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 :)

Inside RED...

Status
Not open for further replies.
damonbots said:
I'm thinkin'... with the touch of a button, a magical midget leaps out of the camera and forcibly pulls the talent into the proper focal range?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, except it's a Red Elf
 
Graeme doesnt use elfs.. he uses pixies. get it right. heh heh heh.
 
Jannard said:
If you were inside RED today, you would have been playing with a beta firmware build that had:

2K at 72fps.
Variable frame rate
Histogram
Waveform
.... (drum roll), Graeme's Magic Focus Assist!

We still have some tweaking to do, but it sure was fun today.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jarred Land said:
2k at 1-72fps :) bad ass.

We were recording 20 minutes of 2k at 24fps on a 8gb card.. even more bad ass.

Graemes focus assist.. revolutionary.

As Jim states, It was a very good day at Red :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely fantastic!!!
 
damonbots said:
Number6,
Are you really Stephen Root?
Click to expand...

That depends... should I WANT to be Mr. Root? (With apoligies to him or me, I don't know who him or me is.)
 
number6 said:
That depends... should I WANT to be Mr. Root? (With apoligies to him or me, I don't know who him or me is.)
Click to expand...

Oh nevermind... just havin' a little fun. BTW, he's a pretty famous actor... one of my favs.
Anyway, let's chat about these new RED features...
 
damonbots said:
Oh nevermind... just havin' a little fun. BTW, he's a pretty famous actor... one of my favs.
Anyway, let's chat about these new RED features...
Click to expand...

I'll do a search on him... if he's famous, I should learn about him. Thanks for the tip.

In re: the new RED features, being very new to much of this I have to visualize what the RED team is talking about most of the time. But as the posts continue, then a clearer picture emerges. Still can't quite get a handle on the magic focus yet, but I think I'm gonna like it!
 
I guess my big question is this...

Will the average human being in a movie theatre give a rat's ass between 2K and 4K originated footage? (can we just say the word video?? because technically... that's pretty much what it is... yes?)
 
damonbots said:
I guess my big question is this...

Will the average human being in a movie theatre give a rat's ass between 2K and 4K originated footage? (can we just say the word video?? because technically... that's pretty much what it is... yes?)
Click to expand...

See, that's what I'm wondering too. I mean, Soderbergh is shooting using only the center of the sensor (with some special lenses) and still "has confidence in the resolution" to (try to) quote Jim. And then someone, Jarred I think, answered another post that if you try to uprez 2k footage to integrate with 4k footage, the differing quality of the image will just be too noticeable.

I'm not going to take any chances and just shoot everything 4k, unless I need the higher frame rate. I'll probably frame every shot so I could easily crop to 2k if that became necessary for TV or something. That means no "check your fillings" type close-ups using the full 4k, but I think a 2k sized shot of a mouth is plenty... unless it is saying "Rosebud."
 
number6 said:
...[Jarred said] if you try to uprez 2k footage to integrate with 4k footage, the differing quality of the image will just be too noticeable.
Click to expand...

I think this is an area where you just have to do your own testing to be sure. I'd guess that if your final deliverable is 2k or less, it may be less of an issue than you think, but I haven't seen a test myself so my opinion is probably garbage.
 
Based on the still-image demo at NAB, I would call it less of a waveform for focus, and more of a histogram for focus. Imagine a short, flattened histogram, all the way across the bottom of the screen, below the picture area. The magic algorithm, or whatever, reads the peaking, or edge detection, or detail frequency, or whatever, of the image.

It then displays it on a graph that is perhaps 10-15% or so of the image height. Whatever is at the bottom of the graph is out of focus, whatever reaches the top is in perfect focus. Looking at the still image in the Red viewfinder, I could easily imagine how natural and intuitive it could become when the image is moving. A focus puller could instantly tell if they were focused on an actor's nose, cheek, forehead or chin by the shape of this histogram-like display.

It might sound goofy and strange from my description, but you've got to see it for yourself. I'm pretty sure that once we see it in action, it'll be one of those smack-on-the-forehead moments when you think "why didn't anybody think of this before?". One of the cool ideas is that, unlike the focus-assist systems that overlay a color onto the image, like a modern version of the old b&w viewfinder-peaking, this display leaves the image unmolested. The viewer is free to concentrate on the image itself (camera operator, producer, director), or check for perfect focus out of their peripheral vision (one-man operator), or concentrate intently on the focus graph (focus puller).

You know how sometimes if you look at a waveform or especially a histogram, and you can easily pick out what details in a picture are peaking in which areas? It's kinda like that, but with each vertical row of pixels being summed into a direct graphic relationship with image above it, it becomes even more intuitive. I can see why the Red team describes it as being like, well, magic. I can't wait to get my eyes onto a monitor and my hand onto the focus ring of a lens with this system.
 
jbeale said:
I think this is an area where you just have to do your own testing to be sure. I'd guess that if your final deliverable is 2k or less, it may be less of an issue than you think, but I haven't seen a test myself so my opinion is probably garbage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking a handheld shot might just have enough camera shake to keep the audience from noticing the difference in resolution if it is very pronounced. On the big screen it still might show up, but on a small set, maybe not so much.
 
Scott... I've always liked you. :-)

The best news about this tool is that there can be several "flavors" of it. We are just beginning to explore all the options. Graeme is one of the real stars at RED. He has contributed so much to the program that it is hard to keep score. He is a delight to work with. We are lucky to have him on the team.

Jim
 
I can't wait to see the magic focus!
Might I suggest a magic focus helper bee that pops up on the monitor and says one of the following:

1) I don't mean to interject... I realize you're a professional, BUT, may I suggest that you allow me to correct your slightly off focus crap?!!

2) Well.. this looks okaaaaay (ummmmm... shit), perhaps you'll give me a try?

3) You fucked up! Have another beer, pal!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top