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 :)

People not getting the RED

Adrian Jebef said:
Why don't "people get the RED" ?

Besides the endless smoke and mirrors... There is nothing intuitive about the camera.


Discuss...
Click to expand...

Finally. Okay can you elaborate on why you hate it? I'm not picking on you. I am curious as to what you do not find unique or interesting or anything. I'd love to know. :)
 
The one thing we have all in common (except Matt's new friend) is that we've all worked with the R1 and EPIC before. We know how the camera settings are organized, what the post options are, and that we must decide what we prefer: EVF or LCD.

That being said, getting to a point of familiarity with the camera has not, at least for me, been very easy. Not only were these cameras completely redesigned from an industry standpoint they were also saddled with nomenclature that was opaque and misleading. Even today, in 2012, I get the sense that only a few out there in the industry even understand the concept of RAW as it pertains to digital cinema cameras.

So, when I say that the EPIC is counter-intuitive from a design standpoint what I mean is:

- Confusing and duplicate Menus

- EVF Connector / Lens Mount Proximity

- Location of Audio Inputs

- False Advertising on Sensor Sensitivity

- Lack of any scientific monitoring during shooting to help with exposure

- Shaped like a carton of milk

I'm sure there may be others that I'm leaving out...
 
I see your point. I just wanted to see what you meant by smoke and mirrors.

Honest I don't care for audio ports on the RED. Extra stuff for me to worry about. Now for post and sound I can imagine they want this.

I did see your credits. Glad to see you work for Mann. Good film.

But the milk cartoon look doesn't matter so much as the weight does. The R1MX weighs almost 30lbs when you got all the gear on. The Epic is way less and that is a big factor when doing handheld.

What you're saying is right though. I agree with you. Yet I will always hold out for the Epic.
 
For many, I think it simply comes down to the look of the footage. Many DP's pick the Alexa over the Epic simply because they think the footage looks more "filmic". I agree with this sentiment to some extent. I believe the Alexa has some kind of filter between the lens mount and the sensor, not a softening filter but some kind of filter that is helping to take the digital edge of the footage, which combined with less resolution, results in an image that looks closer to film. To be honest, I wish Red would focus less attention on the resolution of the sensor and fine tune the image like Arri does. On paper, the Epic (and Dragon) blow the Alexa out of the water but for guys like Deakins, it is not all about resolution. I think the Epic is a more flexible and foward thinking camera but the Alexa simply produces a more pleasing image out of the box. You can tweek the Epic to get it there with some light diffusion or vintage glass. To me, the Red image is still a tad to harsh for my taste and it needs modification to match the look of the Alexa. If I was shooting a film now, I would have a tough time choosing between the two. To my eyes, the best looking Red footage has come from Fincher who from what I recall, is shooting the whole frame but cropping the image in post, throwing away around 20%-25% of the surrounding image (he uses the extra space to recompose or stabilize). Which would mean his Epic footage is really around 3.5K to 4K which puts it closer to the resolution of the Alexa. For Fincher, the extra resolution is more for tweaking the frame in post, rather than producing the sharpest image on the screen. See what I mean:

To be honest, I think this slight manification produces a more pleasing image. If I was shooting on the Epic, I would probably do the same thing.

GDT_2.40_framing_chart_4352x2176.jpg
 
Andrew Burhoe said:
But I love that sharp look. I don't mind it. But to each their own eye.
Click to expand...

I understand but to me, that is a dead giveaway that it was shot digitally. However, there have been a few films shot on film that I thought were shot digitally so I guess as film stocks have become sharper and more grain free (and put through the DI process), even films shot on film are starting to look more digital.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I understand but to me, that is a dead giveaway that it was shot digitally. However, there have been a few films shot on film that I thought were shot digitally so I guess as film stocks have become sharper and more grain free (and put through the DI process), even films shot on film are starting to look more digital.
Click to expand...

It seems that you might prefer "film" or am I getting that wrong. For me I don't care that it has a digital look. It's tool. If your story sucks then well you just wasted $15 million on a dumb film.

For I love the look that you get with an Epic. I was told that I screwed up when using the Epic. That the sharpness is piss poor and disgusting. Only to find out a few months later they saw that the sharpness was not issue because I did what I had to do to match the story. So in short regardless of the camera whether it is a god awful t2i or the great ALEXA or EPIC you have to have a good story.

Look at Louie. He shoots on the MX. It looks great and they use the 5D MKII to match it. Never once do I sit there thinking of that looks dumb. The story is written so that if they used an iPhone I wouldn't care.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
Steve Sherrick said:
Before Adrian gets run over, he has worked on some sets. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1346480/

As Steve pointed out, I was the Film Loader on Mann's 2006 film "Miami Vice". I've been at the forefront of the Digital Tidal Wave.

