Off the chart...

[XiaoSu Han]

I think its less about a "look" than it is about flexibility in production and in post. Don't like the way a scene was exposed? With HDRx, you can re-expose your shot after the shot with far more flexibility than with non HDR imagery. To what degree, I don't know.

So we can produce movies on even smaller crews, less budget, less experience, creativity and dare to expose to the edges of a system?

Just play it safe... the colorist will embed a look for you, urghs.

Also, is this what 50% of the epic footage is gonna look like? http://www.google.com/images?client...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1368&bih=703 - everybody has a different taste I guess

 

[Andrew Wilding]

So we can produce movies on even smaller crews, less budget, less experience, creativity and dare to expose to the edges of a system?

Just play it safe... the colorist will embed a look for you, urghs.

Also, is this what 50% of the epic footage is gonna look like? http://www.google.com/images?client...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1368&bih=703 - everybody has a different taste I guess

No - its just that the LATITUDE is going to be more. You will have more wiggle room, just like with Film. Its not going to auto tone map your shots into some horrific piece of mall-art. The Raw image will just contain much more data - the key will be in figuring out how to use it. We should be able to figure a way to compress this extra info in the highlights into a virtual "shoulder" and get a really smooth, filmic roll off into white.

At the end of the day, Red are promising us a bigger net to catch fish with. How you use those fish, is, as ever, up to you.

 

[Jose Lomeña]

I think with 18 stops is the end of NDs, and maybe the revelion of focus assistants. Because you need a lot of light with 18stops... or more aperture.

Thanks red for this impresive advantage. I think the next year will be the year of sunsets.

Saludos

 

[Joel Kaye]

I think with 18 stops is the end of NDs

Kinda doubt that. If the RED sensor is native 800 ISO and that is part of the recipe for obtaining 18 stops then shooting outdoors at F/2.8 still means a lot of ND.

 

[Jay Gannon]

So we can produce movies on even smaller crews, less budget, less experience, creativity and dare to expose to the edges of a system?

Just play it safe... the colorist will embed a look for you, urghs.

Also, is this what 50% of the epic footage is gonna look like? http://www.google.com/images?client...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1368&bih=703 - everybody has a different taste I guess

Nope that is what the photo community has very incorrectly labeled HDR its actually tone mapping.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Fantastic! I look forward to hearing more as development continues.

 

[Brian Petrie]

Haha, you and everybody else! We'd all love to know how they are doing it! I've thought about this topic A LOT and there are many ways to approach it. We'll just have to wait and see!

Ha I have also though about this a lot, but I was wondering, does everyone think we'll ever really know exactly how hdrx is done. I can't decide. I'm sure everyone's just like me and really wants to know how its done but would Red really want to give the competition blueprints on how to achieve this amazing feat. I don't know if they can patent this process, ha anyways, I really hope we'll learn how its done someday!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[conrad gaunt]

Very very exciting.. and no streaky looking charts for me to comment on, so Jim' blood pressure should remain nominal..

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

So we can produce movies on even smaller crews, less budget, less experience, creativity and dare to expose to the edges of a system?

Just play it safe... the colorist will embed a look for you, urghs.

Also, is this what 50% of the epic footage is gonna look like? http://www.google.com/images?client...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1368&bih=703 - everybody has a different taste I guess

RED is a camera that doesn't require a loader, that goes to ISO2000 with almost no noise, that allows more easily a single operator to shoot beautiful images?

If that's the case, RED is for lazy hacks with no art skill. The real artistis are shooting film... Right?

iggy:

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

If that's the case, RED is for lazy hacks with no art skill. The real artistis are shooting film... Right?

iggy:

There's no need for being aggressive, Pietro, especially as mr Han, like many cinematographers, uses digital cameras a lot. I don't know if you've started practicing at professional level (with professional simply meaning that you get paid and you're responsible for what you do), but in the last years, because too many producers\clients\money people think that everything can be done in post and that digital cameras are magic robots capable of somehow fixing everything, crews and, more importantly, budgets have been drastically cut down. I guess that's what mr Han was addressing his rant towards to.

