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 :)

Peter Jackson clips and grabs...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets get this clear.. as I feel I started it somewhat on another thread. :-/

I asked about what I was looking at. The pipeline.. if they wanted to share.. which they did.

(Jpg is not a delivery format.. well maybe not for some.)

Ok, so, whatever I was asking about was for sure there before they sent it into jpg world. I also have enough experience to kinda work out what probably happend.

And after spotting it I would still use the footage and hand it to a client, because it does look impressive.

Jim sounds like a perfectionist, so he'll understand. What rocks the boat is the idiots joining in moaning, while not understanding the questions that were asked. I never suggested a problem directly with the camera.... I just asked what some things were and where they may have come from.

Give a monkey a Hasselblad a maybe one day he'll get a good shot....
 
flameop said:
It's like having the client in the room when your not finished on a shot.. your so giddy it's looking good you want them to see it.. on the other hand they point out some little things your not finished on.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of a flame op? ;)
 
I walked out today to a beautiful day here in NYC. I stopped and looked at the sky and then I stopped and just looked. I stopped and took the time to really look at my all too familiar surroundings. Then I realized it. I don't see any grain in real life. Believe it or not there isn't any grain in anything you look at in real life.

Then I came home and checked out the full 4k frame grabs from PJ's film. Hmm, just pure detail. The shots look to me like real life has been created in front of your eyes - with a Pixar animated film like clarity and I say this as a huge compliment. For the first time it looks like life can be viewed without all the imperfections and can be seen for what it really is.

This just in - the "film look" - whatever that is - can be done in post. Grain will be imprinted on RED footage after it's been finished when it is printed to film - if you have too. When did "film" all look the same? Does Braveheart look like Traffic? Does 300 look like Saving Private Ryan? I saw 300 in IMAX. I thought it was shot digitally when I saw it and I was looking at the shots and thinking - why did they add so much grain to this? Only to realize that it was actually shot on film. I guess that's my answer. What exactly would "film" look like in the last ten years without the digital post produciton process it goes through. Look at 300 - talk about color correction! Is that "film"? How can it be when it looks nothing like the Shawshank Redemption. Surely that movie is film.

Then I read this whole thread. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from looking at a portion of a frame (a frame meant to be seen with 23 other frames each second no less), enlarging an already giant 4k image to 200% - 300% and then seeing things. I'm not flaming anyone. I'm sure there are conclusions to be made but as someone who's technical knowledge doesn't extend into this stratosphere I'm better to bring it all back to earth. Basic laws of compression: Start with more resolution / Compression works better with more time - rather than on the fly. This is why RED will work(as my mind understands it). It's a smarter concept right from the start and it's a concept combined with a serious sensor. Even if you can "see" imperfections in the 4K shot, are you going to be able to see it when that frame has been interpolated down to 2K - which is the real top deliverable format? What makes RED so smart is how they worked everything. By moving the real compression to post production you have the ability to take the digital negative and then render it in a super Hi-Res 4:4:4 color space at full resolution and because it is in post as things get better so can this part of the process until you reach 12 Bit 4K 4:4:4. Trying to do this in camera on the fly is impossible. Red thinks outside the box.

This also just in - no matter how much money or how great the people are involved there is no such thing as perfection in film. In the beginning of 300 there's a shot by a campfire as one of the Spartan's is telling the story. The shot was brutally boosted in post. Looking at it on IMAX you can see all the digital noise. It reminded me of pitch black VX-2000 shots with +12 gain and even more boosting of levels in post. I just re-watched Aliens 3 a few nights ago. In the first twenty minutes there's at least five shots where the focus is just flat out completely off. I'm talking about being on a static close-up in a locked shot and the back of the actor's head is in focus rather than their eyes. Y'know what, I never gave a shit when I watched these when I just watched movies. With a good story things become more equal.

