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 :)

New Sony F3 Footage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Graeme Nattress said:
Hard for me to know, not being there, but I've tested LED lights extensively with my children, and I've not seen that kind of issue. All I can show is that under my tests with such lighting, skin tone is spot on and accurate.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I love the C-Stand or Hi Riser to the right of the bookcase in the BG
great to see you raising those kids correctly! :)
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I don't know what Panavision have changed on the Genesis over the F35, but there was some pretty visible moire in the BBC Series Doctor Who shot on F35 (on 1080 broadcast).

Graeme
Click to expand...

I don't recall any obvious moire when I watched it, granted I didn't watch the 1080 broadcast but I didn't see anything in Harry Brown or the Tron Legacy trailer and both of those are f35.
 
Huh? Obviously a lot of people in the business think that other cameras surpass RED in many respects: why would they shoot with the F35, Genesis or Alexa? I know this is a RED user forum but can we maintain some objectivity and quit the hyperbole?

Rudi Herbert said:
Very cute kids by the way Graeme! I don't think there's anybody in the business who really feels that, right now, there's anything out there that surpasses the RED in terms of sheer muscle, meaning, resolution, DR, and flexibility of its RAW, 12 bit codec.
Click to expand...
 
Jason Rudd said:
Huh? Obviously a lot of people in the business think that other cameras surpass RED in many respects: why would they shoot with the F35, Genesis or Alexa? I know this is a RED user forum but can we maintain some objectivity and quit the hyperbole?
Click to expand...

Just because someone is shooting with an F35 (or any camera) instead of a RED MX doesn't mean that he or she does so because it surpasses RED in many respects.

Even after Epic is released (which nothing objectively surpasses it) people will still shoot with inferior cameras.
 
Joe G. said:
Well Graham, blaming the lights can account for the first part of my observation, but it does not address the second.

Watch the full Vietnam footage of Ted S., and see how the color in his face seems to shift from reddish to greenish whenever he turns his head. This is the issue that worries me.

I also see something odd about the motion characteristics, but this could be the way it was shot. It just looks sort of odd all around and not cinematic.
Click to expand...

Two different ceiling room lights were also on which likely explains the color shifts when ted turns his head. Each house lamp has its own color. In fact you can spot one of the lamps from the window reflection between the curtains. Not only that but my fish tank casts off a blue blast of light from the side as well. Lost of lighting variables going on here. To recap, this was in my living room i prepared shortly before ted arrived. I just aimed for a typical decently lit interview setting..my goal was not to make it dramatically cinematic.
 
Carl, I totally understand what you are saying. Now I would instead take the wireless h.264 module over a ProRes module. Maybe that doesn't compute for you. :) Point is everyone has different needs, and I totally agree with you.

I hope for you that the ProRes module comes out quick. Good thing will be that if any tricky shot doesn't push enough in post you will always be able to go back to the RAW and quickly render out a replacement for that one instance. Best of both worlds!
 
Carl Weston said:
yeah it's there ...but its only obvious to pixel peepers and chart testers...I didn't seen any aliasing watching predators shot with the Genesis.
Click to expand...

In my experience the difference is viewable for many, but only the pixelpeekers knows what difference they are seeing. And that goes not only for the big screen.
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
I love the C-Stand or Hi Riser to the right of the bookcase in the BG
great to see you raising those kids correctly! :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a c-stand. They both know how to help Dad with lighting tests and holding charts for me.

Graeme
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

We know the names of what we see - moire, aliasing, chromatic aberation, macroblocking, banding/posterization, mosquito noise etc. I think more people see these things, but we know what to call them.

Graeme
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Very cute kids by the way Graeme! I don't think there's anybody in the business who really feels that, right now, there's anything out there that surpasses the RED in terms of sheer muscle, meaning, resolution, DR, and flexibility of its RAW, 12 bit codec. That said, a great many users want exactly the opposite of big, bulky muscle, they want a thinner, slimmer, finished product, even if its deficiencies are obvious at times. Ironically, while the RED is a digital cinema camera, it is cameras like the Sony that offer the predictability of a known stock, their colorimetry, exposure and DR values behave in such predictable ways that many experienced users know what their images will look like before they even check them. And while you can make RED look like any number of pre-formulated looks or stocks, it takes work to get there, and manipulating RAW is something that a great many try to stay away from. Also, you do get auto exposure and auto focus with those "pseudo cameras" which is something invaluable for many, and if you've shot with those cameras, you'd have to agree that their auto exposure and auto focus systems are very, very sophisticated and very, very accurate, and in fact, are a great help and not a hindrance to the creative process. Which is why I'm assuming Epic will have auto focus, and why it will be used as much for motion as it will for stills.
Click to expand...

All will be well with those cameras if they could offer beautiful crisp images. They fall short. I want the best image possible.
Everyone know what a Red raw image looks like, but Red finished images vary depending on the artist choice, thats the beauty of it.

