OBLIVION starring Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman. Shot on F65 and EPIC.

[Nick Morrison]

The face tones on the Red Epic unfortunately for us just don't have what the F65 and Arri deliver on what seems to be a consistant basis.

Life of Pi, Game of Thrones, Oblivion, Zero Dark Thirty,

The hobbit is the best to date on the epic side, but still to me, there is something 'anemic' in the face tones.
Bad examples on the epic side are...
Pirates of the Carribean and Spiderman.


Maybe it's just that ARri has been making movies for 90 years, again, hoping the Dragon sensor can improve this for us in our Epic's...

We may just opt to own both, no disrespect meant to anyone or the red cameras, we use them, they are great. The best???, so far with the examples we can pull from hollywood, IMHO no... F65 and Arri take the face tone cherry on the Lemon cake.

I don't know, I think you are fishing. I work in cable where lots of stuff is shot on Alexa and I see tons of crap. Prometheus and Flight looked great, IMHO. So did Beginners. Rust and Bone looks terrific. Winters Bone and Blue Valentine look fantastic too. It is what you make it.

It's too easy to just say it's the camera.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

Hi Prahlad,

Have you done any side by side tests of F65, Alexa, and Epic, shot under the same conditions and finished optimally? Or are you just comparing movies, shot and finished by different teams and displayed in different venues under different conditions? Because comparing movies is apples and oranges, extremely subjective. Since you can't know all the parameters if you weren't there, you can't really know how the cameras would perform under the same conditions. Pretty dicey comparison.

Tim Eaton

Wtih the alexa yes.... same situation,

but i'd like to point out one flaw even though the results were as expected...

For many years I was also an audio engineer and an engeineer by the name of Ethan Winer (acoustical engineer) said that next to no engineers could hear the difference between a soundblaster sound card and a high grade dedicated a/d converter. Anyways long story short, it truly was hard when used in the same circumstance, same mic feed etc etc etc...

Many went on to buy far inferior sound interfaces and a/d converters as a result of this test...

To me the same goes for movies, you will end up with very similar results under blind testing. Audio / video is based on an experience over the course of a film / tv show etc...

Why is it that across hundreds of titles, I can without fail instantly tell which is red, and which is Arri, which is 16mm, and which is 35mm....

Even with Oblivion, my friend said 'it looks great, and it was shot on Red Epic' I said no, no... there is no way that shot is red. And as a result of this thread I was indeed correct. The face tones were far to rich for me to accept it was Red Epic. I told him my guess is they used the red for some shots.... and I was correct

Again... we use and love the Red Epic, but we are not making feature films (yet) and as of right now, based on the history of movies released on Arri Alexa and now Sony F-65, we would probably opt for a richer facial tone style of camera, like the ARri or the Sony,

Peter Jackson shot his first 3 LOTR on film, Hobbit on Red, great comparison, the face tones on the LOTR trilogy are still much better then the Hobbit.

Dragon, show us your face.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

I don't know, I think you are fishing. I work in cable where lots of stuff is shot on Alexa and I see tons of crap. Prometheus and Flight looked great, IMHO. So did Beginners. Rust and Bone looks terrific. Winters Bone and Blue Valentine look fantastic too. It is what you make it.

It's too easy to just say it's the camera.

I agree with that, your right there are films that look great on Red... it's not really my point...

The one thing missing for me... some people it doesn't mind obviously... is rich face tones....

Life of Pi.... Game of Thrones.... Warhorse (film but I really like this rich tone)

Would love to see some face tones that are rich and more filmic from the red... any examples you know of?, As a user, we are here to learn, i'm just laying out what I see and feel when watching.

 

[Bruce Allen]

This one settles it all for me:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony/rustandbone/ (watch it in 1080p)

Digital versus film. Or Epic versus Alexa or any other format. It's okay now. This picture was shot on Epic, I don't think you'll miss 35mm, even for it's skin tones. We are there. Epic MX is one damn beautiful camera. I think more and more DoP's especially in Europe will settle, stop the silly arguments and start to explore what the camera can do after they've seen this film.

