Shot on?

[Ibrahim Abdulkarim]

gopro hero hd 2

 

[Mohamed Younis]

Come on tell us

 

[Alberto Saiz]

I thought was on Epic...

 

[Christian Munoz D]

And the answers is...

And the answers is...

As I posted before, wasn’t any surprise on the shot. Gunleik you were right, this was shot last year on my Red One-M with my veteran Canon/Century 150-600 at 2K 120fps.
It is very interesting how very few people see a distinction between footage from different cameras and less people see the difference between Red cameras. Noticing how people do not see the difference between a Go Pro or DSLR and Red or film, I ask myself Why we need to spend thousands of dollars on our professional cameras if even pros do not see the difference? It is the technology reaching the maximum capacity that we can shoot a high end film entirely with a cell phone? I will let you speculate…

 

[Mohamed Younis]

As I posted before, wasn’t any surprise on the shot. Gunleik you were right, this was shot last year on my Red One-M with my veteran Canon/Century 150-600 at 2K 120fps.
It is very interesting how very few people see a distinction between footage from different cameras and less people see the difference between Red cameras. Noticing how people do not see the difference between a Go Pro or DSLR and Red or film, I ask myself Why we need to spend thousands of dollars on our professional cameras if even pros do not see the difference? It is the technology reaching the maximum capacity that we can shoot a high end film entirely with a cell phone? I will let you speculate…

Not true. If it were uncompressed we would've been able to tell right away. The vimeo compression is what makes Epic and 5D footage look similar.

 

[Joseph S.]

I think there is a psychological factor here. Usually when someone asks to guess what camera was used, or in audio tests what mic was used, it's usually to show surprise with an end result.

Maybe most of the people here were just trying to guess that the answer would probably be something out of the norm, and not a red product (much like I thought).

Guessing is always enjoyable however

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Not true. If it were uncompressed we would've been able to tell right away. The vimeo compression is what makes Epic and 5D footage look similar.

Mohamed,

When you say "not true" I guess means you disagree with my opinion not what I am saying is false. Right?

This exercise was with the real world in mind. From Youtube and Vimeo to TV and digital movie theaters the deliverables are compressed files and if there are uncompressed deliverables been broadcasted that do not represent the real world.
It is not only compression what make the difference between the images from different cameras. There are numerous factors involved on the image you get from digital technology and film in the past i.e. DR, lenses, lighting, etc. and with experience you will be accustomed to see what cameras are more likely to be used to shot specific scenes. We may no be accurate 50% of the time, but we have a starting point.

 

[Mohamed Younis]

Mohamed,

When you say "not true" I guess means you disagree with my opinion not what I am saying is false. Right?

This exercise was with the real world in mind. From Youtube and Vimeo to TV and digital movie theaters the deliverables are compressed files and if there are uncompressed deliverables been broadcasted that do not represent the real world.
It is not only compression what make the difference between the images from different cameras. There are numerous factors involved on the image you get from digital technology and film in the past i.e. DR, lenses, lighting, etc. and with experience you will be accustomed to see what cameras are more likely to be used to shot specific scenes. We may no be accurate 50% of the time, but we have a starting point.

English isn't my first language so I'm sorry if my reply seemed a bit aggressive.
Anyway it's the Vimeo compression that confused people. I was 100% certain it was a RED. That doesn't mean that other cameras cannot produce very similar results if the footage was compressed and played on Vimeo.
If this was a scene in a movie and was played at a movie theater no one would have guessed 7D. Even with the psychological factor that I think probably affected people's opinion.

 

[Christian Munoz D]

English isn't my first language so I'm sorry if my reply seemed a bit aggressive.

Not at all. English is not my first language either, so that is why I asked

Anyway it's the Vimeo compression that confused people. I was 100% certain it was a RED. That doesn't mean that other cameras cannot produce very similar results if the footage was compressed and played on Vimeo.
If this was a scene in a movie and was played at a movie theater no one would have guessed 7D. Even with the psychological factor that I think probably affected people's opinion.

