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...

Peter Mosiman said:
I doubt you'll get a Scarlet by March.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty much not counting on anything from the new line of cameras for 2010. When I receive my orders is when I'll start planning and booking shoots. For now my Red works well, but not well enough for the situations I will be experiencing in India and Nepal.
 
Yes I guess I do. In the original R3D file do we see ANY of that?
 
I've never seen any posterization in an R3D file from either M or M-X.

Graeme
 
Eric Haase said:
Clean images at higher ISOs will give us more options in terms of lenses and lighting. As it is, in many situations it's currently a struggle to light the R1 and achieve a "fat neg" at even a 2.8 or anything above. Most high quality cinema zoom lenses are a 2.8 or more, not to mention anamorphic zooms at T4 or more. I usually try to roll with the Angenieux 17-80 T2.2 since it's considered fast for a zoom lens. Another stop or 2 (hopefully 2) to achieve similar quality images in terms of noise opens up new possibilities for lenses and lighting scenarios.

If I can get clean images at 1 or 2 stops more sensitivity then I can have more lens choices, more choices about selective focus, and more choices about light quality. Maybe I'll soften that key light a little more because I'm no longer struggling to just achieve the level I need. For me, it's not about less lights, it's about more choices.
Click to expand...

Ryan E. Walters said:
Yep- but If I can light using a smaller lighting package and do it well, then why not? If I can use a 1.2k HMI instead of a 4k HMI to get the same results- then that seems to be the smart choice. What excites me most about these ISO 4000 results is not the clip itself, but the implication of what the lower ISO's will yield - 320 - 500 - 640, and maybe even 800.
Click to expand...

Blair S. Paulsen said:
Not to get too far off topic or assume that ISO 1600+ will be clean enough for all situations, BUT:

1) Can I get a 1st AC who likes the idea of T4 instead of a T2/2.8 split :coolgleamA:

2) How about lighting with smaller heads and smaller gennys? I still believe that artful lighting is the key to great images but if you can get the same results with less amps...

Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Good points, the possibility to get great images with natural lighting and get acceptable results with a low level of lights at a night shoot sure are a great pro for the M-X.
 
What do you guys use for noise reduction, anyway? I've been using Neat Video, and it works great.

I wonder if it'd be possible for Red to partner with a third-party vendor to release either a specialized version of their software or a noise profile that works extra well with the Red sensor(s). And/or maybe even tailor the camera to work with the software? Then we could shoot at ISO one milllllion!
 
Oh don't get me wrong that shot at ISO 4000 looks freaking amazing. Did I not mention that? It's just fun to see how far you can push things with the help of post. Like how you can basically double the framerate of any footage using frame interpolation in After Effects (couldn't believe how good it looked when I first tried it out). Seriously though, what if I need to get a shot of a color chart at night and the power's out and I can't find any candles?

Stan "The Boy" Taylor: Ned Flanders here showed me that there is more to life than playing football and sleeping with ligerie models.
Homer: Professional athletes -- always wanting more.

Actually, I don't want more, I just want 2/3" or larger that's comfy on the shoulder for hours and affordable (as in, sub-$10k). Probably would've gotten an HPX500 by now (love the HDX900, especially the Dynamic Range Stretch feature, why they buried it in user-defined buttons is beyond me), but with the Scarlet at half the price and twice the awesomeness, I'll be renting till it comes out ;) Okay back to work.
 
brian hanson said:
that soderbergh clip was very impressive, had to forward that to a few naysayers . . .
Click to expand...

But it's only one, and in my opinion a heavy handed one, choice of style. Theres' more to cinema than the naturalistic docish style which I fidn depressing and annoyingly overused in my country (Canada).

I do think high ISOs will open up many possibilities. Sometimes we don't have everthing we wish in the truck, nor all the time we need. I can see many times from the past where higher ISOs would have meant more shooting time, and more varied coverage. Sure, better to light for 320 or less, but is it really always better to light that way and only cover 80% of the shotlist? Sometimes that's the sad choice. You can plan all you want but all it takes is one actress tantrum and then you're squeezing minutes out of seconds, especially if the budget is in any way stretched and/or said actress has just broken up with her boyfriend.