Regarding films / trailers, I thought both the Oblivion and Rust and Bone trailers looked good and want to see the films very much.

Regarding specifics of digital capture... I saw the Rust and Bone trailer not knowing what it was shot on... then the shots at :23 and :30 and :32 came along and I was like "definitely digital, probably RED"

I don't think it's a silly argument... because film is dying and if we don't demand more / better color rendering options from the digital manufacturers, we will be left without some serious gaps in our artistic palette.

I personally am no big fan of film. It's expensive. It's not environmentally friendly. But I do like the colors and I do hope that digital gets to the point where it is easy to emulate some of the film aesthetic. If digital is really so pristine and perfect, it should be easy to simulate film's non-linear properties, right? I think the answer is just that digital isn't quite there yet and that it's our job to tell the manufacturers it is a priority. End 2c

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Bruce Allen]

This one settles it all for me:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony/rustandbone/ (watch it in 1080p)

Digital versus film. Or Epic versus Alexa or any other format. It's okay now. This picture was shot on Epic, I don't think you'll miss 35mm, even for it's skin tones. We are there. Epic MX is one damn beautiful camera. I think more and more DoP's especially in Europe will settle, stop the silly arguments and start to explore what the camera can do after they've seen this film.

Regarding films / trailers, I thought both the Oblivion and Rust and Bone trailers looked good and want to see the films very much.

Regarding specifics of digital capture... I saw the Rust and Bone trailer not knowing what it was shot on... then the shots at :23 and :30 and :32 came along and I was like "definitely digital, probably RED"

I don't think it's a silly argument... because film is dying and if we don't demand more / better color rendering options from the digital manufacturers, we will be left without some serious gaps in our artistic palette.

I personally am no big fan of film. It's expensive. It's not environmentally friendly. But I do like the colors and I do hope that digital gets to the point where it is easy to emulate some of the film aesthetic. If digital is really so pristine and perfect, it should be easy to simulate film's non-linear properties, right? I think the answer is just that digital isn't quite there yet and that it's our job to tell the manufacturers it is a priority. End 2c - and promise that any more 2c from me will be confined to the skintones thread

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Wtih the alexa yes.... same situation,

but i'd like to point out one flaw even though the results were as expected...

For many years I was also an audio engineer and an engeineer by the name of Ethan Winer (acoustical engineer) said that next to no engineers could hear the difference between a soundblaster sound card and a high grade dedicated a/d converter. Anyways long story short, it truly was hard when used in the same circumstance, same mic feed etc etc etc...

Many went on to buy far inferior sound interfaces and a/d converters as a result of this test...

To me the same goes for movies, you will end up with very similar results under blind testing. Audio / video is based on an experience over the course of a film / tv show etc...

Why is it that across hundreds of titles, I can without fail instantly tell which is red, and which is Arri, which is 16mm, and which is 35mm....

Even with Oblivion, my friend said 'it looks great, and it was shot on Red Epic' I said no, no... there is no way that shot is red. And as a result of this thread I was indeed correct. The face tones were far to rich for me to accept it was Red Epic. I told him my guess is they used the red for some shots.... and I was correct

Again... we use and love the Red Epic, but we are not making feature films (yet) and as of right now, based on the history of movies released on Arri Alexa and now Sony F-65, we would probably opt for a richer facial tone style of camera, like the ARri or the Sony,

Peter Jackson shot his first 3 LOTR on film, Hobbit on Red, great comparison, the face tones on the LOTR trilogy are still much better then the Hobbit.

Dragon, show us your face.