I dont know much easier it gets for setups than with Red-mx, you measure light and distance then point and shoot.
 
Joe G. said:
Since this thread talks about "Sony colors" which I thought looked pretty good... let's talk about "Red colors" and specifically the two images below. These are both from the latest Red video of Ted S. in Vietnam, and I believe they exhibit the typical red look. They were done in a controlled studio environment, although one of the lights died in the middle, and so both lighting conditions are represented. I think he looks better in the darker lighting, personally.

What bugs me is that the colors seem to have too much green, and/or are too variable as conditions change slightly (from just head turns).

I would like a detailed response from someone at Red (Graeme?) about what exactly makes the Red color space look this way.
Click to expand...

In which controlled studio environment do you need to take your shoes off? I am not sure we watched the same footy. 4k to web delivery.
 
Why we are not seeing Scarlet footage if its "just behind" Epic? Shouldn't we already "get some"? Aren't we in 2nd base yet?? We've been waiting 3 years...
 
"Two different ceiling room lights were also on which likely explains the color shifts when ted turns his head. Each house lamp has its own color."​

Ahh. There's that.

As for the motion, what frame rate / shutter was that filmed at?

It's just, this is touted as a digital CINEMA camera constantly. When I see glaringly uncinematic footage, including the co-founder of the company, it's hard to ignore.
 
Carl Weston said:
yeah it's there ...but its only obvious to pixel peepers and chart testers...I didn't seen any aliasing watching predators shot with the Genesis.
Click to expand...

Look again. Every camera shows optical defects like aliasing and moire. Every camera.

Seriously... I've seen aliasing on 35mm and IMAX.

I didn't know Predators was shot on Genesis, but it had aliasing when I watched it in theaters.

Worse... your footage, which may not alias in camera or on film, may alias at any point later in post. For example in down-res for blueray, web or SDTV or during the broadcast chain.

I've seen material that is clean in the camera master display moire merely when exporting to 720p (from 1080p video sources)

It has to do with frequency of the detail.

An easy example you can test yourself. If you have one of the HD DSLRs find an object that displays moire. (That part shouldn't take long) Now walk the camera in or out slightly. You'll quickly find a position that eliminates most if not all the moire.

On a good camera like the RED or a film camera, its rare, but the same principles apply.

You can find a Panavision series on MTF at their site that explains... and maybe someone here can give you better resources.
 
Joe G. said:
"Two different ceiling room lights were also on which likely explains the color shifts when ted turns his head. Each house lamp has its own color."​

Ahh. There's that.

As for the motion, what frame rate / shutter was that filmed at?

It's just, this is touted as a digital CINEMA camera constantly. When I see glaringly uncinematic footage, including the co-founder of the company, it's hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Joe,

I think you do not understand.

Camera's do not make movies, or video. People do.

Right now you are not evaluating a RED camera, but rather the "production" of that interview footage.

In other words it absolutely doesn't reflect on the camera in my opinion, but rather on the production. I don't think Tonaci had any time to get this right on set.

If I was the DP, I would have taken care to make sure all my lighting was color corrected... but this thing was shot very quickly. Like I said, I don't think there was that sort of time.

Speaking for the moment as a colorist, I've seen far worse looking material originated on 35mm and 16mm film.

Based on what I am looking at in that clip it would have come out substantially the same if it was shot on Kodak with an ARRI 435. Well... except post would have taken much longer and cost a ton more.

It also would have come out substantially the same if shot with F35, F900, HPX3700, EX1/3 or any of a number of other cameras.

Tonaci wasn't trying to show off how awesome his REDs are. This is not a piece sponsored by RED, nor is it in any way a RED demo.

He was trying to get information out to us at REDUSER and do so relatively quickly. Content is king in the footage you refer to, and I imagine that speed and ease were goals in post.

If the way the footage looks is important, I'm quite certain we could fix the image quickly in color correction.

Its the wrong clip of footage to criticize.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to express.

If you want to look at RED footage critically, look at footage that was shot critically.

Here's a list
 
thomas ozoux said:
here is my own test footage, shot with a pre-production camera...
feel free to ask anything, have a nice day...........tom
http://vimeo.com/16981467
Click to expand...

Hey Thomas, great job with the short. First and foremost, I enjoyed it.

On Vimeo you mentioned you had problems transcoding to ProRes, were you using XDCam Transfer or Final Cut Transfer to ingest?

Thanks,

Liam.
 
hey thomas, thanks for being so kind for posting up your work. camera discussion aside, I just wanted to say, great short! it's always really nice to see a full blown short film with purpose to it rather than just random camera shots of panning, leaves, ocean view and so on. In fact there have been a lot of great shorts with all these test shoots, but narrative wise I think yours is number one. Kudos to the time and energy spent on this, i loved it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top