Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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.
acehole said:
Your initial post came accross as rude and insulting, your use of language was more befitting elsewhere.
Click to expand...
It didn't across as rude or insulting to me, but rather fairly objective. I will say no more (I've stated my objections to the posted image), in fear I'll get jumped on.
 
Jannard said:
gurney... looks like you still have a few to go. And your response to my post? Are you really interested in constructive criticism or stirring it up? Just an honest question...

Jim
Click to expand...

It seems to me that quite a few of the more persistent critics posting on this board don't quite understand the meaning of the word "constructive".

Duh? What's that?

IMHO, one of the most important realizations anyone has on the path to becoming a good film maker is the genuine realization that it's a 'cooperative' activity. i.e. People working together in teams to achieve a positive result. (The same goes for designing and building a new camera!)

Anybody who's worked with a fascist director or producer who learned his "management style" from Hitler knows they generally end up being held in low esteem. And so it is with forum members who only focus on the negative without contributing something useful themselves.

You CAN make critical observations here in a POSITIVE way. Those who do gain more respect.
 
Here are two more from a different picture. Frankly, we're over-analyzing something we shouldn't be bothering with... Jim, I hope it's ok with you that I'm continuing with this.

I'm posting this because it's an interesting lens artifact that - whether present or not in the image you posted - is something people should be aware of. It's not something to expect from nice high-end lenses, but such things do exist.

This is the main reason it doesn't really apply to the original discussion here - you guys used awesome lenses. It's just an opportunity to discuss an interesting lens artifact.
 
gurney said:
Anyone who raises the shadow of a doubt about a product gets pummeled with strident whines of "Troll! Troll!" just because people don't want to feel uncomfortable about their own purchasing decision. So they want to bury anything they perceive to be dissent, and they try to shame any discordant voice into silence by claiming that "everyone else gets it."
Click to expand...

This is Reduser.net. It's for Red Users. We like the camera and want to talk about how to use it and get the best out of it. If you want to make up arguments based on what you see in a JPEG compression, please take it elsewhere. There's lots of good stuff at Reduser.net, but it's being buried by people who claim they don't want to use Red. Unbelievers go away. We're not threatened by you, but we want to start planning our movies and sharing knowledge.
 
If there are "problems" with the footage then why were there no comments about these "problems" from everyone who saw the footage in 4K at NAB.

Every moment the RED team spend explaining themselves here is less time for them to spend on working on the camera. They were brave enough to release the footage, just take it at face value until the camera is released.
 
I've been following Red for over a year and have not really posted untill today. Most of the time I figure listen enough and you'll learn something. I appreciate the fact that many of you are so passionate about your work, and about the oppertunity that Red has set within our grasp, that your passion spills over into the posts. I find as a newbie, that I learn the most from the posts of the harshest critical eyes and tongues. For that I am greatfull...But... I also see the need to encourage these guy's to find their way to the finish line and keep them motivated into other 4k projects. So......
cool -sweet- awsome-yippeee-booray- boorah-smoken-"dine-o-mite"-and hot damn
The Frame's look totally awesome.
(You know for and alpha test and all that)
 
a few word from "the rest of us"

a few word from "the rest of us"

"With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo... the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser."

"I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate."

"those artifacts weren't visible at the screenings, and its not really visible in the other stills. Jim, might I suggest a replacement or re-jpeg of that particular still, you just KNOW the detractors are gonna call it out as a redcode faliure."

"there is something wierd going on in these images. before I get flamed, I dont think it's Redcode, but equally it's not JPG compression either.... something else is arwy JPG problms shows us as distinctive blocking, not as this posterisation/distortion."

"Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something)."

"The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image."

"The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different."

"I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images"."

"We're not saying they are from Mysterium or from Redcode, but the point is a 6.5MB jpeg would not produce artifacts of any kind at 100%, it should be clean."

"I agree, I'm seeing some wierdness in some of those images that to my eye, look as if they've been run through a subtle median filter or something and the loss of detail is unpleasant. Regardless of whether it's from the alpha cam, jpeg compression or whatever, I would heartily recommend pulling those images until you guys can figure out what they are. Any professional that comes and looks at them at full size is going to scrutinize and get a very wrong impression. I can already see forum trouble brewing."

"I'd agree with a few other people on the advice of pulling the stills until everythings flushed out."

"I absolutely agree with that. Please take the JPGs offline until we know what exactly happened (e.g. we applied the posterizing filter because it makes the images look better on the Sony 4K projector or something)."

"I think it is very unwise to post pics as promotional stills that have gone through unknown routes and contain artifacts that even Graeme admits he hasn't seen before. I'd rather wait and still my curiosity for PJ's movie than see Red's imago go down the drain for some ill-denoised pics."

"The wide plane shot is completly screwed up and should be removed AT ONCE."

"yeah... I would have to agree with Emmanuel ! :-/"

"I think you might have a much larger problem if new people check the site and the first thing they see on the first pic are the artifacts. Remember - many people are not familiar with compression artifacts and haven't seen milkgirls 4k framegrabs. People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode."

"Those Jpegs look horrrrrrible. I'm going to assume that's because of the Jpeg compression and isn't reflective of RED or else all of the comments from NAB would have been. "Worst HD camera ever.""

"I agree with smokestack, there is wonkiness going on but it's not the JPEG compression."

"I'm fine looking at pre-production footage, but I also want to make it perfectly 100% clear, that is not acceptable 4k compression for vfx, even if it looks great projected at 24fps."
 