I respect your opinion but I do think it's subjective. There's a big post house in LA that fooled some big DPs and directors with a blind test. Some of the went in with the same opinion as you. Then again, the only test that matters is the one you do yourself. So I only put so much stock in this. We've gone around in circles about skin tone here on Reduser. The skin tones thread was actually fairly productive, so it's a good conversation. But no one will ever agree on this until it's ridiculously obvious that one camera is far better than all others, but that moment isn't here. The cameras are close enough in IQ that debate will continue. I'm just happy there are choices out there.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

In response to myself. I'm excluding film from the conversation. I was referring to digital cameras.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

Regarding films / trailers, I thought both the Oblivion and Rust and Bone trailers looked good and want to see the films very much.

Regarding specifics of digital capture... I saw the Rust and Bone trailer not knowing what it was shot on... then the shots at :23 and :30 and :32 came along and I was like "definitely digital, probably RED"

I don't think it's a silly argument... because film is dying and if we don't demand more / better color rendering options from the digital manufacturers, we will be left without some serious gaps in our artistic palette.

I personally am no big fan of film. It's expensive. It's not environmentally friendly. But I do like the colors and I do hope that digital gets to the point where it is easy to emulate some of the film aesthetic. If digital is really so pristine and perfect, it should be easy to simulate film's non-linear properties, right? I think the answer is just that digital isn't quite there yet and that it's our job to tell the manufacturers it is a priority. End 2c

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

That's precisely what I meant, except was not able to properly express this...
I was afraid that if directors / viewers just accept digital / Red for what it is, will we ever return to the rich colors of film.

Django and Warhorse are 2 incredible examples of why Film is far superior. Out of budget for us and yes, film is dead.

I like what Sony are doing trying to emulate film with physical shutters etc and trying to maintain rich colors in the face... lets keep them on their toes...
Would be incredible if they produced a camera that film buffs like Quentin Tarantino said, you know what, the new Red has the depth and richness of film, i'm going to give it a go.

If we say "it's every bit as good as film"
They will have reached their golden standard and goal... NO!, they are not there, not even close, push em, push em, push em!

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Wtih the alexa yes.... same situation,

Would you mind posting the results of those tests for us?

Tim

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

I respect your opinion but I do think it's subjective. There's a big post house in LA that fooled some big DPs and directors with a blind test. Some of the went in with the same opinion as you. Then again, the only test that matters is the one you do yourself. So I only put so much stock in this. We've gone around in circles about skin tone here on Reduser. The skin tones thread was actually fairly productive, so it's a good conversation. But no one will ever agree on this until it's ridiculously obvious that one camera is far better than all others, but that moment isn't here. The cameras are close enough in IQ that debate will continue. I'm just happy there are choices out there.

I want to be fooled too!, I may visit this post house!,

If they can truly get the end result War Horse or Django did... that is the holy grail....

They may have fooled the DP's... but where are 'examples' ... if you get my drift, as I said, blind tests really can fool a lot.

We fooled a junior engineer here into believing go pro footage was red, he said "WOWWWWW, it really is incredible, " hahahaha it was good fun.

 

[Nick Morrison]

That's precisely what I meant, except was not able to properly express this...
I was afraid that if directors / viewers just accept digital / Red for what it is, will we ever return to the rich colors of film.

Django and Warhorse are 2 incredible examples of why Film is far superior. Out of budget for us and yes, film is dead.

I like what Sony are doing trying to emulate film with physical shutters etc and trying to maintain rich colors in the face... lets keep them on their toes...
Would be incredible if they produced a camera that film buffs like Quentin Tarantino said, you know what, the new Red has the depth and richness of film, i'm going to give it a go.

If we say "it's every bit as good as film"
They will have reached their golden standard and goal... NO!, they are not there, not even close, push em, push em, push em!

I give up. This "red can't do skin-tones" has become a sort of religion. Doesn't matter what you say, people's opinions are entrenched.

Forget the fact that in today's day and age so many movies go through so much COLOR GRADING in the DI that it's so hard to say what is the camera...and what's the grade.

Maybe Peter Jackson decided to grade The Hobbit differently? Why is it necessarily the camera's "fault" that the skin tones look different? Maybe he decided to make the film more saturated.

