People not getting the RED

[Andrew Burhoe]

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.

what about the Sony F65? No one has brought that one up yet I don't think. How does that compare with the Epic?

 

[Timothy Eaton]

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.

Usually "Smoke and Mirrors" means you are selling something that's not really there - vaporware as it were. In the case of RED this is demonstrably not true. 5K, great dynamic range - tremendous with HDRx, RAW workflow, etc. Maybe you haven't worked with Epic on major films, but many have and are crazy for these features. Others prefer other cameras, which is great, but to say that the RED program is smoke and mirrors is misleading in and of itself.

False Advertising? ISO is an assignation, especially in a digital camera that records RAW. I expose Epic at 800 - as do most - beautiful. There's nothing misleading about it. I used to overexpose high speed film negative slightly because I thought it generally produced a nicer image. I never accused Eastman of false advertising.

No scientific monitoring? You can have waveform if you need it. I use histogram, video display, and exposure display. Best of all is to be able to look at the RAW image. All just tools. After you use any camera or film stock for awhile, you know what it sees. Part science, part art.

I don't know exactly what you mean by sharper POV. If you mean given to hyperbole, I can see that in your posts. With respect to David Mullen, I'll take experience and thoughtfulness every time.

Epic is not a perfect camera, and I'm happy to hear thoughtful discussion about it. Bombast is not very useful.

Tim Eaton

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Usually "Smoke and Mirrors" means you are selling something that's not really there - vaporware as it were. In the case of RED this is demonstrably not true. 5K, great dynamic range - tremendous with HDRx, RAW workflow, etc. Maybe you haven't worked with Epic on major films, but many have and are crazy for these features. Others prefer other cameras, which is great, but to say that the RED program is smoke and mirrors is misleading in and of itself.

False Advertising? ISO is an assignation, especially in a digital camera that records RAW. I expose Epic at 800 - as do most - beautiful. There's nothing misleading about it. I used to overexpose high speed film negative slightly because I thought it generally produced a nicer image. I never accused Eastman of false advertising.

No scientific monitoring? You can have waveform if you need it. I use histogram, video display, and exposure display. Best of all is to be able to look at the RAW image. All just tools. After you use any camera or film stock for awhile, you know what it sees. Part science, part art.

I don't know exactly what you mean by sharper POV. If you mean given to hyperbole, I can see that in your posts. With respect to David Mullen, I'll take experience and thoughtfulness every time.

Epic is not a perfect camera, and I'm happy to hear thoughtful discussion about it. Bombast is not very useful.

Tim Eaton

I am not saying that RED as a company is purposefully attempting to mislead or deceive. I am simply saying that the R1 and EPIC were designed COMPLETELY differently from everything that came before (just about) and the PR attempted to make the case that this was new technology not just a new camera system. The tech is not new. It has been around for years before RED hit the scene. But there is a lot of confusion surrounding the camera and the company precisely because the tech was and is perceived as something that it is not.

ISO is an assignation that can be interpreted in Post if shooting RAW but the image is fundamentally acquired by a sensor with a FINITE sensitivity. When you set the EPIC to 800 ISO and then hit the "Raw check button" why does the image dim by almost 2 Stops?

You cannot look at a RAW image. Well you might be able to but it would not look anything like what was seen on set.

And I meant sharper as in "cutting" not as in an implied intelligence.

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

I am not saying that RED as a company is purposefully attempting to mislead or deceive. I am simply saying that the R1 and EPIC were designed COMPLETELY differently from everything that came before (just about) and the PR attempted to make the case that this was new technology not just a new camera system. The tech is not new. It has been around for years before RED hit the scene. But there is a lot of confusion surrounding the camera and the company precisely because the tech was and is perceived as something that it is not.

ISO is an assignation that can be interpreted in Post if shooting RAW but the image is fundamentally acquired by a sensor with a FINITE sensitivity. When you set the EPIC to 800 ISO and then hit the "Raw check button" why does the image dim by almost 2 Stops?

You cannot look at a RAW image. Well you might be able to but it would not look anything like what was seen on set.

And I meant sharper as in "cutting" not as in an implied intelligence.

I can understand where you come from. But the best understanding I have is that you gotta light to RAW. Plus if you shoot 24/7 you know when you get good highlights and when you get good blacks. sometimes you just can't trust everything. does this help? No.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

what about the Sony F65? No one has brought that one up yet I don't think. How does that compare with the Epic?

