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 :)

Short Film shot on Scarlet-X

According to his write up:

Sound
Michael our sound technician is coming from a professional field of work, on my request he only used a very simple and inexpensive setup for this test. He came with a Zoom H4n and a mic on a boom. I'm guessing the mic was unaffordable though. I love the sound he recorded. We also tried to install 2 lavalier mics on the actors and wanted to connect the receivers on the camera. The Scarlet-X has two mini 3.5" jacks at the front. Unfortunately we couldn't get a signal into the Scarlet. We tried this for 30 minutes but then gave up. I admit we didn't read the manual on that topic before. If it works it's definitely not easy to get it to work.

Roshdi Alkadri said:
How was sound recorded, is it ADR, boom, or a separate recorder?
Click to expand...

The mic the soundguy used was a $2200 Schoeps cmit5u.
 
Anthony Vu said:
According to his write up:

The Scarlet-X has two mini 3.5" jacks at the front. Unfortunately we couldn't get a signal into the Scarlet. We tried this for 30 minutes but then gave up. I admit we didn't read the manual on that topic before. If it works it's definitely not easy to get it to work.

The mic the soundguy used was a $2200 Schoeps cmit5u.
Click to expand...


That's a nice microphone. I've had no problems piping the audio from the line out/headphone out of the Zoom H4n via a Y-Splitter. I'm beginning to wonder what everybody else is doing though as I am seeing it come up pretty often.
 
im no expert but almost half of the movie have continuity problem with weather and it was very irritating..
some cuts in the beginning are unnecessary also



one more to go...please please please do not use TEST word.i dont understand people when they get criticize and say dude it was just test


Cinema5D did same thing on Scarlet vs C300 so called TEST article...if you are doing test do it properly
if you are shooting short do it however you want but do not call this TEST.This is not professional
 
Thank you sebastian for putting this out there.
Don't mind those nay-sayers. they are just jealleous that they haven't made such a wonderful piece of film with a great camera that quickly yet.
I was very intrigued by the story, i loved the sound, i loved the ending, i loved the picture and that very magical moment of "hail-rise" when he drops the bomb.

great job. please more!!!
 
Brant Hadfield said:
Yes, and to that end, I need to bring up a concern. And this has little to do with the way this piece was shot, I think. When I initially downloaded the 1920x1080 .mov of this file, I encoded it in Sorenson Squeeze for full res playback through my PS3 (PS3's have just about the best HD decoding you can buy, btw) as an mp4. The resulting image, when I actually saw it on my Panny 50" studio monitor, was hyper, hyper sharp, very videoish in nature, more so than what I get with my AF100/Nanoflash/Voigtlander 25/.95. So I thought, ok, too much detail there. Something about the way the image was handled when it was Raw, and scaled down to 1080, resulted in this nasty hyper sharp edge enhanced look. There was considerable moire going on in both the character's scarves. So I took the source file (which was a pretty decently low compression 1920x1080) into AE and did a very low fast blur, which made the image on my monitor much more filim-like when I saw it still. But when rendered out and played back on my Panny, it still had the unmistakable look of video, thought the moire had been tamed and detail was not so brutal. No way around it though. Is this shooter's Canon lens simply way too sharp, or rather, coated in such a way that results in this? (that's the opinion of one person I asked) My older metal body Nikon glass has a very filmic look on my old Letus adapter, and again on the AF100. Good glass and not harsh. Poor man's Cooke. Perhaps it has to do with grading, and a very light-weight camera being hand or shoulder held? The moire concerns me. What has to happen when the image is RAW to avoid that when scaling down? I know Fincher shot GWDT with wide open anamorphic lenses, and I'm sure that helped tame hyper sharpness into something more filmic. I know the Alexa is a different beast, but I have a film shot with it for direct comparison, seeing this example leaves me wanting for the knowledge of how to tame the image from the Scarlet into something filmic, smoother. Please don't refer to how it looks on a laptop monitor. Put it on a good plasma.
Click to expand...