High relatively safe ISOs will save our asses many, many times.

Kudos to all involved with this breakthrough.
 
joshua csehak said:
What do you guys use for noise reduction, anyway? I've been using Neat Video, and it works great.

I wonder if it'd be possible for Red to partner with a third-party vendor to release either a specialized version of their software or a noise profile that works extra well with the Red sensor(s). And/or maybe even tailor the camera to work with the software? Then we could shoot at ISO one milllllion!
Click to expand...

Well no, noise reduction interpolates (basically imagines what would be there, if not for the noise, much like up-rezing) , and no matter how this is done it is never as clean as a noise-free full set of data points. But... A Neat Video set of Red-specific tools would be very helpful, for sure.
 
James T Mather said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd add to that that many docos use this as license to shoot what may as well be radio. There is no such thing as a "neutral" "truthful" image, there is only subjective impression, and docos are not exempt from this. I'll get shot for saying this, but I'd go as far as saying that many doc directors are not really directors at all, they are journalists, and their films would draw a much larger audience if they worked with a real director to help them visually reinforce their content.
 
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...

Spend less but get dissapointed, spend a little more and be happy with what your camera gives you back for all the hard work you put behind it. Doesn't sound like a hard choice to me!
 
Rob Ruffo said:
I'd add to that that many docos use this as license to shoot what may as well be radio. There is no such thing as a "neutral" "truthful" image, there is only subjective impression, and docos are not exempt from this. I'll get shot for saying this, but I'd go as far as saying that many doc directors are not really directors at all, they are journalists, and their films would draw a much larger audience if they worked with a real director to help them visually reinforce their content.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're not directors, but I definitely agree there are doc directors out there who seem to only pay attention to the subject matter, not how it's presented. But it's probably more likely they're just making choices you don't agree with. I recently saw "La Danse," a doc about the Paris Ballet. I felt like there were bits that were totally out of place and didn't belong in the film, and that there was no structure to speak of -- just a bunch of random sequences. But in the Q&A session afterwards, the director (who looked like a pretty smart guy with his stuff together) talked a lot about the choices he made for structure, and how those bits really did belong. So who knows? Maybe he's really sophisticated and I just didn't see it.

But yeah, I definitely hear you. You know, I think the thing is, doc makers get so in love with their subject matter that they think that's all you need, but they really should think about the person in the audience with a passing interest. Salinger's fat lady, as it were. That's definitely who you have to author for.

Shooting without lights is hard! You have to go all around looking for good natural light. Even if I'm doing ENG-type stuff, I'll bring some lights if I can, just in case. OTOH, sometimes there's great available light setups, except it's just too dark. How great will it be to just switch to ISO 4000 and shoot away, rather than recreate the whole thing with artificial lights? The technical side of this business is getting to be so easy; it's awesome.
 
So when will James Cameron shoot the first movie lit entirely with iPhones?
:-)

Truly amazing work going on over there...Can't wait to give you my money!
 
That's butts kicking!!!!
Remember at the last NAB, pretentious D.o.P bitching on the RED One because of the black in low light. Now they just have to kneel and kiss RED feet :rofl:
 
joshua csehak said:
What do you guys use for noise reduction, anyway? I've been using Neat Video, and it works great.
Click to expand...

Neat is good. So is The Foundry's Furnace plugin.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
Neither have I. I HAVE seen it in most other cameras.
Click to expand...

I have BUT we were looking at a DPX image. I'm still not convinced the problem was with the Red. DPX's seem to fall apart pretty quick and I'm starting to believe that anyone looking to evaluate Red footage should have a no-DPX rule.
 
Shane Betts said:
I have BUT we were looking at a DPX image. I'm still not convinced the problem was with the Red. DPX's seem to fall apart pretty quick and I'm starting to believe that anyone looking to evaluate Red footage should have a no-DPX rule.
Click to expand...

Interesting- so far DPX has treated me well and I have not had these issues yet - I wonder if it is some where in the processing steps ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top