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 :)

Red "not perfected" in daylight

Hey Ryan,
glad to hear one of the film kids actually took the plunge to buy a Red. I almost did it, but backed out. Also nice to hear NYU's gotten their first Red since I graduated this past year (though it's unfortunate they give the best equipment to the grad students).

As for Carmine, he's a great guy and really knows his stuff, but in talking with him it always seems he's been skeptical of digital cameras. I took camera 2 when Red rumors were just starting to ruminate and he was definitely one of the people on the side of calling it "vaporware."
 
This is a conspiracy by Panasonic to get the HVX mentioned in the same breath as the Red. Nicely done, Panasonic!

Or maybe this producer just stated very clumsily what all HVX users such as myself know: The HVX200 is a terrible low-light camera.

In other words, she was trying to say that her company always works on the cheap (HVX), except when it absolutely can't (low-light conditions).

It's probably cheaper to rent the Red than to rent the extra HMIs and generators you'd need to get a legible image from the HVX on a night shoot.
 
Well.. a couple.. wait.. more than that.. feature and/or commercial DPs I respect hugely shoot with or have tipped their hat to the Red One. That's all I need to know.

I've had more than one part-time photographer try to make statements about still cameras(film and digital) and their quality of imagery. Once I realized how little they really knew about lighting and exposure I had to bow out of the conversation before I started laughing. No use standing around trying to explain light levels/color temp/etc. S/N ratios, min LUX, reflectivity, subject matter.. yadda yadda.. well you know.. the ingredients for making an image.. good or bad for a given media(film, digital capture..etc.)

Not everyone who says they can cook can make a souffle! Not everyone who eats knows what one even tastes like...

~Sarah "click click, bang bang" :gun:
 
Jannard said:
Teachers teach because they can't make it in the real world? (at least a few of them).

Jim
Click to expand...
Or write newspaper columns:help:

You'd think that if all the financial writers and commentators and racing tipsters really knew what they were talking about, they'd be cleaning up on the stock market or the racetrack instead of wasting their time writing about it.

Political Science - now THERE's a productive profession....

I forget exactly which political leader said this, but it was basically along the lines that if he really thought any of them really had the remotest idea what they were talking about, they'd be working for HIM, on a lot bigger salary:biggrin:
 
OK.

I rarely get into this kind of mood, but this thread is complete, total and utter bullshit.

It feels like a plant.

As for all the teacher bashing, where would we be without teachers?

I know it's nice to shit all over people in education, but they do play at specific role at a specific time in peoples lives.

Not everyone is smart enough to figure it all out for themselves.

The saying, I believe, is:

"those who can, DO. Those who can't, TEACH!"

I can tell you one thing. I have spend hours and hours and HOUR UPON HOUR TEACHING people about RED and how amazing a system it is. What if we (all those RED evangelists in many different cities) were not out there teaching people about all the good things about RED?

David
 
battistella said:
I can tell you one thing. I have spend hours and hours and HOUR UPON HOUR TEACHING people about RED and how amazing a system it is. What if we (all those RED evangelists in many different cities) were not out there teaching people about all the good things about RED?

David
Click to expand...

Word!
 
nice to finally hear this. i've been grading a feature shot on hvx and the noise in low light - even in shadows of bright exteriors was shocking. i even thought it might even be a problem with my hardware/software. source was 720 23.98 brought into color, float32, 10bit render.
never seen anything like it. matching scenes with variable light/underexposed is useless. well lit stuff is ok w/some latitude but nothing compared to the (small amount) red footage (build 15 & 16) i've had.
would not like to work with hvx again.
 
Yeah, I remember my shock when I first came back from shooting in the mountains with the HVX. I had a wide landscape shot taken in perfect light -- the mid-morning sun was just barely covered by a thin layer of clouds. I felt lucky that I was getting light that was directional enough to define shape and reveal texture, but soft enough to keep everything within the dynamic-range limits of the HVX chip. I got exactly the exposure I wanted for the mids, but still no blown-out highlights. Couldn't have asked for better conditions.

And when I saw first saw this perfect daylight landscape shot on a 23" monitor, I felt like I'd been punched in the gut. All the shadows were dancing with noise. You didn't have to look for it -- it's what your eye naturally went to because of all the motion. The shadows were 30% of the image, and so the noise infested nearly 30% of the image. Man, that sucked.

I've since learned to operate on the assumption that the HVX has noise on anything that appears dark grey. Not merely "low light." Anything dark grey as it appears on screen. Around Ansel Adams Zone 2 or 3. I call it the Danger Zone. There's probably a specific IRE range for it, but after using the camera a lot, I just know it when I see it.

I use Barry Green's low-noise scene file virtually all the time now. The image I acquire is flat, but it yields the cleanest footage for later color correction -- so I can bring back the Danger Zone without noise. And when I am forced to shoot a scene that I sense has a lot of the Danger Zone in it, I try to move the camera or move stuff in front of the camera -- any possible sleight-of-hand to distract from this weakness in the HVX.