 

[Lee Saxon]

RED is a camera that doesn't require a loader, that goes to ISO2000 with almost no noise, that allows more easily a single operator to shoot beautiful images?

If that's the case, RED is for lazy hacks with no art skill. The real artistis are shooting film... Right?

iggy:

Yup, they better increase the price and do something to make it more difficult to shoot with, to keep the riff-raff like us away.

 

[Diego Querzoli]

RED is a camera that doesn't require a loader, that goes to ISO2000 with almost no noise, that allows more easily a single operator to shoot beautiful images?

If that's the case, RED is for lazy hacks with no art skill. The real artistis are shooting film... Right?

iggy:

RED is a system that make possible for the artists to take advantage of the subtleties, that allow us to explore more our creativity and ideas with less barriers imposed by some mediums....
take the human eye for example, the gamma we can see, the dynamic range we possess .... RED gives us more freedom to experiment, to create ....


lazy people watch cable TV and commute.

 

[Peter Osinski]

i love this site but there is too much fluff....I had to go through 34 pages just to find out no footage had been posted yet

 

[Sean Cruser]

^win

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Raising the bar

Raising the bar

So we can produce movies on even smaller crews, less budget, less experience, creativity and dare to expose to the edges of a system?

Just play it safe... the colorist will embed a look for you, urghs.

Also, is this what 50% of the epic footage is gonna look like? http://www.google.com/images?client...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1368&bih=703 - everybody has a different taste I guess

This is more of a rant reaction to this thread than a specific response to this post. But here it goes ...

It's about RAISING THE BAR.

This is the opposite of "good enough".

It's no different than when Kodak released a new film stock. Sure, lots of great movies were shot on 35mm before Vision stocks, etc. but technology "raises the bar" of the quality, and versatility of tools used in any given craft.

When Kodak released new film stocks with tighter grain structure and more latitude - most cinematographers rejoiced. Sure, subjective .. .but MOST people would look at the new stocks and find the images more pleasing, stunning, etc.

With respect to smaller crews - sure - this is the future. Because it's more efficient and MORE COST EFFECTIVE. Smaller crews do not have to mean overworked or exploited crews.

But with respect to "less experience" ... I highly doubt that. More accessible tools means that more people have the ability to create. This means MORE COMPETITION in the industry.

And while few people will agree with me - I believe that this is ultimately a GREAT thing. Because ... at the end of day ... when all the tools are democratized ... the folks with the talent will get the work and the praise. And that is the way it should be.

Bummed that more folks are fighting for less jobs ...? well ... less jobs in media is a fallacy. I don't think there has EVER been a time with more demand for content - and while the revenue streams for that content are undefined and are in a time of great disruption - it is a time of great opportunity.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of Germans sit around a table and decide that "HD / 2K" is "good enough" ... it's NOT. It might be for the moment ... but clearly not for the future. YouTube supports 4K now. Anyone with their eyes open won't be surprised when Apple supports 4K in a future release of Apple TV.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of "post production experts" in LA all say DPX 10-bit LOG is "good enough" ... it's NOT. It might be for the moment ... but clearly not for the future. Our cameras are 12-bit now and IN A MATTER OF WEEKS major motion pictures will be shooting in 16-digital RAW.

It doesn't even matter if Mitch feels that auto focus on EPIC is not that relevant - it IS VERY relevant. Why? Because it raises the bar.

RED did it with the RED ONE.

RED did it again with MX upgrades.

The bar jumped way up. Low, low budget indies look like they cost 10 times their budgets.

TV shows shoot faster and better images than working with F35s for a fraction of the price.

Here comes EPIC ... RED raising the bar again. WAY up.

 

[Mitch Martinez]

I think I just solved your problem.

you're the man, Ian.

 

[Nik Harper]

i love this site but there is too much fluff....I had to go through 34 pages just to find out no footage had been posted yet

you should change your settings so that 40 posts per page are displayed, it wont take as long to skim that way.

 

[Alain DEUDJUI]

Hello Jim !