I'm Adrian Jebef, AMA.

:sifone:
Click to expand...
Adrian, you guys shot that on the Viper using an RGB output instead of FilmStream, for reasons you will have to explain to me! :)

How do you rate the Viper vs. Red for filmic results?
Click to expand...
 
The big difference for me between film and digital is texture. Film has a discernible texture. A lot of Digital Cinema Cameras do not. The EPIC and most of Sony's cameras (F65) are very, very clean without any noticeable texture in the image. Some prefer this look. The Alexa has a very distinct texture that can be pushed or pulled within the image. Game of Thrones looks completely different from Drive. I prefer texture in my images and I've found that it shows up in cameras that are designed slightly "less than perfect". The newest camera that I've seen recently with unique texture is the Ikonoskop a-cam dII. Past favs have included the Panasonic DVX100 and the Thompson Viper.

But back to smoke and mirrors: right from the starting gate RED has been hailing the benefits of RAW capture as an be-all, end-all when in fact it's simply a starting point with the exact same limitations as the sensor that captured it.
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Adrian Jebef said:
Adrian, you guys shot that on the Viper using an RGB output instead of FilmStream, for reasons you will have to explain to me! :)

How do you rate the Viper vs. Red for filmic results?
Click to expand...


Michael Mann insists and gets complete control over his set. It was his decision to shoot 4:4:4 video instead of the Viper's Log FilmStream mode. He wanted to create the look of the film immediately on the set. All of our Vipers, F900's, and F950's were connected to paint boxes to change gamma and color-matrix settings before the images were recorded to HDCam SR. Ballsy. I still think Vice and Collateral are some of the best-looking digitally-shot features out there.

The Viper and EPIC have completely different looks. The EPIC is a single S35 CMOS imager with low sensitivity and very low noise when over-exposed a bit. The Viper was a 2/3" 3 CCD camera with a great gamma curve and a really interesting noise/gain floor. I'm not sure which camera is more "filmic" but I do prefer Fincher's Button and Zodiac over The Social Network or Girl with the Dragon Tatto in terms of "look".
Click to expand...
 
Before Adrian gets run over, he has worked on some sets. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1346480/
Click to expand...


Steve, I certainly wouldn't want to run Adrian over, but sometimes a little humility can prevent a world of angry retorts. Coming on like this invites less than cordial responses:


Besides the endless smoke and mirrors... There is nothing intuitive about the camera.
Click to expand...

So, when I say that the EPIC is counter-intuitive from a design standpoint what I mean is:


- Confusing and duplicate Menus


- EVF Connector / Lens Mount Proximity


- Location of Audio Inputs


- False Advertising on Sensor Sensitivity


- Lack of any scientific monitoring during shooting to help with exposure


- Shaped like a carton of milk


I'm sure there may be others that I'm leaving out...


And I don't HATE the EPIC. I've had some great experiences with the camera. RED has come a L O N G way over a few short years.
Click to expand...


Seems a bit headstrong for friendly discussion among a group that generally prefers Epic. I went to your IMDB page Adrian. How much work have you actually done as a DP with Epic, Alexa, and/or film? It's not a requirement, but the way you talk about the cameras, I would have thought you've got 15 years of features under your belt as a cinematographer.

Tim Eaton
 
Timothy Eaton said:


Steve, I certainly wouldn't want to run Adrian over, but sometimes a little humility can prevent a world of angry retorts. Coming on like this invites less than cordial responses:






Seems a bit headstrong for friendly discussion among a group that generally prefers Epic. I went to your IMDB page Adrian. How much work have you actually done as a DP with Epic, Alexa, and/or film? It's not a requirement, but the way you talk about the cameras, I would have thought you've got 15 years of features under your belt as a cinematographer.

Tim Eaton
Click to expand...


I've worked with these cameras day in and day out for over 10 years. I am not a DP. But I am hired to get the image from acquisition to display. So, yeah, I've picked up a few things over the years...

I don't get much time to browse this site but I've always respected its place as a forum for education instead of fanaticism.

And again, this post was directed towards the EPIC's (perceived) disadvantages not it's (perceived) advantages.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Michael Mann insists and gets complete control over his set. It was his decision to shoot 4:4:4 video instead of the Viper's Log FilmStream mode. He wanted to create the look of the film immediately on the set. All of our Vipers, F900's, and F950's were connected to paint boxes to change gamma and color-matrix settings before the images were recorded to HDCam SR. Ballsy. I still think Vice and Collateral are some of the best-looking digitally-shot features out there.

