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 :)

IBC '07 Impressions

Jannard said:
We have a very small company. Very small. And we had to split the team up because we are delivering cameras at the same time as IBC. The dates couldn't have been worse. Because we only could send a small crew, we chose the small tent. The small tent means only a few items.

Sorry if we disappointed anyone. But if we delayed shipping the 1st cameras, it would have been worse...

Jim
Click to expand...
Yeah of course!! I guess you had a hell of a job following on your NAB triumph this year. And for anyone who wasn't there, TED's presentation was Mobbed, comparing very favourably with every other camera companies presentations..
 
fergus said:
Yeah of course!! I guess you had a hell of a job following on your NAB triumph this year. And for anyone who wasn't there, TED's presentation was Mobbed, comparing very favourably with every other camera companies presentations..
Click to expand...

Yeah! Especially the Panavision Genesis one that was just before it! :meh:..

adam
 
I'm very proud of the team we did send over. But I knew I was sending them into the lion's den.

Jim
 
I for one am very glad that someone is home making cameras.
Much Aloha
to the Red teams !
-A
 
Every now and then I read a post and am positive it is written by someone working for one of the big Corporations, as a negative gorilla marketing attempt. I find it rather pathetic actually.
 
who's post would that be lads and which large Corporation do you have in mind? Perhaps I should bill them for my time..:watsup:
 
Now be fair here guys,
Fergus is giving you his opinion on the "look" of Red.
and Digital Film in general. I have to agree with him
I also find it a little too sharp/hard and maybe a little uninviting.
This is of course digital acquisition to digital projection.
But taken thru a film-out procees it can look quite nice
and more like what we are all used to in the cinema. Film.
Somthing to do with smoothing out those mosiac thingies.
I'ts good to discuss the Red look, it's a healthy thing, don't be
afraid of it. It's all part of getting a new camera up and running.
It can be another great tool in the shed guys and we need plenty of em
these days to get the job done on time and on budget.
Mezmo
 
Everyone's entitled to their opinions of the footage. Mine was a positive one, as was most of the people I discussed it with afterwards. I actually thought that the colo(u)r grade on CTL worked a lot better watching it in such a manner compared to seeing stills or low res footage. I can understand why Red didn't want to release it. There was more positives than negatives to take from the footage, considering the timescale, the use of prototype cameras and so on.

Perhaps the main point that I could see in it was that it could easily have been corrected to look like Saving Private Ryan for example or whatever you fancied, the fact was that this was the style they wanted, and for me it worked. The visible problems are defined by the limitations put on the shoot. Be it time, equipment or manpower. As well as the skills and decision making of the personnel shooting, editing and colo(u)r correcting the footage. I had no doubt that the camera was fully capable of shooting a high end motion picture having seen the short.
 
I love it when I go to the cinema and the auditorium goes dark and these words come up on the screen:

This feature film will be digitally projected. Please be patient for twenty seconds as the digital projector recalibrates.

- translated from Korean

I don't know why but HD productions projected digitally just looks right...

Aesthetically, I find it much more exciting than film. Been there, done that -- kind of feeling. But I guess we all get nostalgic for the past..:sarcasm:
 
my 2 cents on the footage. since we knew the conditions was made under - the schedule and the early cameras that CTL etc - i had hoped that we would be able to see more recent red footage besides CTL. we have been told many improvements have been done since. having said that, one can understand why that perhaps was not feasible.

as for judging the camera from CTL i found it also a bit difficult. first off, its not like one is used to see any footage on such a projector in 4K projected this big. there was something about the footage that wasn't right, besides the shearing, the blown highlights in some shots etc. i also understood that some of the footage had been very underexposed and recovered in post. but don't think its that either. having seen under the same viewing conditions a recent hollywood trailer made with the viper (which is a 2/3 inch 3chip ccd cam), i would be left with a feeling that CTL would not do justice to what the RED can do. so one would be curious to see what the it really is capable of. supposedly that will happen pretty soon when some of the high profile features shot on the red will be in cinemas.

wish there was more opportunities to compare footage in these conditions, though.

ill tell you this though: despite of the shortcomings of CTL, what one did see was pretty impressive nonetheless. it would already be quite clear that the quality jump from any camera in this price range (and that range would have to be pretty stretched) is rather incredible.
 
one revolution at a time...

one revolution at a time...