Brainstorm said:
...You CAN make critical observations here in a POSITIVE way. Those who do gain more respect.
Click to expand...

Well put, Brainstorm. David Mullen isn't exactly a "fanboy", but boy does he pull a following on this forum! That's what CONSTRUCTIVE criticism leads to... respect.
 
gurney said:
"With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo... the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser."

"I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate."

"those artifacts weren't visible at the screenings, and its not really visible in the other stills. Jim, might I suggest a replacement or re-jpeg of that particular still, you just KNOW the detractors are gonna call it out as a redcode faliure."

"there is something wierd going on in these images. before I get flamed, I dont think it's Redcode, but equally it's not JPG compression either.... something else is arwy JPG problms shows us as distinctive blocking, not as this posterisation/distortion."

"Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something)."

"The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image."

"The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different."

"I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images"."

"We're not saying they are from Mysterium or from Redcode, but the point is a 6.5MB jpeg would not produce artifacts of any kind at 100%, it should be clean."

"I agree, I'm seeing some wierdness in some of those images that to my eye, look as if they've been run through a subtle median filter or something and the loss of detail is unpleasant. Regardless of whether it's from the alpha cam, jpeg compression or whatever, I would heartily recommend pulling those images until you guys can figure out what they are. Any professional that comes and looks at them at full size is going to scrutinize and get a very wrong impression. I can already see forum trouble brewing."

"I'd agree with a few other people on the advice of pulling the stills until everythings flushed out."

"I absolutely agree with that. Please take the JPGs offline until we know what exactly happened (e.g. we applied the posterizing filter because it makes the images look better on the Sony 4K projector or something)."

"I think it is very unwise to post pics as promotional stills that have gone through unknown routes and contain artifacts that even Graeme admits he hasn't seen before. I'd rather wait and still my curiosity for PJ's movie than see Red's imago go down the drain for some ill-denoised pics."

"The wide plane shot is completly screwed up and should be removed AT ONCE."

"yeah... I would have to agree with Emmanuel ! :-/"

"I think you might have a much larger problem if new people check the site and the first thing they see on the first pic are the artifacts. Remember - many people are not familiar with compression artifacts and haven't seen milkgirls 4k framegrabs. People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode."

"Those Jpegs look horrrrrrible. I'm going to assume that's because of the Jpeg compression and isn't reflective of RED or else all of the comments from NAB would have been. "Worst HD camera ever.""

"I agree with smokestack, there is wonkiness going on but it's not the JPEG compression."

"I'm fine looking at pre-production footage, but I also want to make it perfectly 100% clear, that is not acceptable 4k compression for vfx, even if it looks great projected at 24fps."
Click to expand...

Since you claim to be so well informed and "professional" in your views and opinions, tell me one thing an average member can gain from any of your posts on this forum. You joined the forum today and all of a sudden making enemies? Does this speak well of your intentions? C'mon Mr "OMFG", quit being scared of the unknown. Red means no harm to her compettition. I repeat, no harm.
 
Gurney, If you want to take a critical look you really should be looking at these things in PS not in your brouser.
Aloha
-A
 
I did, thanks. I was going to try exporting some clean stills with JPEG2000 at high compression to see what kind of artifacts resulted, but I don't see JPEG2000 amongst Photoshop CS2's output options.
 
Sorry, your post said brouser.
-A
 
Jpeg artifacting is not what is seen in the biplane shot. Its something completely different. We dont know what it is because it is absent from all other shots.
 
acehole said:
Jpeg artifacting is not what is seen in the biplane shot. Its something completely different. We dont know what it is because it is absent from all other shots.
Click to expand...

It's less obvious in the others, but still present. Check out the crossbar support under the gun in the sample image someone else posted further up in the thread. That's mud, but man it looks weird.
 
blownapartstudios said:
I find as a newbie, that I learn the most from the posts of the harshest critical eyes and tongues. For that I am greatfull...
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I love having these sharp, expert eyes around. It will help to push the project to perfection. I'm less enthusiastic about people just bagging the images as an apparent hobby.

This thread is about the PJ clips and grabs, so of course we should discuss them. But as we're meant to be Red Users, let's be polite and constructive.

Personally, I have no fear. The images make me very excited.
 
Distortion due to engine exaust being compressed and lifted over wing?
( I mean hey while everone's guessing) Maybe heat off the vegitation in the distance? Maybe a cloaked spaceship? Too many variables! fingerprint on the lenz? Post had dirty monitor?
 
I posted another thread about this. Rather than looking at the plane I was intrested in the grass. Detailed area. I've seen than look before. It's not Jpeg blocks. I get it if I over process clips in say Furnace using slomo plugin. Or if I over go it in NeatImage noise reduction in PS.

Looking at what Jim and his team have done upto now, having set out and achieved it. I trust them. So let's look at them for what they are. Alpha versions. Wouldn't expect an Alpha of FinalCut7 to be stable would we? and this is pretty impressive for alpha!...

S
 
Not going to comment on the Red stills, but Brook I am 100% certain there is atmospheric distortion in the SLR stills you posted. I shoot with long teles a lot and it doesn't have to be hot to see this. I've experienced it in Antarctica. Any long shot over open ground (grass fields, concrete aprons, water, ice) will almost inevitably suffer.

Maybe blownapart is right that this effect is in play in the Red shot.
 
Does anyone have the plane JPG still? It seems to have be taken down from RED.com.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top