In my opinion the F65 is a "proper" EPIC. The camera oversamples luma and chroma resolution to arrive at a full-color, sharp 4K image after debayer. And the F65's HD video out corresponds nicely with the RAW files later in Post.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

I am not saying that RED as a company is purposefully attempting to mislead or deceive. I am simply saying that the R1 and EPIC were designed COMPLETELY differently from everything that came before (just about) and the PR attempted to make the case that this was new technology not just a new camera system. The tech is not new. It has been around for years before RED hit the scene. But there is a lot of confusion surrounding the camera and the company precisely because the tech was and is perceived as something that it is not.

Fine, Adrian, but you said "Smoke and Mirrors" which essentially means deception - words and phrases have meaning. Technology is the sum of its parts. There was no 4K RAW camera that recorded via wavelet compression to on board hard drives before the R1. It wasn't just PR - it was new technology. It's one thing to say there was some confusion surrounding the camera. It's quite another thing to say that RED was responsible.

ISO is an assignation that can be interpreted in Post if shooting RAW but the image is fundamentally acquired by a sensor with a FINITE sensitivity. When you set the EPIC to 800 ISO and then hit the "Raw check button" why does the image dim by almost 2 Stops?

The various viewing modes are tools, simple as that. When I am viewing the default look, or a look I have created, or RAW, they are tools I use to interpret the RAW data that I'm recording. None of the views are perfect, in part because they are only interpretations of what the RAW footage is capable of. It's like color negative in that way. When producers used to come up to the video tap monitor and ask me if that's what our film would look like, sometimes I would say (in a nice way), "What would you like it to look like?" I didn't say that because the film could look like anything, but because I wanted them to realize that the video tap was only a poor representation. I knew exactly where the negative was because I used the main tool at my disposal, the light meter. RAW view, histograms, looks, video, and exposure views make exposing for Epic so easy, it's like falling off a log compared to film. Is it WYSIWYG? Not precisely, but if you can't learn to expose for RED, there's something missing.

You cannot look at a RAW image. Well you might be able to but it would not look anything like what was seen on set.

It's not supposed to look like what was seen on set. It's supposed to tell you how much information is there and where it is.

Maybe a "cutting" approach is not putting your best foot forward. As far as I'm concerned, I've got 5k, incredible dynamic range with subtle highlights, choice of lens mounts, tremendous flexibility in post, I can edit natively on my desktop and grade in Resolve, and all this in a camera that I can afford and hold with one hand. As Mark Toia often says in so many words, "What's not to like?" I just don't get the negativity.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Fine, Adrian, but you said "Smoke and Mirrors" which essentially means deception - words and phrases have meaning. Technology is the sum of its parts. There was no 4K RAW camera that recorded via wavelet compression to on board hard drives before the R1. It wasn't just PR - it was new technology. It's one thing to say there was some confusion surrounding the camera. It's quite another thing to say that RED was responsible.



The various viewing modes are tools, simple as that. When I am viewing the default look, or a look I have created, or RAW, they are tools I use to interpret the RAW data that I'm recording. None of the views are perfect, in part because they are only interpretations of what the RAW footage is capable of. It's like color negative in that way. When producers used to come up to the video tap monitor and ask me if that's what our film would look like, sometimes I would say (in a nice way), "What would you like it to look like?" I didn't say that because the film could look like anything, but because I wanted them to realize that the video tap was only a poor representation. I knew exactly where the negative was because I used the main tool at my disposal, the light meter. RAW view, histograms, looks, video, and exposure views make exposing for Epic so easy, it's like falling off a log compared to film. Is it WYSIWYG? Not precisely, but if you can't learn to expose for RED, there's something missing.



It's not supposed to look like what was seen on set. It's supposed to tell you how much information is there and where it is.

Maybe a "cutting" approach is not putting your best foot forward. As far as I'm concerned, I've got 5k, incredible dynamic range with subtle highlights, choice of lens mounts, tremendous flexibility in post, I can edit natively on my desktop and grade in Resolve, and all this in a camera that I can afford and hold with one hand. As Mark Toia often says in so many words, "What's not to like?" I just don't get the negativity.

Perhaps the R1 recording a 4K RAW file to a CF card was a first but the chain of operations is not new. Hi-Rez Sensor gathers light, A/D conversion, arrive at RAW, process into a video image. RED's cameras purposefully skip the processing part and let you do it in Post. Buit again, the fundamental tech (or process of arriving at an image) was not new. And because it was not a new invention of motion imaging the RED cameras are still beholden to the laws of physics that govern that chain of operations. A 4K RAW file is only as perfect as the sensor that created it.

Again, there is a lot of misinformation concerning RAW recordings. I wrote a piece about the differences in RAW, Log, and Video some years back. It may be useful:

http://thedigitalparade.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-vs-raw-log-vs-lin.html

Discuss


And again, again, the subject of this thread was to discuss some of the EPIC's (perceived) shortcomings. It does have advantages as well...