Not the best workflow, but then it is just a $6000 camera. A similarly complete Red outfit is $30,000 or more. While I was initially shocked at the noise issue, ultimately it is not surprising that the HVX has issues that a camera five times as expensive does not have.
 
restarter said:
would not like to work with hvx again.
Click to expand...

I had one for a month when they first came out and was able to do side by side tests on many subjects vs. the JVC HD-100. I complained on another forum about the HVX noise and resolution and almost got lynched as a heretic. Subsequent tests from a number of different people yielded the same results. And they were called heretics...:clown2:

There are still people snorting the codec kool-aid. If the camera isn't delivering the goods from the chip to the codec then the codec's edge becomes irrelevant. But that doesn't matter to people who look at theoretical specs and not the footage.

Then along comes RED - where the camera really is delivering terrific quality to a terrific codec then voilà - some of the best digital motion picture footage out there. I'm finally happy with a camera.
 
I was right there when Joel did the testing between these cameras.

Heck, many including myself wanted to see the HVX200 do well. Along with many, I was on the long preorder list. At that time I was sold on it's features.
Heck, along with the DVX100, it really paved the road for where we are now.

At that time, I was sold of the thought of 1080 24P DVCPRO-HD, but also was aware that DVCPRO-HD is a 1280x1080 format and would be stretched to fill a 1920x1080 frame. To top it of, we found out shortly after the camera was released, the CCD block is only 960x540.
The image is definately on the "too" soft side. I'm not talking sharpness (artificial enhancement), but detail. Which I'm still amazed on the many who tend to confuse these two terms.

Frankly, I was surprised by the noise and macroblocking in lower levels.
There were many complaints and suggestions on sticking to certain Cine settings (IMO) somewhat limiting this creative aspect.

Having said that, many swear by the HVX200. The new HVX200A offers no rez improvement, but they were able to offer a cleaner image. If Panasonic could of offered a full raster 1920x1080 (lol.. of course RED has this beat) and a better codec, this would of been amazing.

Now P2, that's another story...
 
I'm almost ready to sell my HVX because using the Red all the time has ruined me on using that camera. Don't get me wrong I think the HVX is a cool camera and it can deliver some nice images and the variable frame rates are nice to have. But it is nowhere near the quality of the Red...not even close. I almost hate shooting with the HVX now because everything looks soft when I'm shooting.
 
This is so funny after using the RED, the camera is unbelievably good, it makes the HDX900 look like a toy.

Every time I've shot on RED I've been blown away.

Thanks RED guys :)
 
Listen to person and not the rumor.

Listen to person and not the rumor.

What I said was: "Does the Red Camera have the contrast range of film? 7 shades of gray and white and black? 9 zones or more total? I do not know?"

At NYU we have just recieved our 1st RED and will be testing the contrast range in extreme and not so extreme conditions to find out.

To compare the HVX to the Red is just silly. Please are you kidding me!!!
Sony and Panasonic have been controlling the electronic image poorly for far to long. As a business person I have never been able to amoritize their equipment before it becomes obsolete. I have 2 rooms full of 1", 3/4", betacam, betacamSP, DVDcam, tapes, players and recorders. It is total Bullsh*t!!!!

First, are you in beta testing or not? This is important for long term investment reasons.

The second worry is the workflow which now seems not to be a problem because one of my ex-students who I recommend buy the Red which he recieved in Sept. says workflow is a big myth.

A third worry is about protection of copyright for future stock footage sales. This is the business model we are discussing at Warner Brothers Domestic TV because with the 35mm Negative we have physical media to track. Film is also a problem.

Is there a way to track or watermark the original data as it goes through the many hands that touch it?

If it has 9 zones of contrast please accept my apologies and $1750. for my deposit of a RED One. I have all the lens I need right now.

The camera is great because of 4k under $20k.

Thank god for the death of loading and waiting for magazines!!! I hate threading cameras!!!

BUT:
Jim, to sh*t on teaching is small minded. What do you think the RedUser forum is?

The exchange of ideas to better society as a whole.

Jim, you might even like teaching one day yourself and I promise I will never say those that those who teach cannot do.

And yes, I have a career that paid for 2 wifes and 1 Enginnering degree so far. One more kid is about to start high school


For the Record: I am your biggest fan! I think applying the Arriflex business model and using PL mount lens is brillent! As is the: price point and Apple/Mac foundation.

You need to work on the weight of the camera and viewfinder because I hate the weight of my current film camera and all the rental cameras.

Hope to see you in the water.

Repect,
Mike Carmine
 
Hey, guys-

I started this thread to ask where the truth (or origin or facts) about this idea was. My point was never to bash teachers (I started the thread specifically giving cred to Prof. Carmine) or indulge in a producer or HVX griping session.

If anyone has anything that can help me talk about dynamic range in the hilights, let me know. If not, let's be civil and respect those that came before.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top