And then of course we never give lenses credit. So many Alexa jobs are shot on COOKE lenses (that combo seems to work. Game of Thrones and Zero Dark come to mind). Whereas many EPIC 3D jobs use Ultraprimes because of their smaller size. Maybe people just like the COOKE LOOK more?

Too many variables. I don't buy it for a second that it's just "the camera". Sounds like amateur-hour wonkish armchair quaterbacking to me.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

I give up. This "red can't do skin-tones" has become a sort of religion. Doesn't matter what you say, people's opinions are entrenched.

Forget the fact that in today's day and age so many movies go through so much COLOR GRADING in the DI that it's so hard to say what is the camera...and what's the grade.

Maybe Peter Jackson decided to grade The Hobbit differently? Why is it necessarily the camera's "fault" that the skin tones look different? Maybe he decided to make the film more saturated.

And then of course we never give lenses credit. So many Alexa jobs are shot on COOKE lenses (that combo seems to work. Game of Thrones and Zero Dark come to mind). Whereas many EPIC 3D jobs use Ultraprimes because of their smaller size. Maybe people just like the COOKE LOOK more?

Too many variables. I don't buy it for a second that it's just "the camera". Sounds like amateur-hour wonkish armchair quaterbacking to me.

Well said Nick. Way too much certainty being expressed about this stuff. I'm always willing to listen to reasoned opinions, but over the years I have heard so much conjecture, anecdotal information, and subjective opinions expressed as dogmatic facts, I've grown pretty weary of it.

That's why I asked Prahlad if he could post the side by side tests he said he shot.

Tim

 

[Tehben Dean]

I give up. This "red can't do skin-tones" has become a sort of religion. Doesn't matter what you say, people's opinions are entrenched.

Forget the fact that in today's day and age so many movies go through so much COLOR GRADING in the DI that it's so hard to say what is the camera...and what's the grade.

Maybe Peter Jackson decided to grade The Hobbit differently? Why is it necessarily the camera's "fault" that the skin tones look different? Maybe he decided to make the film more saturated.

And then of course we never give lenses credit. So many Alexa jobs are shot on COOKE lenses (that combo seems to work. Game of Thrones and Zero Dark come to mind). Whereas many EPIC 3D jobs use Ultraprimes because of their smaller size. Maybe people just like the COOKE LOOK more?

Too many variables. I don't buy it for a second that it's just "the camera". Sounds like amateur-hour wonkish armchair quaterbacking to me.

Well said man.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I want to be fooled too!, I may visit this post house!,

If they can truly get the end result War Horse or Django did... that is the holy grail....

They may have fooled the DP's... but where are 'examples' ... if you get my drift, as I said, blind tests really can fool a lot.

We fooled a junior engineer here into believing go pro footage was red, he said "WOWWWWW, it really is incredible, " hahahaha it was good fun.

You did read my response to myself right?
I'm leaving film out of the discussion because in my opinion it's a different beast, one that sees the world differently than digital cinema cameras. It's a wonderful format whose date with destiny has been determined not only by acceptance of digital but also by the complacency of it's masters, namely Kodak and Fuji. I think they should go down with a tougher fight. I'd love a world where the format was chosen because the artist (namely the DP) believes that's the palette they feel suits their vision best. Whether it's film, digital, or some future technology. The more the merrier. But then, in this art, there is also business and it's an expensive business at that. So, economics plays a role in all of this.

Long way of saying, I accept we are heading down an all digital road eventually. So, let's focus on making the best images we can now, encouraging camera makers to improve for the future, and at the same time let's enjoy film while it's still here.

Skin tones don't tell stories. People tell stories. My wife hates it when I bring up skin tones when we're watching a movie or TV show. And she's an artist, so it's not like she doesn't appreciate it but it gets old when you're just trying to enjoy the story being told.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

Not sure, either way I appreciate all your thoughts on the matter,

I will continue and have always used examples of the greats in cinema as a reference point.