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Nice blog. Didn't read it all, but it appears to be a nice way to use your expertise to help others. Good on you.

And again, again, the subject of this thread was to discuss some of the EPIC's (perceived) shortcomings. It does have advantages as well...

Well the subject was "People not getting the Red." At first glance, this would imply that the OP is asking why people wrongly perceive the RED and its capabilities. You chose to put forth explanations that put the blame entirely on RED and the camera, not on the misperceptions of inexperienced users, which I think was a far greater factor in whatever ill will the RED cameras have received. No one is saying this is a thread for praise of the company and the camera. At the same time I didn't see it as an opportunity to trash them.

I think I've basically said my two bits here. Two different ways of looking at what I think is an extraordinary piece of technology that allows me to create beautifully rich images with control that I never could have imagined even five years ago. To each his own I guess.

Tim

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

Respectfully asking

Respectfully asking

Perhaps the R1 recording a 4K RAW file to a CF card was a first but the chain of operations is not new. Hi-Rez Sensor gathers light, A/D conversion, arrive at RAW, process into a video image. RED's cameras purposefully skip the processing part and let you do it in Post. Buit again, the fundamental tech (or process of arriving at an image) was not new. And because it was not a new invention of motion imaging the RED cameras are still beholden to the laws of physics that govern that chain of operations. A 4K RAW file is only as perfect as the sensor that created it.

Again, there is a lot of misinformation concerning RAW recordings. I wrote a piece about the differences in RAW, Log, and Video some years back. It may be useful:

http://thedigitalparade.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-vs-raw-log-vs-lin.html

Discuss


And again, again, the subject of this thread was to discuss some of the EPIC's (perceived) shortcomings. It does have advantages as well...

I started this not to only bring up shortcomings, but also mislead information. The points you brought up are well thought out and well researched. However, I think the point you miss is that shooting with an EPIC is different than owning one. Like if I own a BMW and you say to me well it doesn't drive like the Audi. They are very similar except for a fancy logo, nice paint job and both do the same thing with different motions.

Also after reading your blog on RAW vs Log. I see what you're saying. But am I wrong in asking if you worked more ARRI? I have worked on RED One to EPIC. I have loved one more than the other. But when working in RAW you are looking at the flat image. It is not meant to be the final. As for RED Alert, I never used it. I can just drag an drop RAW Red Files into Premiere Pro. Plus if you can work over and over the RAW in RedCine. The possibilities are endless with coloring. Sure you may not end up with a 4K file, but rather a 1080p or 2K file.

I guess what I am asking is what do you see as the real issue with RAW RED files? Do you feel it is counter intuitive? Are you more able to grasp the "standard" ARRI gave users since day one when they started? I could imagine the frustration.

And I reread it just in case I read it like a retard I can be sometimes. So what I got from it is that you prefer Log because it less time consuming and less processing. Whereas RAW is the best in terms of quality, but taxes on post when importing and needing additional hardware, i.e. a Red Rocket. I got that wrong let me know.

I'm not judging your opinion. Simply questioning why you feel the way you do? Like Lynch and how he explains he loved DV or HDV. What ever one he used in recent. He explains that it reminded him of the films from the 30s. So what era is imposed on your vision? Me I love those of the 70s because of the symmetry. Some that have been brought through a Blu-Ray process look like what I want. Now Shame was shot in 2011 and looked GREAT! That was film and not digital, but shot on an ARRI. So what in other words what is your personal preferences vs. what others want or look for?

 

[Zack Birlew]

Preference is what it is. I'd love to film in 4K+, whether it be RED, Sony, or even that NHK 8K camera, but I haven't had a reason to as of yet. It is similar to ask why people don't use a certain DSLR. Me, I prefer my Canon 5D Mark II over a Panasonic GH2. There's no doubt that I could get much higher quality images with a hacked GH2 but I simply don't like the way the GH2 is set up. It's smaller, has unusual buttons compared to what I'm used to, has a menu system that just seems clogged to me, I'll have to calculate my lens selection if I don't go with high-end M4/3 lenses, and I'd have to worry about any potential hack issues that could pop up. With the 5D Mark II, I just set it to Neutral, set shutter speed once, adjust my ISO as needed, and start filming. Keep in mind that I could make either one work if I had to but, no matter what, I'll still have a preference at the end of the day.

