making it messy

[d. sweetman]

So it's no doubt way to early to ask this question, but I've got two feature ideas I'm a-cooking up, the first would be great with the clean, noise-free kind of images that have been posted so far; it's a dark near-future clarke-esque kind of sci-fi. The second would be almost straight realism as far as subject matter goes (sensational only insofar as reality is sensational) but I would want a messy kind of stylized look. Kind of a toned down Miami Vice, low-key with deep blacks and contrast, and lots of noise when desired. So like I said it's probably to early for this, but would this look be possible with RED? I'd hypothetically shoot 1080p or 2k at most (for either idea.) Any thoughts?

 

[Poi Boy]

Starting with a clean raw file you can achieve any look you can imagine in post. I would suggest taking a raw still file and experimenting in photoshop until you are happy.
Aloha
-A

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

So it's no doubt way to early to ask this question, but I've got two feature ideas I'm a-cooking up, the first would be great with the clean, noise-free kind of images that have been posted so far; it's a dark near-future clarke-esque kind of sci-fi. The second would be almost straight realism as far as subject matter goes (sensational only insofar as reality is sensational) but I would want a messy kind of stylized look. Kind of a toned down Miami Vice, low-key with deep blacks and contrast, and lots of noise when desired. So like I said it's probably to early for this, but would this look be possible with RED? I'd hypothetically shoot 1080p or 2k at most (for either idea.) Any thoughts?

With a clean "digital negative" you should be able to create any look you want, subject to the limitations of colour contrast ratios and such... Which are looking increasingly like they won't be such an issue!

have you seen the HD trailer for Grindhouse? That was shot on the Genesis - does it look digital to you?

R.

 

[Isaac Brody]

but I would want a messy kind of stylized look. Kind of a toned down Miami Vice, low-key with deep blacks and contrast, and lots of noise when desired.

Should be possible with selectable ISO's. Not sure how high you can push it, but last I read it was doable. Just like selecting a higher ISO on a DSLR.

 

[garageman]

have you seen the HD trailer for Grindhouse? That was shot on the Genesis - does it look digital to you?

R.

I hope those scratches are only in the trailer and not in the actual films. That would take the whole exploitation thing too far.

 

[d. sweetman]

By ISO you mean the same as ASA, right - the sensitivity of the sensor? I'd want to do as much in-camera as possible, which would probably save a chunk of change in post. I haven't seen the Grindhouse trailer, but for this I'd want it to look digital, and exploit the digital artifacts instead of cover them up.

 

[Isaac Brody]

By ISO you mean the same as ASA, right - the sensitivity of the sensor?

Yes...

 

[Akcelik]

By ISO you mean the same as ASA, right - the sensitivity of the sensor? I'd want to do as much in-camera as possible, which would probably save a chunk of change in post. I haven't seen the Grindhouse trailer, but for this I'd want it to look digital, and exploit the digital artifacts instead of cover them up.

also keep in mind that high speed ISO will render less dynamic range, which is probably what you want anyways..

 

[d. sweetman]

Yes...

Son of a gun, didn't know you could do that. That could be useful. I'd have to see the function first-hand to see if it'd work for me; my slr is film (much cheaper at $40, and dare I say...better?) so I'm not familiar with a digitally variable iso. I guess my main concern is that the images from Red and most dslr images I've seen have been clean and almost texture-free, unlike the grain texture you see with film. I for sure would not want to add fake film grain in post, heck then I might as well shoot on film.

 

[Poi Boy]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you add grain in post ? grain is just one choice out of millions of possible looks you can achive with raw.
Aloha
-A

 

[d. sweetman]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you add grain in post ?

Because it's so frowned upon, and I agree that it should be frowned upon. I only want to take artifacts that are available in the medium of origination, instead of imitating artifacts from a quite different medium. No one would think of intentionally adding video noise to a film image, why should I add fake grain to a video image? If it's to make it look like film, then I might as well shoot on film. The decision to shoot on video cannot be controlled by the cost savings or the ease of use, it must be controlled by the effectiveness of the unique look for the story being told, so if I were to just supplement the image with a lot of devices to make it look like I'd shot on film, then I think it would come across as amateur and pretentious.

 

[Brook Willard]

Laser to a grainier print stock. Problem solved!

