RED... looks great, looks not so great. Why?

[David Battistella]

Although people should learn any new camera and it's post and how to get the best out of it, I don't think that precludes us from making that process easier, less complicated or simplified because none of that detracts from the fact that the camera is fully manual, has great exposure tools and shoots RAW.

Graeme

BINGO!


David

 

[Milan Spasic]

To throw another variable....

When quality cine cameras were reserved for masters only, the shallow depth of field was used masterfully and tastefully and it looked beautiful. Right now.... er, I'm not going to go there. There's just so much "professional looking" garbage out there.

But I'm definitely not complaining about the Red workflow getting easier, as long as the options for those who want to dig deeper remain, which I'm sure they will.


Just my 2 dinars.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think the Einstein quote "Everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler." is apropos.

And in this case things should be brain dead simple. We aren't talking about creativity here. The 'ideal' sensor would capture everything and require no technical expertise at all. The 'ideal' sensor would perfectly capture the real world and allow you to be creative later. IMO the closer a sensor is to being a neutral and objective body the better. If I want data discarded I WANT to be the one doing it and I WANT to know when it's happening. It should be difficult to screw up not difficult to succeed. None of that impinges my creativity it enhances it. It means instead of worrying about technical questions I'm worrying about creative ones. Invisible tech frees time to focus on what really matters.

I can open my hood and tweak the timing on my engine. That doesn't mean I should need to do that every time I start it up. I'm of the opinion that technical expertise should only be necessary when something has gone wrong not in order to make something work right.

If people REALLY want full control over their image then they should be writing their own debayer algorithms for each shot to perfectly tune it for that shot. After all auto is for suckers right?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Haven't followed this thread too closely, but I hope we can go as RAW and as user-specific as thinkable, if the user feels the need to do it that way...

Other than that, I welcome simplicity as much as the next man...

 

[Zack Birlew]

Great news, this is one of the big issues that's thrown around my film school where nearly everyone is bashing the RED and praising film, even though the most anybody's ever worked on is 16mm. Crazy!

But yeah, there have been a mix of people that have come in from the industry to speak and none of them have been brave enough to admit that they don't know how to expose properly with the RED or even admit that it's just tricky. All they've done is said whether the RED was good or bad for us for whatever reason.

Needless to say, the ignorance about the RED One gets really old after a while.

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

Take Terrence Malick and give him a 35mm anamorphic Panavision camera with unlimited film stock and you will get a better-looking picture than if you gave Malick a VHS camera with a few blank tapes. Period. End of story.

It's amazing to me that we are still rehashing this same old "A better camera won't make your script and actors better" argument.

as far as I know "Friends" and "Gladiator" were both shot on 35mm... not to say anything bad about either.

 

[Shawn Booth]

One more note to Red, There may be growing pains with some, but this camera has taken over. I did exactly 2 non Red jobs this year. An AC friend of mine in LA said, "It's like every other camera suddenly disappeared." My point is, people are figuring it out.

Nick

Nooo, people are just renting their cameras out for 100-200/free a day...

Producers think this is the low budget camera...

 

[Leaf Baimbridge]

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess I take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.

If camera manufacturers continue to replace the need for real intelligence with artificial intelligence aren't they essentially tossing the baby out with the bath water... I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

IBloom

Operating the camera is the simplest aspect of photography and cinematography. Setting exposure and focusing doesn't require years of practice or experience. Framing and lighting on the other hand are an art form. Regardless of how idiot proof and technologically advanced a camera is, it can't light and frame a scene on it's own.

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Early next year? Perfect timing for projects I am lining up! Sounds like a welcome solution.

Thanks for everything Jim, (and the gang)!

 

[joshua csehak]

Eventually, exposure will be all metadata, and the iris will only be used for depth of field. Each pixel on the sensor will have a value relative to the other pixels, and you'll be able to run through the entire exposure range, from all black to all white, in post.

Same thing with zoom. Sensors will have a resolution of a hojillion mega-pixels, and you'll be able to leave a wide prime on, and change your framing and zooming in post. The resolution will be limited only by the optical quality of your glass.

It'll be a while, for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Red will be the first ones to do it. If you're complaining that it's not good to make it "idiot-proof," you're crazy. What makes a good DP is how they light a scene. The more time you have for that, and the less you have to worry about technical issues, the better you'll be able to do your job.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft.
IBloom

For me, the "power" of photography and cinematography is the impression, understanding and/or emotional reaction one has when one views the images.