Hey Brant,

I have the same concern as you do, I've seen a lot o RED shot movies that were (at least for me) indistinguishable from film (for instace:Jumper, The Book of Eli), and i've also seen movies shot on RED that did have a videoish look, (apart from "CHE", that was shot on BETA firmware, Red State comes to mind).

As the RED Cameras have so much resolution, I belive it's sharp look is some how intrinsic, but that are a few tricks to that could help make the image smoother, such as adding a little bit of grain (or a lot, depending on your taste). Also there are a variety of options of debayer algorithms when exporting to RGB codecs on REDcine, they go from sharpest to smoothest and that makes a lot o diference.

I believe that in this case, the hand held style and the rawness of the shooting conditions itself, do make the video nature of the camera "pop" a little bit more, expecially if you are looking for it.

The Grade can also make a huge diference

Here is an exemple of EPIC footage that even handheld looks really "filmic" :http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?63521-EPIC-scouting-video

Also, on this thread, you can see a lot of exemples of footage that do look really good too: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?66510-So-what-can-you-do-with-a-Scarlet-X

Later, there are nice exemples of diferent grades, so you can see the diference the grade cam make.

I also would like to see a test of Canon L glass vs nikon glass, and see if it really makes that much of a diference.
 
Phil Holland said:
That's a nice microphone. I've had no problems piping the audio from the line out/headphone out of the Zoom H4n via a Y-Splitter. I'm beginning to wonder what everybody else is doing though as I am seeing it come up pretty often.
Click to expand...

Hi phil, I'm guessing that you brought in the signal at line level and the menus have a setting for that right?
 
Hey Seb, what were the export settings for the file uploaded to vimeo and what codec/compression software did you use?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your feedback and thanks to those who commented in such a respectful way!

Thought you might wanna see the beauty of the non vimeo compressed material. Unfortunately DaVinci resolve lite doesn't output 4k, but here's an HD (it soon goes downhill above that anyway) screenshot in hq jpeg: (right click open)
mhshthcth_scr1.jpg
 
Phil Holland said:
That's a nice microphone. I've had no problems piping the audio from the line out/headphone out of the Zoom H4n via a Y-Splitter. I'm beginning to wonder what everybody else is doing though as I am seeing it come up pretty often.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I'm planning on doing - but I'd be interested to see what other people are doing
 
Sebastian Wöber said:
Yes
Click to expand...

That explains it! I was pretty discouraged actually when I put the file through my PS3 to output on my 50" reference plasma. Way, way, way too sharp! Too videoish, by a long shot. I don't think the Scarlet will need any sharpening in post, especially when down converting to 1080. But probably almost never. I actually took your file, put it in Avid and After Effects, and did some blurring to get it looking better, and also got rid of the moire that was there too.
 
Brant Hadfield said:
That explains it! I was pretty discouraged actually when I put the file through my PS3 to output on my 50" reference plasma. Way, way, way too sharp! Too videoish, by a long shot. I don't think the Scarlet will need any sharpening in post, especially when down converting to 1080. But probably almost never. I actually took your file, put it in Avid and After Effects, and did some blurring to get it looking better, and also got rid of the moire that was there too.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this could be due to (default) settings on your display. Looked great on my projector, not too sharp at all.
 
Rob Lohman said:
Keep in mind that this could be due to (default) settings on your display. Looked great on my projector, not too sharp at all.
Click to expand...

No sir, I was looking at this footage on a 50" Panasonic studio monitor which has no sharpening turned on, and against Alexa footage and Arri 535 with Kodak stock. The Scarlet footage looked clearly over sharpened, brutally so. There would be no mistaking it as video. The editor's choice to add sharpening to an already highly sharp image when down converted resulted in moire which I eliminated by adding defocus and then playing back to check the results. The "videoish" nature of the image and sharpness were not apparent on the computer monitors I initially used to view this footage. The 50" monitor is calibrated and properly displayed the comparison Alexa and film footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top