Without HDTV specs of the camera nailed down and without a prototype B4 adapter or test footage available yet it is more likely that IBC 2008 will be a bigger year for RED than IBC 2007.

Start to revolutionise large screen production this year, small screen 2008.



Mike Brennan
 
fergus said:
...Anyway is this everyone's experience: that shooting RAW on RED or a DALSA leaves you with a neutral image that you can do anything with in post?...
Click to expand...

A very important question, and one that is an absolutely constant source of debate.

It used to be that DPs would shoot film in a very specific way and eliminate any options in post because... well... because there wasn't any real "post" to do other than editing. Except for the crude controls of a hazeltine and various lab processes, the film looked the way it looked. O Brother Where Are Thou was the first commercially released feature to go through a "full DI" where every frame was digitally touched somehow. An awful lot of films were made before then, and lots of them looked pretty good. : )

The common wisdom now is "shoot flat," because that maximizes options in post. Well - even though I work for a company that makes a DI product - I think that thinking can really be taken to an unnatural extreme. A good DP is a good DP, and the creative partnership between the Director and DP to create the look and feel of a story I believe is frequently destroyed by the desire to "do a DI." By the time a film gets to DI, the DP is probably on the 4th or 5th job after the one in DI, and doesn't have the time to participate.

And that really is a shame. For such a long time, the role of the DP was inviolable, and that is less and less the case. I have seen so many shoots recently where the DP is little more than a technician, just called upon to make sure shots are lit as "flat" as possible. What fun is that?

Now... a lot of absolute beauty is created in a DI suite. Things that could never have happened before. O Brother Where Art Thou is a great example. That rich, textured ochre feel of most of the outdoor scenes was part of the story being told, and the atmosphere of the movie would not be the same without it.

But man... there is also so much that is just clearly a colorist gone insane. It makes me nuts sometimes. If I have to look at much more super-saturated bleach bypass hyper-color adventure hero movies, I will go insane.

Not sure what the point of this rant is other than to say that the industry is changing in huge ways right now. But new tools do not obviate old skills.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA
 
Hi Guys,
I've seen some footage from the Arri D20 and SI camera
post film-out. It looks good, really good, although maybe a
tad on the soft side,even clipped highlights on the SI camera
look groovy, sort of like an old Kodak filmstock (5254) I used in
past. Maybe Red will solve this slightly soft post DI/film-out look.
It's going to be that much crisper to begin with.
With all these Bayer/Cmos style digital cinema cameras I think I
would be beating a path fairly quickly to a film-out. Even extracting
HD deliverables from a telecined 35mm interpos to obtain a more
filmic look. Even though the D20 and SI stuff looks good it comes
nowhere near even 3 perf S35 to my mind. But that's bigger bucks.
Can't wait to see how Red goes after some of the bigger players shooting
now complete their post paths and screen/post footage.
Impress me Red and I might buy you.
Cheers Mezmo
 
The highlights of IBC for me were:
1) Seeing the RED camera and taking to Ted, Kelly and Hugo
2) Seeing 4K the Peter Jackson footage in the Big Screen Theatre
3) Seeing the Arri D20 and realizing that even though it makes pretty pictures, RED is still the right choice in all aspects
4) The REDUser meetup on saturday (props to Eirik for arranging it)

Disappointments:
1) No working EVF and LCD (major bummer!)
2) No news about upcoming RED products
3) No Jim and Jarred
4) Amsterdam parking fees ;-)
 
luki said:
A very important question, and one that is an absolutely constant source of debate.

And that really is a shame. For such a long time, the role of the DP was inviolable, and that is less and less the case. I have seen so many shoots recently where the DP is little more than a technician, just called upon to make sure shots are lit as "flat" as possible. What fun is that?

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA
Click to expand...

Good Rant!