I know first-hand, from many perspectives, how difficult it can be to get the shot - but for me, that's just not what it's all about.

While I may be technically impressed by a shot that is difficult to shoot, to me that doesn't equal art. Technically, I'm always more impressed by cinematographers who can create dynamic images with very simple lighting set-ups. Simple is more impressive in that regard than difficult. And I get your point, it can be "difficult" to learn how to light - but that has nothing to do with how simple a camera can help you determine exposure and how simple it can be to "process" the media.

If I see a photograph that speaks to me - an image I think is AMAZING - I really don't care if a baseball mom shot it with a 7D in full auto mode or an award winning, seven-figure-a-day photographer shot it with a Phase One 645 - to me, it's an AMAZING image.

With respect to diligence and acumen to learn a craft ... like any craft or trade, there are many who rise with diligence and acumen, some who have tremendous inherent talents and abilities and some who rise in their field purely on nepotism. You can apply this to anything - I find it hardly specifically relevant to photography and cinematography.

You can not stop technology from advancing. Yes, it raises the bar. But it does not replace artistic, creative talent.

I can understand why many cinematographers feel threatened by change and by trends in technology. And then there is the 50,000 people graduating from film schools every year - a huge percentage of them planning on buying a Scarlet, winning the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and signing with CAA.

But we all know how that is going to turn out don't we.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

It's a double edged sword.

I hate people who complain that the RED is hard to use. It's not, they just haven't bothered to take the time to learn how to use it.

That being said, once you take the time you will find (as with all things) that there is room to improve.

So I am all for advancing the technology and standardizing some of the current "variables." I just hate coddling the weak.

As to future predictions of camera tech: Aperture and focal length will still be used for as long as we alive here are looking.

 

[Norman B. Miller]

Jim- You have already established the BEST PRACTICES WAY TO SHOOT RED.

its called REDUCATION. I just got back...and I cant recommend it enough. Dont care how "Experienced" you are... you will learn something new and in my case, I paid for my education 3 times over just on the post side learning what NOT to buy.

The BEST PART about RED, is it is NOT a video camera. NO BAKED IN LOOKS.

People if you want to get the most from RED Cameras... sign up for the next REDUCATION. Michael Cioni and Steve Freebairn are brilliant guys who demystify
all that is RED.

ITs an easy camera to screw up... but once you know the best practices for "Exposure", there are still many "right" ways to finish RED footage and I for one hope that felxibility in post remains.

You cant idiot proof a RED camera, leave that to baked in Panny and SOny cameras.

I personally think REDUCATION should be mandatory for the legion of Scarlet users about to experience RAW image capture cameras.

Maybe the folks at RED could hookup with the Lynda.com people so we can get a reducation no matter where we live....

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

That would be AWESOME! Thanks Jim & Team.

 

[Justin Barham]

An exposure methodology that works and a new post workflow (color science) that makes it near impossible to screw up. Easy as 1,2,3.

As an assistant editor, I can't say how happy I am to hear that. While I enthusiastically welcome the flexibility RED allows me in designing a post workflow, I find that in the reality of professional use, it sometimes gets abused. Different departments expect various, often contradictory miracles of budget, aesthetics, and convenience from the new technology. Certainly editorial is as guilty as any other department (I reluctantly admit.)

Not that this discord is at all new or unique to RED, or digital acquisition in general, but I think the variety of options we're presented exacerbates the issue. Any simplification in post workflow can only help to lessen the potential for confusion, and I certainly embrace it.

 

[I Bloom]

Operating the camera is the simplest aspect of photography and cinematography. Setting exposure and focusing doesn't require years of practice or experience. Framing and lighting on the other hand are an art form. Regardless of how idiot proof and technologically advanced a camera is, it can't light and frame a scene on it's own.

Operating a camera is by no means simple. And setting focus and exposure does require years of practice and experience. But even if we take that disagreement aside, I think you are missing my point...

Essentially I'm saying that technology has a tendency to interfere with process when it comes to human craft. That there is a qualitative difference between a few skills gained with ease and an ecosystem of skills gained over a long period of trial and error and in the face of obstacles.

Is the main obstacle for digital feature cinematographers exposure?... no not really, though I've watched a few film big shots make pretty big fools of themselves with digital exposure. The main obstacle is still working 16 hour days for two months straight and returning home to find your girlfriend has left you... again.

