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 :)

Reality Check

Sean said:
My posts are too long. Short version--I just think there's two types of buyers: the people looking to replace film, and the people looking to get a better digital image than they thought they could ever get for that money in 2007/8.
Click to expand...
I first got interested in this camera when I was looking for an alternative to the HVX. That's it. If I could get a camera with amazing color rendition, "real" 1080p, great form factor, a fair price, and avoid all the digital crap i'd seen so far then cool, i'll buy it.

I'm here to make art and make the camera work for me. Period. It's not about film but achieving the aesthetics that my stories want. I think RED can accomplish that (with ALOT of practice for me)...:beer:
 
Gbabymogul said:
Boothba, Wyeth once urinated from a second story window on a watercolour salesman. If it weren't for the Antucket wind, well... He was an avid anti-watercolorist (and had a sign warning travelling watercolour salesman). Read his bio, dude.
Click to expand...

In Pennsylvania urinating on a salesman is a sign of respect. Why do you think Jim cancelled his Mid Atlantic tour?
 
Boothba said:
In Pennsylvania urinating on a salesman is a sign of respect. Why do you think Jim cancelled his Mid Atlantic tour?
Click to expand...

Damn... shakes head... :biggrin:
Gbabymogul said:
I'm here to make art and make the camera work for me. Period. It's not about film but achieving the aesthetics that my stories want. I think RED can accomplish that (with ALOT of practice for me)...:beer:
Click to expand...

I second that... the "1 inch punch" of cameras in it's simplest form to function best... this hope at least.
 
Don't forget, that RED is so much more than it's astounding image quality.
It is it's entire 4K workflow (REDCODE/Form Factor/Media/etc.) that is also revolutionary.

I see what you are trying to say, G, but it seems weak at best, because Film has been around for over 100 years. RED has been barely tested in the public for less than a week (lol!), so I think there will be many years to come before any declarations can be made of it's limits. (Remember also that the Camera's Firmware will change and so the image can only improve.)

:wink:
 
Gbabymogul said:
Look at how high contrast this is. I expect RED to be able to do better but Show me. Don't tell me. The time for teasing and marketing is over.
Click to expand...

In other words, Give us the goods?

Amen brotha.

As soon as I get my hands on a RED, I'll attempt to do just that.
 
like boothba said, we WILL be doing side by side test with 35mm film stock, all things being equal. (meaning, if it fits in our budget)
 
What does film look like anyway? What does RED look like anyway? In both cases you're making a "negative" that you can "develop" how you want. What counts is how much room for maneuver you've got to make your look from what you shot. Everything else is just pretty pictures....
 
Graeme Nattress said:
What does film look like anyway? What does RED look like anyway? In both cases you're making a "negative" that you can "develop" how you want. What counts is how much room for maneuver you've got to make your look from what you shot. Everything else is just pretty pictures....
Click to expand...

That is, much more eloquently put, what was on my mind when I was posted earlier.

Using words like "feel" of film, and "color" of film is malarkey. As I have learned lately using Color, a lot of what I had attributed inherently to film in the color rendition dept was nothing but tricks in color correction. I'm not talking about "looks" as much as I'm talking about the nice things that happen to skin tones when you have well-designed secondaries that use good math.

The rest is science. Latitude. Resolution. Handling of clipping. All things, that in my short experience watching Red Alert at work, the camera has in spades.
 
Right now, my only concern is the blown out highlights and how harsh are the transitions to them, with fringes and black lines.

I just hope that they come from the RAW conversion, and that, if not, they can be addressed somehow.

I mean, my digital still camera may blow highlights easier than film but the transition to them is much more pleasent, much more, dare I say it, film-like.
 
Have you seen the shot of the girls with shewinggum? That looks (feels) like film to me.
 
Film & digital are two different mediums.
It’s like comparing a cello to a synthesizer.
Both sound like shit in the wrong hands but more important is the opposite.

To pick a beautiful cello piece and compare with some crap synthesizer one is a bit like….well no…exactly like… picking a beautiful softened film clip and compare it with a blown up noisy digital one.

Not fair.....

Did the synthesizer overtake the cello?
In pure numbers it did, but the cello still has it role…just like film.
Film will play a dimished role to digital.
In future of course both will get better but it'll be a bit like do you want to support a full orchestra or create it on your synth in your bedroom.

/end rant

Cheers,
 
I would say too that to play cello takes much more time and effort than having some nice results with a synth
 
Paolo Tinari said:
I would say too that to play cello takes much more time and effort than having some nice results with a synth
Click to expand...
LOL Agreed.

Ciao Paolo,

Bello il tuo lavoro @ www.schmovies.com likely the gorgeous italian women there. With no competition at all... It's impossible! :)

E.
 
Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear....just like hitting the record button on your digital camera won't get you into the ASC.
 
Gbabymogul said:
Nate, i'm not particularly interested in debating whether film has a better DR, latitude, color, handles the higlights much better and on and on. What I'm more interested in is not the theoretical equivalency of RED but proof. Show me the smooth roll offs of highlights. Show me like the above example with the Viper.

:beer:
Click to expand...

Gabby.

It will not be long before Steven Soderberg's next two films are released, both shot on RED and both will probably have a wide "film print" release and a narrow 2K digital release.

When we go to a theater and watch a print then we can sit back and see how the camera handled a complete feature film. When I first saw Collateral, I thought about the fact that it was shot in Viper (and mostly HDCAM actaully on the F-900's) for about ten seconds and then I watched the film and followed the story.

Film is Film.
RED is RED.

Soderberg will shoot RED Storario might not. You will choose the camera that shoots the image the roll-off and color that you like.

It will be interesting to watch the next few months to see how things unfold.

David
 
When I saw Collateral I felt sick by the look of it to be honest.
On the other hand I didn´t react in the same way with Apocalypto (genesis).
or with Zodiac (Viper).

I hope Storaro will shoot RED, he´s shot digital before.
 
If anyone is reading the posts from offhollywood, you would know that the RED is far from being dialed in properly, and they still manage to get great looking shots. So, before passing judgement, we should wait a little while.
At least until more features are enabled.

And film isn't going anywhere. geez. We have a camera that will do a great film out compared to other digital formats. That's called money in the bank when talking to the people holding the purse strings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top