This is what I saw in film school when I started using the Nikon D90. People gave me grief over using a digital camera even though they really liked the films I made with it. During a group exercise, the cinematographer absolutely refused to use it because he had a preference for film. It was understandable, I'm sure the cinematography students were looking forward to using film rather than the DVX100's, XL2's, or HDV cameras they had used outside of school. But, despite all of that, the D90 was new technology and what I intended to do could only be done with the D90's low light capabilities at the time. In the end, my film had the same perceived quality during final screenings, which were all in HD, so whether it was shot on film or HD didn't matter, it was all about what each format could do for the film and, for me, I preferred the digital solution. Later on, the growing RED presence at the school fed into this debate and so many wild statements and reactions ensued that it just got to the point of being a running joke until the last year when nearly everybody was using RED and DSLRs. So, if people are still going on about this to this day, then just ignore the subject and choose what's best for your film.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

I am going to go back to Steve's long, but well written post earlier. I agree with everything he says. I have been shooting Epic since pre day 1 (Spiderman) and Red One and MX prior to that. I am presently shooting "Arrested Development" with 3 Epics. 7 hours of dailies a day and 31 days in NO issues. But I also just shot 4 commercials on Alexa in Altlanta during hiatus. NO Issues. (except I SO wanted to be able to blowup in post and I knew I was limited)

And tomorrow I DP a reshoot for a film( Beautiful Creatures) lensed by Philipe Rousellot (who is away in Tibet) on 35mm anamorphic.

So I think what we can all do is support RED and encourage a slow education of producers, DPs, editorial and directors to overcome this "pre-conceived" ideas that exist.

What I think also works is print ads such as Don Burgess's where he simply states, "I have always shot film, now I shoot Epic"

Jim had to come out strong and swinging to convince us all but we can all use a steady constant persuasive push....

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

Tim your thoughts have been great. And yes initially that's why I started, but out of it you will get people not happy at all. For that I want to hear from as much as I want to hear from those who will stick to it like you have.

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

I am going to go back to Steve's long, but well written post earlier. I agree with everything he says. I have been shooting Epic since pre day 1 (Spiderman) and Red One and MX prior to that. I am presently shooting "Arrested Development" with 3 Epics. 7 hours of dailies a day and 31 days in NO issues. But I also just shot 4 commercials on Alexa in Altlanta during hiatus. NO Issues. (except I SO wanted to be able to blowup in post and I knew I was limited)

And tomorrow I DP a reshoot for a film( Beautiful Creatures) lensed by Philipe Rousellot (who is away in Tibet) on 35mm anamorphic.

So I think what we can all do is support RED and encourage a slow education of producers, DPs, editorial and directors to overcome this "pre-conceived" ideas that exist.

What I think also works is print ads such as Don Burgess's where he simply states, "I have always shot film, now I shoot Epic"

Jim had to come out strong and swinging to convince us all but we can all use a steady constant persuasive push....

Being versatile to shoot on anything matters more.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Tim your thoughts have been great. And yes initially that's why I started, but out of it you will get people not happy at all. For that I want to hear from as much as I want to hear from those who will stick to it like you have.

Thanks Andrew. Good for you for bringing up the topic.

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

I did it after getting annoyed by people who never use RED saying they sucks. Imagine the scene from Metropolitan where Tom explains to Audrey he likes reading the criticism of critics on books they have read without reading the book himself. That way he gets both the idea from the critic and the author without having to read the book. That's how i feel of many who review RED cameras.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

I did it after getting annoyed by people who never use RED saying they sucks. Imagine the scene from Metropolitan where Tom explains to Audrey he likes reading the criticism of critics on books they have read without reading the book himself. That way he gets both the idea from the critic and the author without having to read the book. That's how i feel of many who review RED cameras.

Nice analogy.

 

[Laco Zamba]

1. RED is new and rebel company - industry cannot forget it
2. 90% of postproduction people don't know about REDLogFilm

 

[Andrew Burhoe]

What's that? (i'm joking)

 

[Jay Birch]

I did it after getting annoyed by people who never use RED saying they sucks. Imagine the scene from Metropolitan where Tom explains to Audrey he likes reading the criticism of critics on books they have read without reading the book himself. That way he gets both the idea from the critic and the author without having to read the book. That's how i feel of many who review RED cameras.

Kind of works both ways though.... I've definitely had chats with people who say "shoot/buy RED, it's the best".... Later to find out they have never used one in their lives. Strange! I think it is an internet thing... People read so much and fall in love with paper specs.

 

[James T Mather]

Things that Red can do to help their perception - this is all my opinion of course, other opinions are equally valid :

1. Contact editors : Make editing Red files as easy as possible. Straight out of the camera on all industry standard systems - especially Avid. Make this a selling point. Get the information out to editing publications - make the vibe "Red is listening: How can we improve your user experience".

