Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

"Knowing"...

Plastic

Plastic

Just saw "Knowing" last night projected on a ChristeDigital DLP. If you haven't seen it yet, pay no attention to the negative comments about the film and the ending. It's a great film. If you've seen any of the director's other films, then you should know what to expect.

The skin detail does not look plastic, that's called makeup. You're just not use to seeing detail like that in close-ups. I was shocked the first time I saw eye-liner and lipstick on male actors several years ago on one of the first 35mm films to be shown on a ChristeDigital DLP system. The job of makeup artist has just become that much more difficult with the RED.
 
Ousa Khun said:
That reminds me, I wonder how Michael Jackson would look on RED? I'd be interested to see the details it might pick up.
Click to expand...

Answer= Scary! and you thought "Thriller" was scary, well it's much scary now: no make up needed.
 
Saw "Knowing" a few nights ago, how can I say this.... Horrible movie... The scary people in the film confused the crap out of me. First maybe they are ghosts, oh wait they are aliens... no, they are angels?!? Wish I would have saw it in a digital theater. The quality of the image was great though.
 
And no de-noising used at all...

Jim
 
I just posted in the Red One - General part of the forum with some quotes from the America Cinematographer article for those who don't have access to it. :) Just FYI.
 
Saw knowing a few weeks ago. Thought Ebert’s thumbs up review was spot on. As far as the production values go I thought it was fantastic. I did notice in one of the early scenes the autumn trees were very strong in their browns and yellows – I thought to myself only digital could have achieved that look. I still think digital has a tendency to show off or go over the top. But all in all I thought it was fantastic.

I assume I was watching a 35mm print at a Hoyts cinema, and I assume it was shot at 24p, and printed to 35mm for its cinema release. Can someone tell me why it looked like it moved like film and not other digital films I have seen such as Collateral which I assume was also shot at 24p? This has always bugged me.
 
scott william said:
Can someone tell me why it looked like it moved like film and not other digital films I have seen such as Collateral which I assume was also shot at 24p? This has always bugged me.
Click to expand...

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, and I am simplifying a bit, but I believe the two big components to this would be sensor size and rolling shutter.

The Super35 sized sensor means that, ceteris paribas, the footage will have the same depth of field as Super35 film.

The rolling shutter used by the CMOS sensor has had the read/refresh rate (and I know there is a post from Jim about this) timed by RED to approximate the same speed at which the shutter in a film camera "wipes" across the frame. It is also important to note that this is a rolling shutter (i.e. one line of the sensor records at a time, consecutively down the sensor top to bottom) and not a global shutter (where all pixels are recorded at a single moment). This creates that slight motion blur inherent to film in camera and subject movement.

There are probably other reasons, like resolution and color-space that make RED footage that much closer to film footage, but the above two items are the first things that glaringly set apart video footage (from that of celluloid) to my eye.
 
Thanks for the great reply. When you refer to the ‘rolling shutter’ is this something inherent in the Red’s CMOS or is it adjustable as in the shutter speed?

The thing I noticed about ‘knowing’ was that it moved like film but was sharp like digital.
 
scott william said:
Thanks for the great reply. When you refer to the ‘rolling shutter’ is this something inherent in the Red’s CMOS or is it adjustable as in the shutter speed?

The thing I noticed about ‘knowing’ was that it moved like film but was sharp like digital.
Click to expand...

AFAIK all CMOS sensors use a "rolling" shutter. The top line of pixels is 'read' first, then the next, all the way to the bottom (this is different than a CCD's global shutter). The pixels are refreshed and read again for the next frame. This "read/refresh rate" is adjustable by the sensor manufacturer and has been tweaked a couple of times by RED in firmware updates (at least that's what I remember). I will try and find the post from Jim about this and edit it into this post if I find it.
 
Just watched it. Loved the movie!

It was probably discussed before, sorry if I missed it. Were those non-circular flares fake, I don't know but doubt their lenses had flares with such defined blade patterns.
 
scott william said:
Can someone tell me why it looked like it moved like film and not other digital films I have seen such as Collateral which I assume was also shot at 24p? This has always bugged me.
Click to expand...

I think REDCODE is a another reason the picture looks a lot like film - instead of having to work with an already processed image, the colourist can start with raw footage and then do all the processing and colouring in post, just like they would with an image from a film scan.
 
I just watched this film over the weekend and was wondering if anybody else thought there was a softness to the image. When the previews were showing, everything looked tack sharp and in focus. Previews included Wolverine and Terminator Salvation. However, when the movie started the projectionist had to readjust the projector because it was pointing off screen. When he got it back on screen, the movie started and I really thought EVERYTHING looked a tiny bit soft. The problem is I don't know if

1. It looked soft because the projector was out of focus.
2. It looked soft because some kind of processing was done to the footage.
3. It looked soft because that's just how RED footage looks like on the big screen.

I was talking to my friends about it after the movie, and they felt the image was processed softer to try to make it look like film. I always felt sharper images looked more like film. In any case, did anyone notice a softness in their viewing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top