype. A serious alternative to 35mm motiom picture film. It just needs 60fps @4K or even 60 fps @ 2Kscaled if that works.
Mezmo

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
Cheers Mezmo

agreed Mezmo -

but I can tell you ... in no uncertain fashion ... that 2K windowed shot on Red ain't no pigs ear.

If you come to NYC I can put it up in 35mm on the big sheet for ya' -

 

[mezmo]

Hi Mark,
NYC maybe first 1/4 of next year,
if not i'll send a friend.
Thanks Mezmo.

 

[Häakon]

Shooting Offspeed on film is bulletproof, the look is the same, the quality is the same. Red has the ability to achieve this for a 4K 60 fps result with a firmware/software upgrade. Dare to be great Red, Jim and the team. Red has the opportunity to be the first 0-60 fps 4K raw camera on the market and achieve this at a fantastic price point.

Hi,

Unless I've missed something, it has never been stated that RED will be capable of 4K @ 60p onboard. That's not to discredit you, but I've seen a couple people mention it now and If it was truly possible, no one would care about shooting 2K scaled at all. If you're talking about 4K uncrompressed RAW at 60p, that's doable at some point in the future - but then you're talking a lot more than a software upgrade. You'd need the optical port, a huge teathered RAID, and a super beefed-up post system; not to mention that the whole solution would cost lots more than their current 'fantastic price point.'

To get offspeed shooting with RED some tradeoff has to be made; either shooting windowed, scaled, or uncompressed. There doesn't seem to be a "fix all" answer yet.

 

[tj williams]

Hey Off Hollywood
For those of us on the wrong coast or even further away how about a really big frame scanned from 35mm originated in 4K and another of the same subject in 2K so we can actually see the difference.

 

[Rob Lohman]

ed.
Yes you could shoot super 16 but would you intercut it with super 35
stuff on the same 2.35/40:1 wide screen movie? Don't think so.

Actually, I would. I've seen 2K and 4K printed to film from RED, I would not hesitate to inter cut 'em if for whatever reason I needed to shoot in 2K.

BUT, I am far from an authority on film as one could be. I've seen a lot of film projected, like most, though.

In the end it all depends on what the people using the camera want to do and find acceptable. Not what I personally or RED as a company would do.

I just wouldn't call it an issue with image quality. It's a creative choice. A lot of stuff that goes through DI these days is in 2K and then printed to film. Looks perfectly fine (not saying it can't be better).

Even showing 2K on a 4K digital projector looked stunning to my eyes. But, that test wasn't 4K with some 2K inter cut. I'm definitely interested in trying that some day though.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's a good article on the advantages of scanning 35mm at 4K:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Offhollywood Arrilaser Prints

Offhollywood Arrilaser Prints

Mark,

Here's an idea that's been on my mind ever since the RED and SI-2K began promising film alternatives a couple of years ago. For many of us, the make or break test of whether we can convince those financing our projects is to to see the RED originated footage projected on a big screen. I have been in pre-production of a film now for a while and my first thought was to shoot it on F-900 or F-950, which still added quite a bit to the budget on a 3-4 month shoot, and had projected quality that was very inconsistent. Now I have convinced my financers that we'll go with this incredible new tool called RED, which will save us close to 1 million in budget (no small potatoes on a 3.5 million feature), but yet again, I'm being asked to show a demo reel on one of the multiplexes' screens owned by the production company. Especially in a film with a very strong focus on visuals, lots of exteriors and underwater work, I understand their concern. So, could OffHollywood or RED or anybody have a 1-2 minute demo reel that you could sell, rent, loan that potential users could use to convince producers?
Just a short 35 mm reel showing a few interiors, exteriors, a chart test, exposure test, a beauty shot or two and/or anything else deemed appropriate, but mostly that can show RED's quality when projected on a large screen, not a 20 ft DI suite screen but a typical 40-50 ft cinema screen. I, for one, would happily pay whatever rental or purchase fees would be required, and I'm sure so would many others.

What do you think?


Rudi Herbert

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Since you're trying to convince producers to use the RED, why not borrow "Crossing the Line" from RED to show them? Otherwise, shoot a test and show them that.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

David,

Obviously I would love to "borrow" Crossing the Line from RED, though I'm not sure how, if at all, that would work. And of course I can always rent a RED and do a test myself, but I'm just trying to save time which is the one commodity I have none of nowadays. Furthermore, I thought that a few tests have already been conducted by people far more talented than me and, at the same time, having a 35 mm RED demo available on demand might also be a great way for companies like Offhollywood, etc, to advertise their RED expertise and services like color grading, etc, who knows if after seeing a hypotetical demo I would not look into hiring someone like Offhollywood to do post work for us? Then again, if I have to, I will rent a RED and shoot something myself and transfer it to film in the next couple of months...

P.S. David, was reading the new version of Cinematography by Mankiewiz and yourself last night. Great read really, revisiting the basics from such informed and informative perspectives is always a pleasure...

Rudi Herbert