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 :)

ISO 4000...

The "no light" aesthetic is great if you're the only person answerable to anyone.

A studio, TV station or client may have other ideas about how they want to make the thing look - Steven Soderbergh has the wonderful option of deciding what frames he wants to take (he's earned that right), whether he covers the entire conversation filming the actress hands or left-eye, for example - the film is largely a mood piece so he's got that option - and if you're shooting your own vanity project then the same applies. Knock yourselves out.

If, on the other hand, you work in a delivery business of organised production (be it commercials, drama or even corporate) then the option to film the whole thing in a Michael Mann high ISO "gainy" style isn't your best choice necessarily.

Further, Sasha Grey is used to being shot in the most harsh revealing light (:arf: pun intended) so it matters not to her if there are wrinkles on her face (plus shes a porcelain faced kid at the moment) - Cameron Diaz, Sarah Jessica Parker, Meryl Streep et al might have some thoughts on you standing her under a streetlight just to accommodate your "exposure only" aesthetic.

There is more to lighting than just getting the camera to tell you that its okay to shoot technically. Its amazing that on a filmmaking forum that some people don't get that.

At the most basic - where Drama and documentary differ is in the intent - Documentary is a recording of the events - time and place can be plastic - In drama, you arrive in the morning and start shooting in the sun with a required list of shots - come noon the sun goes - now what do you do? In the film this has all got to look like it took place inside thirty seconds. People are being paid and no-one is coming back tomorrow.

Agreed its possible to shoot a film with no lights but its situation/requirement dependent. Not everything is the same.
 
A Macbeth chart has a 5 stop range.

Graeme
 
Ok, i will not order Canon 1D mark IV as planned.
Maybe 2010 will the right year to buy my first RED...
 
Andrea Monzini said:
Ok, i will not order Canon 1D mark IV as planned.
Maybe 2010 will the right year to buy my first RED...
Click to expand...


This is the best idea that you can get it and is that you can invest $4500 in upgrading of your R1 instead of buying a brand new Canon 1DMK4 for about the same price.

In terms of still photo and digital cinema with R1-M-X you would get at both "modes" (stills and video) with the maximum 4.5K images also that are

first not affected with moire artifacts, second you get RAW again in both cases, third you get 4.5 x bigger the full resolution at the highest quality "video", fourth you get better sound quality recording than HDDSLR,...etc,...
 
my six-pack of Roscoe lightpads are going to have a lot of fun with this new technology, can't wait to do some creative lighting...this will give us loads more flexibility.

Thank you, RED team!
 
David Battistella said:
oh yeah....

This too.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...22-soderbergh-audioss/index.html?8mu&emc=mub1


David
Click to expand...


i have to disagree with a lot that is being said in this interview ...

No matter how high and noise free the ISO is ..the camera can not imitate light the human eye can adjust to

not yet anyway

another thing is just like he said the only way to get the shot

if you are using only available light was to silhouette or put the people extremely close to the light

all those shots were way to dark for my liking

also thats just another way of constructing .. people are not moths we dont hover around the closest light source...
 
chrislancaster said:
i have to disagree with a lot that is being said in this interview ...

No matter how high and noise free the ISO is ..the camera can not imitate light the human eye can adjust to

not yet anyway

another thing is just like he said the only way to get the shot

if you are using only available light was to silhouette or put the people extremely close to the light

all those shots were way to dark for my liking

also thats just another way of constructing .. people are not moths we dont hover around the closest light source...
Click to expand...

Perfectly valid arguement. If the higher ISO is provided (which most people will use in a pinch or to get a bit more out of what they shot in post) then all we can do is see it as another tool.

If he wants to light a film like that it's his preference, like you like more light, it's an aesthetic choice.

I'd rather have the option, I'd rather have the tool, then see where it fits into what I want to do, rather than shoot without lighitng becasue the camera can see a bit more.

Really we have to consider 4000 ISO a post produciton tool rather than an aquisition tool. It's not a super fast fim stock, it's a post tool that might let you squeeze more out of a RAW image file. For example, try to get usable images out of the camera in a low light situation by post processing it at 4000 ISO.

What Jim has stated is that with the M-X they may rate it faster the the R1 sensor or they may say that it is safe to rate it between 320-1000 ISO understanding that the less light you give the sensor, the more chance for noise.

I think the point is that if this sensor, with proper processing of r3d files can look pretty decent at 4000 ISO, then the chances it will look great and relatively noise free between 320-1000 ISO are high.

That being said it means that you can probably see better into the blacks while keeping high Dynamic Range and clean images in an ISO range you might not want to push the R1.

So we can treat the M-X like a faster film stock because up to now we all know that the R1 sensor likes a lot of light and really is not that fast. So with the new sensor we will "see more" which does not mean that we will throw out our lights, but it will mean that ambient sources, practicals, and other things will read better than they do now in our existing R1 camera's.

I hope we can do these upgrades fairly soon, but that might mean that we are waiting longer that expected for the EPIC camera's to ship.

David
 
David Battistella said:
I think the point is that if this sensor, with proper processing of r3d files can look pretty decent at 4000 ISO, then the chances it will look great and relatively noise free between 320-1000 ISO are high.