I suppose RED can be treated treated like a 35mm camera with reversal stock that has a lot of latitude. No stupid menues, no atificial sharpening that has to be turned off, no "cine" gamma, no gain - just 320-500 ASA. No need for "flat" lighting but for someone who can create moody pictures and "paint" with light. Sure, highlights will be a concern but grain and shadows have always been a concern with film - new challenge.

Fun will be back!

Hans
 
When I saw clips from CTL on my computer, I thought colors looked VERY video-ish, although I knew that always could be changed if you are shooting RAW.
But it was a Quicktime/PC/Gamma/Monitoring thing, because yesterday I finally saw the complete movie in 4k on the big screen and it looked very cinematic, very nice! Colours were much more vibrant.
 
tlorenzo said:
The highlights of IBC for me were:
1) Seeing the RED camera and taking to Ted, Kelly and Hugo
2) Seeing 4K the Peter Jackson footage in the Big Screen Theatre
3) Seeing the Arri D20 and realizing that even though it makes pretty pictures, RED is still the right choice in all aspects
4) The REDUser meetup on saturday (props to Eirik for arranging it)

Disappointments:
1) No working EVF and LCD (major bummer!)
2) No news about upcoming RED products
3) No Jim and Jarred
4) Amsterdam parking feed ;-)
Click to expand...

Disappointments
5) Man, did you pay €15 for one of their burgers? Over $20 for a burger!!$£%@£@
I reckon we should band together and take a class action against them in the European Court of Human Rights :)
 
luki said:
A very important question, and one that is an absolutely constant source of debate.

It used to be that DPs would shoot film in a very specific way and eliminate any options in post because... well... because there wasn't any real "post" to do other than editing. Except for the crude controls of a hazeltine and various lab processes, the film looked the way it looked. O Brother Where Are Thou was the first commercially released feature to go through a "full DI" where every frame was digitally touched somehow. An awful lot of films were made before then, and lots of them looked pretty good. : )

The common wisdom now is "shoot flat," because that maximizes options in post. Well - even though I work for a company that makes a DI product - I think that thinking can really be taken to an unnatural extreme. A good DP is a good DP, and the creative partnership between the Director and DP to create the look and feel of a story I believe is frequently destroyed by the desire to "do a DI." By the time a film gets to DI, the DP is probably on the 4th or 5th job after the one in DI, and doesn't have the time to participate.

And that really is a shame. For such a long time, the role of the DP was inviolable, and that is less and less the case. I have seen so many shoots recently where the DP is little more than a technician, just called upon to make sure shots are lit as "flat" as possible. What fun is that?

Now... a lot of absolute beauty is created in a DI suite. Things that could never have happened before. O Brother Where Art Thou is a great example. That rich, textured ochre feel of most of the outdoor scenes was part of the story being told, and the atmosphere of the movie would not be the same without it.

But man... there is also so much that is just clearly a colorist gone insane. It makes me nuts sometimes. If I have to look at much more super-saturated bleach bypass hyper-color adventure hero movies, I will go insane.

Not sure what the point of this rant is other than to say that the industry is changing in huge ways right now. But new tools do not obviate old skills.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA
Click to expand...


Thank you Lucas, I was kind of aiming that question in your direction..
My purpose in posting my concerns about the CTL was not to slag it off, or really to re-ignite the Film vs. Digital debate (although that is clearly relevant). O Brother was a great looking movie, although watching it again recently I sometimes thought it was a little too perfect. I'm really reaching here but I wonder if the challenge might not perhaps be to our own imagination. With film, no matter how expert the technicians handling it, you have a physical object undergoing several physical processes, and so there's a lot of chance involved. Digital has been obsessed with perfection since it's inception, perfection and repeatability, like any good machine. I wonder if there is not, in a funny way, too much control in a DI suite. I wonder if the challenge for humans working in that environment is to to sow disorder in there just a little bit, to produce something unique and unrepeatable.
Of course such theories are easy to write, but how to do such a thing is a different question:)

It's clear from what you are saying Lucas, that the colourist is going to be a very important member of the team. In films where the DP is treated as a technician arguably more important than the DP..? I wonder if we'll not need a lot longer in the DI suite? Which might mean companies evolving different new business models?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top