The Viper and EPIC have completely different looks. The EPIC is a single S35 CMOS imager with low sensitivity and very low noise when over-exposed a bit. The Viper was a 2/3" 3 CCD camera with a great gamma curve and a really interesting noise/gain floor. I'm not sure which camera is more "filmic" but I do prefer Fincher's Button and Zodiac over The Social Network or Girl with the Dragon Tatto in terms of "look".
Click to expand...



Your wisdom is much appreciated, Adrian!

(BTW: Dont take the critiques of some of the crustier posters on here too seriously!)
Click to expand...
 
Fair enough Adrian. It's just that "Smoke and mirrors," "False Advertising on Sensor Sensitivity" "Lack of any scientific monitoring..." all seems like stuff off the top of your head, or what passes for banter on the set, not the kind of quantitative or practical information that comes from long experience of testing, shooting with, and or lighting for the various cameras. I'm not saying that you can't know anything about a camera by working as an assistant or DIT, but I know for sure that you learn a great deal more than you might think from actually lighting for and shooting with a camera. You might read some of David Mullen's posts. Very helpful stuff. Just a suggestion.

Tim
 
Timothy Eaton said:
Fair enough Adrian. It's just that "Smoke and mirrors," "False Advertising on Sensor Sensitivity" "Lack of any scientific monitoring..." all seems like stuff off the top of your head, or what passes for banter on the set, not the kind of quantitative or practical information that comes from long experience of testing, shooting with, and or lighting for the various cameras. I'm not saying that you can't know anything about a camera by working as an assistant or DIT, but I know for sure that you learn a great deal more than you might think from actually lighting for and shooting with a camera. You might read some of David Mullen's posts. Very helpful stuff. Just a suggestion.

Tim
Click to expand...


Smoke and Mirrors = Cameras completely redesigned from an industry standpoint and saddled with nomenclature that was opaque and misleading

False Advertising on Sensor Sensitivity = The EPIC is not a 800 ISO camera

Lack of any scientific monitoring... = No proper video out signal. No way to attach a waveform and trust it for exposure. (the Phantom high-speed cameras have this issue as well)


And Mr. Mullen is a thoughtful, giving, GentleMan. I just happen to have a slightly sharper POV.
 
We work an a 4k red one feature at the moment. Directed by Roy Andersson. His famous for his perfection and very long production times and long one take scenes usually shot with a 16mm ultra prime standing in the corner of a set... When fiddling with the vfx I can only say that I'm sure Arri would not stand a chance. Green screen shot 10 minutes long with multiple layers of action in the scenes with green screen. I do not see how that could be composited and then upscaled and viewed for 10 minutes with a fixed camera without people starting to point at edges etc. With the epic we can do it. Maybe we could have done it with the sone F65. But except for that I do not see another option. Then from looking at the test we done, while trying to prefect the shot (this has been going on since january for one single shot) I can only say from the screenings that you do not want to upscale a C-mos picture. That alone kind of blows the other fish out of the water for me at least...

Then arguing about being able to have a screen and viewfinder at the same time or where the audio ports are located are very much secondary.

Im pretty sure that people that does not care about this rather large difference in resolution have not really seen it.

I mean if you do not care about upscaling then you might as well make your HD masters in SD resolution and just let them be upscaled in broadcast...If that sounds stupid well, the step from HD to 4k is almost the same.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
Lack of any scientific monitoring... = No proper video out signal. No way to attach a waveform and trust it for exposure. (the
Click to expand...


It has an industry standard HD-SDI out you can certainly hook up to any hd-sdi scope. It will only show your lut or the raw non-lut image depending on how you set up your monitoring since you are shooting a raw image.

But you know this and I have no idea what your point is.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
It has an industry standard HD-SDI out you can certainly hook up to any hd-sdi scope. It will only show your lut or the raw non-lut image depending on how you set up your monitoring since you are shooting a raw image.

But you know this and I have no idea what your point is.
Click to expand...


The connector is an industry standard. What comes out is a guess at best. Unless you are intimately familiar with the EPIC and it's current firmware / post revisions there does not seem to be an easy way to line up luma intensity coming from the camera on set to "proper" corresponding luma points in a post app. The ALEXA (as an example) outputs a proper HD signal that can be tracked thru Post whether you shoot ProRes, uncompressed Log, or ARRIRAW. The EPIC gives us a small histogram (which I find pretty useless for motion work), falsecolor (which I've never found very useful), and "stoplights" to judge exposure. Couple these tools with the EPIC's ISO / "Look" menu and you can paint yourself into deep trouble rather quickly.

The EPIC's inability to provide a more transparent view of exposure is, in my opinion, the camera's biggest weakness. And frequently leads to most of the confusion surrounding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top