I'm playing devils advocate. Obviously if you knew me you'd realize that I'm a horribly guilty technologist and with a healthy dose of skepticism a singulatarian. I by no means think that Red should stop simplifying their workflow or improving their exposure tools. I don't even think that Red should avoid building some narrow AI methods to determine exposure automatically. In fact not creating these tools might eventually amount to economic suicide.

I just like to consider the Luddite position, which is essentially with each gain in one place comes an equal loss in some other place... we should at least wave goodbye.

Cheers,
IBloom

 

[Ralph B.]

Allow me to retort...

Allow me to retort...

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess I take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.

If camera manufacturers continue to replace the need for real intelligence with artificial intelligence aren't they essentially tossing the baby out with the bath water... I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

IBloom

I don't know how to say this as respectfully enough for all to take easily yet still express my thoughts, so please take that into consideration as you read this.

I couldn't disagree more.

The ultimate conclusion to that logic is that RED should stop development on actually improving the product and put all its brilliance and man hours into creating barriers to the creating images. How bout a 2.5 stop sensor so we can really see who the alpha dogs are?

Talent is not dependent on technology. An improvement in technology only expands the possibility of what can be done (who was the colorist on Citizen Kane again?). Technology merely creates a baseline on which to create or judge talent.

If you spend 90% of your time fighting the limitations of your tools and overcoming them and 10% actually creating, soon maybe you get to 50/50. Let me put this a different way if there was zero friction between you and your ideas coming to life you would still have a unique vision, and that vision has even greater value because its not being limited by technology. Don't be verklempt, get excited about what you can do now! :hurray:

I believe even the best driver would rather have radial tires, and multilink suspensions, and oh yes I can't forget a few modern safety devices (anti-lock brakes, airbags, roll cage, nomex underwear take your pick).

Respectfully,
R

PS Remember punch cards? Who needs that stupid mouse anyway? Lets edit video with punch cards, now that's a skill. hehe :sarcasm:

 

[christopher witzke]

Personally, I'd like a camera that had just six dials on it.... one for shutter speed, one for frame rate, one for Kelvin, one for tint, and one per audio channel for input gain. I would like it to have it's iso locked at a native number that gives the optimum DR for it's sensor..... and rely on ND and lens aperture or exposure.

Hey wait..... the only camera ( still or motion ) out there right now close to this is the RED!

Regarding making it easier to use... great.... wonderful.... why not.....

But I also like to be challenged into a corner every once in a while to make me try a little harder.... I also like it when my wife yells at me in a bitchy tone... makes me feel loved and worthy of her time.... hehe

I've read countless threads on other forums about the theory that old school large format film ( God, I miss my Deardorff and my red dots! ) shooting slows you down and makes you better.... as if taking your time can make for a better result? I mean, which would you rather do? Shit oil or piss diamonds?

In the end it's all about choices.... and Jim, thank you for that!

Oh... one thing I'd love is the ability to ad in and out tags in a clip on camera..... " hey that take was perfect.... tag it from "in" at 12:34:12:00 and "out" at 12:43:33:00 " and those tags show up in redcineX!

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I see two things here:

The ASC test, which put RED is a less than favorable light because the camera system did not shine under the same procedure as it's competition. It was not ignorance, lack or study, or laziness. It was a decision to post/grade the footage a certain way. In short that demanded that RED operate in a standard that's not very good for RED.

The 2nd thing is RED and the "average person" and how to make the footage look it's best. Many have said this in different ways but it comes down to this: A person willing to put in the time, hard work and study. A person who holds THEMSELVES to a higher standard, just like the camera, will make beautiful images A person looking for a "point-n-click" camera and not real effort may not do well with RED.

RED will give you what you put into it.

Jay

A lot of people have been talkinig about "further education". In my opinion, direct human contact is the best for this, so REDucation cannot be beat. The DVD we made is doing well, but I'll be the first to admit it came VERY late in the game. Because of RED's "development phase" after its release it was impossible to get something reliable out. With Scarlet and Epic I think it will be different, and we will have some very cool things out not long after it's release.

Just sayin.. :001_smile:

 

[Steve G]

Personally, I'd like a camera that had just six dials on it.... one for shutter speed, one for frame rate, one for Kelvin, one for tint, and one per audio channel for input gain. I would like it to have it's iso locked at a native number that gives the optimum DR for it's sensor..... and rely on ND and lens aperture or exposure.

Hey wait..... the only camera ( still or motion ) out there right now close to this is the RED!

If you really want simple, go film. One dial for shutter angle, one dial for frame rate. Bit closer to your desired six dials than the Red !!