Nobody should allow themselves to be scared away from RED or intimidated by the challenge it will provide you. Of course you don't know enough - take up the challenge because RED also provides opportunity. Somebody will always know more than you - forever. Don't think that you're not professional enough either. If you have the creative vision for a project, RED is opportunity - an opportunity to be taken seriously and to stand equally. Tell your story and if this mysterious and impossible feat of creation works your film will rise above the mistakes you will surely make. Why does RED have a following: because RED allows outsiders to start the creative race equal with the closed and gated small world that has always been Hollywood - a few who control everything. FOR THE FIRST TIME. Sony, Arri, Panavision - all of these other companies have been complicit in this closed empire and they all made - and are making - TONS OF MONEY because they have the control. If you want to write a book you sit down and do it. If you want to paint you buy the supplies and paint. Film has been a closed game. If you want to get in you have to play the game and play by their rules. Not any more.

What happens if movie goers actually like RED footage better than film! Wouldn't that just blow the floodgates open. I'm imagining myself (having shot several years of RED footage, features, etc.) getting a phone call from Paramount, "Hey can you show us how to use these?" Kind of like how Coppola, Lucas, and Speilberg got their opportunities - the studios had to look outside the loop.

I have no doubt I will see a revolutionary RED shot movie that will have acting and a story and finally an image as well. That movie will shake Hollywood - and shake all the control out of those ivory towers. No other art form is so controlled and limited as film. It has always been for the few. Thank God that is about to change. Don't hesitate. Ray Charles could've decided playing the piano blind was too much to expect of himself. Thank God he took up the challenge. Finally in film a real film-making tool is available to all hopefully film makers. No need to play the game. Pick it up and see if you can play.

I feel much better now:blush:
 
Good, very good Nathan, it's just that, before I start to criticize what is good, I have to shure to be better. Is any body out there who could construct a camera for 17500 Dollar in 16 month with this stunning pictures? I could not.
 
Your audience doesn't have to key the stuff. Your audience doesn't want to massage and manipulate the color in post. I would rather see grain and noise than an enhanced unnatural VHS tape look. I'm starting to hear exactly what I didn't want to hear: acceptance. I don't think RED accepts that level of compression for their product and neither will I. They've said it themselves it's not reflective of the final product and it will improve. In fact they have the proof to back up that claim. They've delivered in the past without these artifacts.

All of the arguments I'm hearing could also be made for 4:2:2 color. But RED isn't a 4:2:2 camera. It's a 4k 4:4:4 camera which records to a nearly visually lossless codec. That's what's promised, that's what we've seen previously, that's what we're going to hold them to and that's what they fully intend to deliver.

I hope the red team doesn't take this as naysaying. I think I'm just repeating what their position is. I don't think Jim is willing to make sacrifices go on C.com and start a topic like "Well, you know we didn't actually deliver on our promises, but it looks really good in motion and I don't think your audience will notice." He'd get eaten alive and rightfully so, hell I would join in.

There are problems, these were alpha cameras. Actions are being taken by RED to correct future tests and we should expect the sharp artifact free images we've come to know and love.
 
right on Nathan, I couldn't agree more.

As a side observation; the grain in 300 comes up alot, on a practical basis and I suspect perhaps the main reason it was done, was to blend all the layers together.

Aloha
-A
 
Poi Boy said:
right on Nathan, I couldn't agree more.

As a side observation; the grain in 300 comes up alot, on a practical basis and I suspect perhaps the main reason it was done, was to blend all the layers together.

Aloha
-A
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. I dont see the VFX sup saying to the director. "Well we're gonna be piling on the grain here cause we cant make the comps work without it."
I suspect it was an artistic decision first...But I'm sure that somewhere along the way a couple of the compsitors must have thought. "Thank fuck we've got all this grain."
 