2. Make sure producers and production companies know this. They are getting hit on transcode fees by unscrupulous post houses who are keen to keep these fees in place. Ask local Red DoP's to spread this knowledge to local producers.

3. Speak to cameramen - considering the requests of high-end name DoP's who ask for legacy things like optical viewfinders (while not terribly forward thinking in one respect) or global/mechanical shutters might bring more die-hard film guys over to the system. Make it a crazy priced add on if necessary for the dedicated few as the costs are bound to be prohibitive. The industry is trickle down - the guys at the bottom listen to the guys at the top typically so having their support is important from a public image limited point of view.

4. Stop the Resolution race as being the main selling point - yes it's great but Red is already leading the pack. Maybe consider development focus on image texture etc. The attraction of the "film look" is still potent with many filmmakers - examining what this is (grain, distance, texture, colour rendition, roll off etc) and perhaps offering it as "looks"? Also, it is very possible, I'm certain, to make the Epic look like it's main competitors with the use of low-contrast filters etc - I'm sure Redusers would be happy to contribute to this research and put out tutorials or videos showing methods and options. Getting super clean footage and letting the post-boys add texture does two things - 1. removes the DoP's control (which is bound to ruffle some feathers) and 2. adds considerable cost to the post budget with computationally expensive effects like film grain or gaussian softening - imagine doing this on an entire feature film. It's not feasible unless like David Fincher you have money to burn. I'd like to hand in rushes that look exactly like I want them to look - with grain (if desired) and the correct degree of sharpness dialled in already. This could be implemented with a film-a-like table in Redcine perhaps? I'm sure Mr. Nattress - with his technical wizardry, keen eye and expertise in producing organic plug-ins is the best man for this. To Redusers, I say don't diss the oppositions system - find out it's appeal, match it (or batter it) and make a tutorial on how to do that instead of giving out about it here. Solve the problem.

5. Speak to assistant camera guys (particularly the top end guys - they have the ear of the DoP's) - with special focus on the guys who claim to not like the cameras - ask them what Red can do to improve their user experience with the cameras, what their main beef is and consider it in future designs (or not - but at least you'll know what the other camp is thinking - better to have knowledge and not use it than not have it). Also, it's harder to diss something if they have felt included in it. Many people in the film business have worked hard and long to get where they are - there is no question that when a system comes along that upsets the apple cart and shifts the paradigm off their comfort zone that they feel less than predisposed towards it. In part, I think, this is why other systems are gaining market share - because they have maintained some communication and legacy workflow with the old guard. If you're going to have a revolution make sure your generals are on board with the new order.

This was posted on my FB page two days ago - I've blurred out the names of the people as I don't have consent to post this - please understand the posters are experienced crew - grips, Camera assistants and DoP's - all of whom have worked on multiple cameras and multiple formats - all are freelance and none is in the employ of other companies - I know them all personally - they don't have a dog in this race, trust me and are level headed working professionals. I was kind of surprised myself at the intensity of the posts. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be discussed with crew on the ground.

Personally, I don't know what their beef is. I find the Epic incredibly user friendly (in fact preferring it to the Alexa's roll button system, need for presets and dumb-side menu control (which means I have to pan the shot or break my back leaning over to get at some aspects of the menu). I'm just showing this so that people get an earful of what I'm often hearing here and not merely agitating for it's own sake.

6. Offer some kind of downscaled HD option off the chip. Post houses are going nuts with the file sizes and I'm getting frequent requests to shoot at 2k all the time. This doesn't suit me because all my lenses are 35mm focal lengths (which is a handicap in a smaller room - so can't get wide enough) and I like the DOF offered by the large chip. A downscaled HD DNX-HD or Prores option might be useful for some jobs (might aid the apparent workflow with the camera - not EVERY job requires RAW - especially those with super fast turnaround). I suspect part of the opposition's appeal in post is the much smaller file sizes.

All the above is opinion - and I'm pretty sure not all options are feasible - I'm sure that some people will come back with valid counter arguments and I'm sure some people will come back with the same old same old. I love my Epics and am often surprised at the severity of feedback. Maybe it's just people jumping on a bandwagon (For example, like dissing Sarah Palin - who for my money seems no more, nor no less dimwitted than many of her male counterparts but became specifically the butt of jokes worldwide due, I think, to groupthink and human tendency towards compliant opinion - don't want to start a political argument - as I am not predisposed either way - just an at-hand example of bandwagoning in my opinion. Sorry if it offended anyone).

The cameras are great - We just need to get everybody to understand them and maximise their potential - winning over the end users should become a primary focus.