I am very pleased today being the first person in this forum to request built in camera motion HDR.I remember you asked me if i was kidding you or what .
Congratulations .

 

[XiaoSu Han]

It's about RAISING THE BAR.

Good posting. I agree, better tools is always better. I am just not too happy if the direction is going towards more and more fix it in post rather than shooting for a certain look and and achieving that by drawing from years and years of experience.

 

[Mark Collins]

This is more of a rant reaction to this thread than a specific response to this post. But here it goes ...

It's about RAISING THE BAR.

This is the opposite of "good enough".

It's no different than when Kodak released a new film stock. Sure, lots of great movies were shot on 35mm before Vision stocks, etc. but technology "raises the bar" of the quality, and versatility of tools used in any given craft.

When Kodak released new film stocks with tighter grain structure and more latitude - most cinematographers rejoiced. Sure, subjective .. .but MOST people would look at the new stocks and find the images more pleasing, stunning, etc.

With respect to smaller crews - sure - this is the future. Because it's more efficient and MORE COST EFFECTIVE. Smaller crews do not have to mean overworked or exploited crews.

But with respect to "less experience" ... I highly doubt that. More accessible tools means that more people have the ability to create. This means MORE COMPETITION in the industry.

And while few people will agree with me - I believe that this is ultimately a GREAT thing. Because ... at the end of day ... when all the tools are democratized ... the folks with the talent will get the work and the praise. And that is the way it should be.

Bummed that more folks are fighting for less jobs ...? well ... less jobs in media is a fallacy. I don't think there has EVER been a time with more demand for content - and while the revenue streams for that content are undefined and are in a time of great disruption - it is a time of great opportunity.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of Germans sit around a table and decide that "HD / 2K" is "good enough" ... it's NOT. It might be for the moment ... but clearly not for the future. YouTube supports 4K now. Anyone with their eyes open won't be surprised when Apple supports 4K in a future release of Apple TV.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of "post production experts" in LA all say DPX 10-bit LOG is "good enough" ... it's NOT. It might be for the moment ... but clearly not for the future. Our cameras are 12-bit now and IN A MATTER OF WEEKS major motion pictures will be shooting in 16-digital RAW.

It doesn't even matter if Mitch feels that auto focus on EPIC is not that relevant - it IS VERY relevant. Why? Because it raises the bar.

RED did it with the RED ONE.

RED did it again with MX upgrades.

The bar jumped way up. Low, low budget indies look like they cost 10 times their budgets.

TV shows shoot faster and better images than working with F35s for a fraction of the price.

Here comes EPIC ... RED raising the bar again. WAY up.

What matters in cinematography is not the tech. I have a small camcorder that I bought for $500 bucks at Futureshop that shoots standard def and really compressed, no manual controls whatsoever. Yet it can still shoot great images is I light properly, if I compose properly, and most importantly, if every single frame is dedicated to the story I'm trying to tell.

That's what cinematography is, using the visuals to tell the story the director wants told.

Epic is a tool, a very shiny, very cool and very impressive tool, but at the end of the day, if you're story sucks, or your actors suck, or your director doesn't know what he wants, then it doesn't matter.

Shooting at 2K is good enough for most films because there aren't really any consumer 4K displays available, and certainly not for very cheap either. What Jim and the guys at Red are doing is making a camera system that is future proof, one that when we all have 28K displays one day we can shoot in 28K by simply replacing the sensor rather than the camera, and that's where Red's true potential lies.

For right now though, we don't have to shoot 4K because outside of a very select few cinema's there's nothing that can display 4K, so finishing in 4K doesn't do that much good at present. With the push to 3DTV's in the home now, it will be several years before consumers will want to upgrade to 4KTV's.

For TV though, Red doesn't necessarily enable TV shows to shoot faster or better. A good DP will take as much time as they can get to light and compose the images anyway, regardless of the camera. As for cheaper, for most Tier A TV shows, camera gear and/or stock are not what breaks the bank, cast, crew and production design are.

I'll agree that for the indie world it certainly makes things cheaper.