That being said it means that you can probably see better into the blacks while keeping high Dynamic Range and clean images in an ISO range you might not want to push the R1.

So we can treat the M-X like a faster film stock because up to now we all know that the R1 sensor likes a lot of light and really is not that fast. So with the new sensor we will "see more" which does not mean that we will throw out our lights, but it will mean that ambient sources, practicals, and other things will read better than they do now in our existing R1 camera's.

I hope we can do these upgrades fairly soon, but that might mean that we are waiting longer that expected for the EPIC camera's to ship.

David
Click to expand...

:iagree:
 
Justin Chin said:
I really could use this in a Scarlet for my trip to India in March. What better way to follow Buddha's path enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Same situation here... I'm on a feature where we have to take the decision on wich media we are going to shoot. The project ask something resonnably cheap, light with a high """"picture potential"""" ;-)

It would be possible to use S16mm but with low number of takes, we are also waiting for the 1D mkIV as the 5D MKII spoiled us with easy low light condition and lightning with these tools is more cutting and managing available light than adding more expensive KW.

3 Years ago there was no question I would have shot this project in s16 (low budget feature)... But RED and the new DSLR's changed the way low budget are thought.

It seams that "we" (lowbudget cinematographer) are in a technological point of no return where we are waiting for the new technology to come out because we have the vision and needs but we wouldn't trade inn all the disvantage of shooting heavy/builky/using a lot of man powered/expensive cameras. Here we are... still waiting for the dream tool.

Strange because usually the tools unleash the creativity. Perhaps the 5D MKII was not only a good Canon seller but also was THE camera wich changed the way we will shoot in the future (high ISO/FullFrame/light & cheap cameras...)?



Patrick
 
Justin Chin said:
I really could use this in a Scarlet for my trip to India in March. What better way to follow Buddha's path enlightenment.
Click to expand...

I doubt you'll get a Scarlet by March.
 
focus

focus

Patrick Tresch said:
Same situation here... I'm on a feature where we have to take the decision on wich media we are going to shoot. The project ask something resonnably cheap, light with a high """"picture potential"""" ;-)

It would be possible to use S16mm but with low number of takes, we are also waiting for the 1D mkIV as the 5D MKII spoiled us with easy low light condition and lightning with these tools is more cutting and managing available light than adding more expensive KW.

3 Years ago there was no question I would have shot this project in s16 (low budget feature)... But RED and the new DSLR's changed the way low budget are thought.

It seams that "we" (lowbudget cinematographer) are in a technological point of no return where we are waiting for the new technology to come out because we have the vision and needs but we wouldn't trade inn all the disvantage of shooting heavy/builky/using a lot of man powered/expensive cameras. Here we are... still waiting for the dream tool.

Strange because usually the tools unleash the creativity. Perhaps the 5D MKII was not only a good Canon seller but also was THE camera wich changed the way we will shoot in the future (high ISO/FullFrame/light & cheap cameras...)?



Patrick
Click to expand...

Hi Patrick,

To start with HAPPY NEW YEAR.

I have a 5D m2 and i used to make beautiful stills and sometimes when i'm not alout to fim i take the 5D for a shot.

Does everybody know how hard it is to focus with this camera in video/foto mode manual.
Try to let sombody walk to you and keep in focus.
You need filmlenzen to do this and then the cheap is gone, pl mount etc..
I think Canon as a video camera is realy ok voor costumer use. From the short film, videoclips i have bin aware they had only less than 50% of the shots wich were sharp and useble. And you are thinking to shoot a film with it, you beter go for 16mm or rent a Red.

best regards
Robert Berger NSC

Red One 1265 until Epic comes
 
It's even worse: the Canon 5D's OLPF is corrected for photography (of course), and is completely insufficient for video. You get massive aliasing and moiré with it. I consider it unacceptable for anything but web-video.
 
I've shot a short (25 minutes) on 5D MKII that was scanned to 35mm (with Cinevartor) 8 month ago. I am aware of the downs of this camera, poor h264 codec, too shallow depth of field and aliasing.

But the new way you shoot with this kind of camera doesn't push you to go for s16mm any more... you would rather choose RED if the camera size isn't a problem, it also depends on the project of course.

I think you must learn how to shoot with this camera and avoid the well known troubles... 10 years ago I shot a short (as director) with the DSR-150 that was DV... we just tried to get usable footage to go to 35mm, we didn't speak about aliasing because there was no RED One around the corner.

But I'm still considering all awailable tools for this specific project.

Epic would definitly be great.

Pat
 
I had a look at the 2.2K footage and it looks great. If somebody could enlighten me to one thing as I see banding in the black areas which could pop out in a 35mm transfer. How do you smooth out the blacks in these areas while leaving the rest free of alteration. I know this is a prores 422 file and it can probably be done at an earlier stage but just wanted to know as this will probably where everyone will be spending a little bit of time and money when shooting a low budget available light shoot apart from the general CC?
 
Do you mean posterization JP? If so, then that's the pro-res, not the R3D.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top