 

[Poi Boy]

I see it quite differently; For me the raw file is my canvas, the starting point. From there I will do whatever add or subtract grain, contrast, cc, keys, composites, 3d, graphics, paint, textures, filters..whatever I want in order to achieve the look I'm after. It has nothing to do with trying to make it film, I don't want to make it film otherwise, as you say why not shoot film.
To me, working with raw files is far superior to working with film because I can create whatever look I can imagine. If I don't know how to get there it is quite simple to find and learn what it takes to get there. The grain is just one of the many tool and not just to be like film.
Aloha
-A

 

[Poi Boy]

And another thing, Who are THEY that frown on adding grain ? and how does that make it amatuer or compromise the telling of the story and what movies can you think of that end up screening as shot without "supplementing the image with a lot of devices???" Don't worry so much about the film versus digital and the purity of either medium; just go out and make something that pleases you.
Aloha
-A

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Because it's so frowned upon, and I agree that it should be frowned upon. I only want to take artifacts that are available in the medium of origination, instead of imitating artifacts from a quite different medium. No one would think of intentionally adding video noise to a film image, why should I add fake grain to a video image? If it's to make it look like film, then I might as well shoot on film. The decision to shoot on video cannot be controlled by the cost savings or the ease of use, it must be controlled by the effectiveness of the unique look for the story being told, so if I were to just supplement the image with a lot of devices to make it look like I'd shot on film, then I think it would come across as amateur and pretentious.

Oh man, I'm gonna have to grit my teeth to respond to this one...

Because it's so frowned upon, and I agree that it should be frowned upon. I only want to take artifacts that are available in the medium of origination, instead of imitating artifacts from a quite different medium.

It's frowned upon, if it looks crap. If it looks perfect, who the hell is ever gonna notice the difference? and who cares? the end result is the ONLY thing that matters. If you can get the exact same end result EASIER digitally than using film, the "why not just shoot on film" point becomes utterly reduntant.

You are welcome to do whatever the hell you like. Just don't tell the rest of us what is frowned upon. I'm pretty sure you are in the minority here.

No one would think of intentionally adding video noise to a film image, why should I add fake grain to a video image?

That's because video noise looks shit. Film grain is pretty widely accepted as aesthically pleasing.

The decision to shoot on video cannot be controlled by the cost savings or the ease of use, it must be controlled by the effectiveness of the unique look for the story being told, so if I were to just supplement the image with a lot of devices to make it look like I'd shot on film, then I think it would come across as amateur and pretentious.

Unless, all being equal, you can achieve an identical result either way - in which case, ease of use becomes very very important indeed. You would come accross as a pretentious amateur if you overlooked better solutions for reasons other than the quality of the finished result.

That's all I have to say about that.

R.

 

[Finner]

Well said Ruairi

The art is in the choices and options. The reason why I have choosen film in the past was because it gave me the most options. I am sure I will still shoot film from time to time after my Red arrives but I hope my obvious choice becomes red.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you add grain in post ? grain is just one choice out of millions of possible looks you can achive with raw.
Aloha
-A

Hi,

I think you are adding noise, not grain.

Stephen

 

[Chris Kenny]

I think you are adding noise, not grain.

This is a little unfair. There are products specifically designed to simulate film grain, and some of them do a pretty respectable job. And, of course, you can tweak parameters to get exactly what you want, add scratches or other damage as desired, simulate stocks that can no longer be obtained, etc. so you have a lot more flexibility than shooting on actual film with the look "locked in" by the stock you choose.

Of course, render times can be fairly arduous for more complex simulations. Processing hours worth of 4K footage through something like Magic Bullet is a scary idea.

 

[Stephen Williams]

This is a little unfair. .

Hi Chris,

But real grain forms the image, it's not something that you can add later. I do however accept that sometimes added noise grain/effects look OK.

Stephen

 

[d. sweetman]

...and what movies can you think of that end up screening as shot without "supplementing the image with a lot of devices???"

Well, since we're talking about digital devices, the list is short...Memento, Taxi Driver, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Great Train Robbery, Journey to the Moon, Solaris, The Great Escape, The Searchers, Lawrence of Arabia, The Wild Bunch, The Killers, In Cold Blood, The Seventh Seal, 8 1/2, Breathless, Mon Oncle, On the Waterfront, The Battle of Algiers, Nosferatu, Hara Kiri, Black Narcissus, The Bicycle Theif, The Day the Earth Stood Still...

If you can get the exact same end result EASIER digitally than using film, the "why not just shoot on film" point becomes utterly reduntant.

Your argument stands on the assumption that film and digital produce exactly the same end result to every eye, and furthermore that there is no subconscious effect on those who don't consciously realize the difference. While you may argue for the latter, I don't believe that the former assumption is based in reality at the moment.

Just don't tell the rest of us what is frowned upon. I'm pretty sure you are in the minority here.

I know I'm in the minority here, lucky for me the world does not start and stop in the Red forum.

That's because video noise looks shit. Film grain is pretty widely accepted as aesthically pleasing.

Again I strongly disagree; I like video noise when it's used well and for the right story, that's my whole point.