I think it was more than an artistic decision.
-A
 
me to.
-A
 
im.thatoneguy said:
Your audience doesn't have to key the stuff. Your audience doesn't want to massage and manipulate the color in post. I would rather see grain and noise than an enhanced unnatural VHS tape look. I'm starting to hear exactly what I didn't want to hear: acceptance. I don't think RED accepts that level of compression for their product and neither will I. They've said it themselves it's not reflective of the final product and it will improve. In fact they have the proof to back up that claim. They've delivered in the past without these artifacts.

All of the arguments I'm hearing could also be made for 4:2:2 color. But RED isn't a 4:2:2 camera. It's a 4k 4:4:4 camera which records to a nearly visually lossless codec. That's what's promised, that's what we've seen previously, that's what we're going to hold them to and that's what they fully intend to deliver.

I hope the red team doesn't take this as naysaying. I think I'm just repeating what their position is. I don't think Jim is willing to make sacrifices go on C.com and start a topic like "Well, you know we didn't actually deliver on our promises, but it looks really good in motion and I don't think your audience will notice." He'd get eaten alive and rightfully so, hell I would join in.

There are problems, these were alpha cameras. Actions are being taken by RED to correct future tests and we should expect the sharp artifact free images we've come to know and love.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've got me there: I look at the camera from a director's stand of view, not a postproduction artist.
But isn't it a bit pointless to keep talking about these compression problems if the RED team already have said that it will not appear in the shipping camera's? I don't mind someone bringing it up, but it seems people sometimes keep going on about it.

But, indeed, I can imagine if you look to it from the standpoint of someone who has to put VFX on it, you *should* look for these things.
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
Jim, Jarred, et al,

From reading this thread I am afraid that posting early work to the general public may not be a hot idea. Bottom line, you have some competitors out there and they need every bullet you can give them.
Click to expand...
Jay, with the due consideration that I have regarding you on your old member status of this community and as reservation holder of 2 units and other lenses accessories etc, I fully disagree.

The RED's development is ending. It's better now than later. I mean: To have the necessary feedback in order to improve the device and other stuff related.

All the constructive inputs ARE QUITE useful. Who would go buy, already did it! The others will wait but for the RED ONE deliver. And then, the work is done.

It's now when it's possible to improve. Not after the "departure of the train"...

In the name of, or on and in behalf of all the purchasers (U2 for sure!),

Emanuel
RED ONE #111 #647 serial numbers

;-)
 
sidderke said:
But isn't it a bit pointless to keep talking about these compression problems if the RED team already have said that it will not appear in the shipping camera's? I don't mind someone bringing it up, but it seems people sometimes keep going on about it.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum speculation runs rampant. Most of the chatter was initially about what was causing it. Then a little bit of clarification was issued that they were addressing it. Which then raised the question: Is it REDCode or is it Post over manipulation. We never did really get an answer to that except that it would look *better*. However better could mean a thousand different things.

Considering the RED team doesn't really seem to have any resident vfx artists we sort of have to look out for our interests on our own. And like you said, as a director if it looks fine on screen that's all that matters. Normally when I direct I also have to do a ton of VFX myself so that's not entirely true on most of my projects but I am a strong proponent of the "good enough" doctrine.

Once people get their hands on some quality RAW footage indicative of the delivered red camera they'll relax.
 
Emanuel said:
Jay, with the due consideration that I have regarding you on your old member status of this community and as reservation holder of 2 units and other lenses accessories etc, I fully disagree.

The RED's development is ending. It's better now than later. I mean: To have the necessary feedback in order to improve the device and other stuff related.

All the constructive inputs ARE QUITE useful. Who would go buy, already did it! The others will wait but for the RED ONE deliver. And then, the work is done.

It's now when it's possible to improve. Not after the "departure of the train"...

In the name of, or on and in behalf of all the purchasers (U2 for sure!),

Emanuel
RED ONE #111 #647 serial numbers

;-)
Click to expand...

You're not allowed to disagree with me.. Didn't anyone tell you?
:biggrin:

To be honest I think the decision has already been made.

Jay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top