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 :)

Mike Seymour

Hey Mike, where are the pictures of the Red One/Cooke @4 debacle? Love to know more details. Pictures or it didn't happen:-)
 
I'd love to see the "Robert Richardson piling on ridiculous amounts of light from above on dramatic subjects halo effect" in a dark room with dust motes -- like in Oliver Stone's Nixon, whilst still maintaining subtlety in the facial lighting/sculpting, with beauty in the recently crumpled pressed grey suits.

I'd like to see Eyes Wide Shut bluey windows, orangey interiors in a very white interior dramatic kitchen/office shot with great skin tones actress/actors staring over glasses like Kubrick's hawk eye look -- without looking video-clippy.

I'd like a Tarkovsky dawn.

And a Storaro -like couple drinking cocktails in magic hour/sunset in the desert.

And some True Grit-like night (if you can afford the lights!!!!).

Plus a Baraka-like shot of green terraced south east asian hills, with the widest possible lenses tracking forward with silk sheets blowing in the wind.

Plus a In the Mood-like slo' mo sequence in the rain in stairwells moving out to streets past lanterns and street lamp rain, with faces and different pools of different light.

Just sayin'
 
Gabe Conroy said:
Why not just use a longer exposure on the base exposure? No need to flip things around...you'd get the same thing.
Click to expand...

If you could flip the placement of the X track exposure, placing it at the end of the A track exposure, it would give a different result. The motion blur from the longer exposure would then trail behind the sharper x track, like comic book action, instead of leading it. But, yeah, just switching the two tracks as is seems that it would give the same result.
 
I prefer to not post my most embarrassing images - I prefer to try and move on - head hung in shame.

mike
 
here is our Vegas video testing low light - shot mainly on the 11-16 zoom and a cooke 75mm

http://vimeo.com/channels/mikeseymour#23140107

67da8l5


Mike
 
That looks awesome Mike. Nice edit too. We shot the Bellagio fountains with our original Mysterium (not M-X) sensor a couple years ago. It didn't look like that.

Gotta be nice to be able to walk around with the small-sized Epic and not worry about getting stopped and asked for film permits!
 
Great video Mike! Thanks for sharing
 
yes a key aspect - especially on the high wide master shot was shooting with HDRx. this meant we kept the fountain detail. It really is something I can not ever write too much about HDRx is insanely useful.

Mike
 
Thanks for that. Nice to see HDR tastefully applied - not calling attention to itself. Checking out the other clips there too.

What's the song? (OK, I know I'm a cultural moron...).
 
Time to Say Goodbye, Andrea Bocelli & Sarah Brightman

So we did use some of the Magic motion stuff - but we also used the normal RCX - the normal RCX works fine for the high shot for example... it is only big closeup action where you need it. If the action is far away - it is a subpixel movement really. IF it is close to camera such as a closeup of a foot walking by camera - then you can gain a lot with Magic motion.

but RCX is good - even as is - for HDRx

Mike

PS.
By the way this was the track that was on in Vegas - and I thought the classic matched so well with the beauty of the water and the stupidity of Vegas night life that we all love so much
 
it is easy to use - leave it for RED to discuss the implementation - But I think it is great and certainly confirms my view of the Red s/w team and Graeme's need for some tech Oscar consideration
Mike
 
Mike Seymour said:
it is easy to use - leave it for RED to discuss the implementation - But I think it is great and certainly confirms my view of the Red s/w team and Graeme's need for some tech Oscar consideration
Mike
Click to expand...

Mike, I really hope this is the case. IMHO, what red has done with Epic is one of the most phenomenal technical achievements in recent cinematic history.
 
Mike Seymour said:
it is easy to use - leave it for RED to discuss the implementation - But I think it is great and certainly confirms my view of the Red s/w team and Graeme's need for some tech Oscar consideration
Mike
Click to expand...

Yes, good to hear. I have a bit of background fear (due to ignorance, I hope) that working with HDRx may take steps that sometimes editor and producers can't be bothered with,
making HDRx not nearly as valuable as having a sensor with the best native dynamic range available.
Being able to quickly batch-render new HDR master files to take into an online seems pretty important to me.
 
Look I think your logic is correct - but I suspect there will be a 'producer proof' workflow - the only question for me is which productions will adopt it... think about Arri and how many Alexa productions just shoot ProRes and dont even bother with RAW


Mike
 
Basically, all of them. There's a lot of native dynamic range in their sensor, though...
There's sometimes a lot to be gained by doing HDRx, but it will HAVE to be a "producer proof" workflow, for a DP to be able to shoot knowing that HDRX processing is going to happen without road blocks,
or having it placed down in the priority list of comps, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top