I gave what I thought were great looking movies shot on f65 and alexa, since those examples are much closer to a richer film look and vibe then
e.g. pirates of the caribean, spiderman, hobbit, parker, etc

I use examples of the best... to me pirates and spiderman both look terrible... anemic, life of pi, etc... look great (to me) I just haven't seen anything traditional, rich film look shot on red... yet...

anyways, ur right, it doesn't tell a story... but this aint a script writing forum either ;-), this is where we throw some punches and learn as you go. I appreciate all of your help.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Not sure, either way I appreciate all your thoughts on the matter,

I will continue and have always used examples of the greats in cinema as a reference point.

I gave what I thought were great looking movies shot on f65 and alexa, since those examples are much closer to a richer film look and vibe then
e.g. pirates of the caribean, spiderman, hobbit, parker, etc

I use examples of the best... to me pirates and spiderman both look terrible... anemic, life of pi, etc... look great (to me) I just haven't seen anything traditional, rich film look shot on red... yet...

anyways, ur right, it doesn't tell a story... but this aint a script writing forum either ;-), this is where we throw some punches and learn as you go. I appreciate all of your help.

Prahlad, it's all good. But in the case of BOTH Life of Pi and Oblivion (one shot on Alexa, the other on F65)....both films were DP'd by Claudio Miranda. Maybe you just like his WORK? Why are you sure it's the CAMERA doing everything? Movies are made by people, not just machines. I just don't know where you draw the line. How do you know if what you're liking in films isn't the DP, Colorist, or Director's choices?

Also, if you are judging THE BEST RED films, shouldn't we be judging The Social Network, Girl With Dragoon Tatoo, and Winter's Bone, which were all nominated for numerous ACADEMY AWARDS? "Most Expensive" doesn't always mean best. Heaven's Gate and Water World proved that!

Either way, I agree with you...looking forward to Dragon!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I'm still working on putting together the workshop/test discussed in skin tone thread. Haven't been able to drum up enough support yet, but it might still happen.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm still working on putting together the workshop/test discussed in skin tone thread. Haven't been able to drum up enough support yet, but it might still happen.

Sounds awesome. I'm in.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

Prahlad, it's all good. But in the case of BOTH Life of Pi and Oblivion (one shot on Alexa, the other on F65)....both films were DP'd by Claudio Miranda. Maybe you just like his WORK? Why are you sure it's the CAMERA doing everything? Movies are made by people, not just machines. I just don't know where you draw the line. How do you know if what you're liking in films isn't the DP, Colorist, or Director's choices?


Either way, I agree with you...looking forward to Dragon!

Awesome info there, i wasn't aware that Claudio was behind both.
I get what your saying, the indian, not the arrow...

I'm researching as we speak if Claudio is behind any Red Epic movies that may shed some light, really trying to push what we are able to do with it, seeing examples along the lines of what we like really helps.

Wanna see a release and go damn... that's looks mighty fine, pull my iphone out in the cinema, hit technical details at imdv and it says RED MOFO Epic

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Regarding specifics of digital capture... I saw the Rust and Bone trailer not knowing what it was shot on... then the shots at :23 and :30 and :32 came along and I was like "definitely digital, probably RED"

...while your at it also take a look at :40. Maybe as you say it's possible to see it's digitally shot, and to see that it could perhaps be a Red camera. Is that something to be embarrassed about? The images are beautiful.

I used to have a lack of faith in the image quality/look/feel of the Epic/Scarlets and then I got myself a set of B-speeds and explored portraits with the Epic, last week I used S16-primes and a S16 zoom. Both for some documentary tests and wide angle 300 fps. S16 is still a beautiful format! And the skin tones looks great. The glass has a lot of saying. I don't like the Alexa look anymore, it's way to perfumed for my taste. It's possible to do edgier stuff with Epic, not only due to the much more flexible form factor.