Yes, Vimeo compression makes tricks, that is why I posted a frame of the shot with little compression. I kind of agree with Joseph, the psychological factor is very important here, although I was very clear from the beginning, no surprises on the shot.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

As I posted before, wasn’t any surprise on the shot. Gunleik you were right, this was shot last year on my Red One-M with my veteran Canon/Century 150-600 at 2K 120fps.
It is very interesting how very few people see a distinction between footage from different cameras and less people see the difference between Red cameras. Noticing how people do not see the difference between a Go Pro or DSLR and Red or film, I ask myself Why we need to spend thousands of dollars on our professional cameras if even pros do not see the difference? It is the technology reaching the maximum capacity that we can shoot a high end film entirely with a cell phone? I will let you speculate…

LOL

So I can sit back and be "not surprised"...

But I am not. Hahahaha

The R1M is one of the best cameras I have ever worked with, and I do prefer it over the R1 MX for quite some shooting situatioons. When given the light it wants, it's simply a gem and a much more harmonical camera than the R1 MX IMHO. People tend to forget that Build 30+ came to the M, shortly after the R1 MX upgrade started to ship, and that that new signalprocessing (being floatingpoint curve based instead of gain based) did much more to the image, signal and noise - than the new sensor did - or at least as much. Thus I never updated my M. When you hit the fat part of the M, it is really cool. And in broad daylight with good contrast, the surprise is more that not more people have seen and embaraced these qualities of the M...

I still love the R1M, and the Epic. But for different things! the Epic/Scarlet is where the "whole new thing with the MX sensor" comes into play, as they have the processingpower needed to actually deal with all that new juice over the M.

Ah... Rambling... But I really think anyone with an original M RED One should start celebrate and dance in the streets a bit more. Skintones and colors on the M are just amongst the best and most organic from a digital cameraI know...

I don't agree on the technologoy comment, though. I think we'll see thing standardizing on eirther 16-bit LIN or 32 bit LIN-float recording before we are really getting there, and because of the impossible scenario of changing the sensor to adjust for different light /(like we could with film, 50 ASA to 1600 ASA stock ballanced for tungsten or daylight), we NEED more useable DR in a digital cinema camera than we could expect from one specific stock of film to get the same versatibility.

But the overexposure carracterristics of the Epic and Scarlet is finally getting us somewhere to the ballpark.

Anyhow, it is fun how people think old is "bad" just because something newer has come up...
Film is still good
R1 M is still good
Stuff has as long a lifespan as there are competent people around to make good images with it and it doesn't die.

Anyhow, I think I said that because the light isn't the most challenging, it is hard to tell which RED camera it could be. Under more challenging lighting conditions (that is, higher contrast and possibly tungsten), they are much easier to descern...

Good times!

 

[Mohamed Younis]

LOL

So I can sit back and be "not surprised"...

But I am not. Hahahaha

The R1M is one of the best cameras I have ever worked with, and I do prefer it over the R1 MX for quite some shooting situatioons. When given the light it wants, it's simply a gem and a much more harmonical camera than the R1 MX IMHO. People tend to forget that Build 30+ came to the M, shortly after the R1 MX upgrade started to ship, and that that new signalprocessing (being floatingpoint curve based instead of gain based) did much more to the image, signal and noise - than the new sensor did - or at least as much. Thus I never updated my M. When you hit the fat part of the M, it is really cool. And in broad daylight with good contrast, the surprise is more that not more people have seen and embaraced these qualities of the M...

I still love the R1M, and the Epic. But for different things! the Epic/Scarlet is where the "whole new thing with the MX sensor" comes into play, as they have the processingpower needed to actually deal with all that new juice over the M.

Ah... Rambling... But I really think anyone with an original M RED One should start celebrate and dance in the streets a bit more. Skintones and colors on the M are just amongst the best and most organic from a digital cameraI know...

I don't agree on the technologoy comment, though. I think we'll see thing standardizing on eirther 16-bit LIN or 32 bit LIN-float recording before we are really getting there, and because of the impossible scenario of changing the sensor to adjust for different light /(like we could with film, 50 ASA to 1600 ASA stock ballanced for tungsten or daylight), we NEED more useable DR in a digital cinema camera than we could expect from one specific stock of film to get the same versatibility.

But the overexposure carracterristics of the Epic and Scarlet is finally getting us somewhere to the ballpark.

Anyhow, it is fun how people think old is "bad" just because something newer has come up...
Film is still good
R1 M is still good
Stuff has as long a lifespan as there are competent people around to make good images with it and it doesn't die.

Anyhow, I think I said that because the light isn't the most challenging, it is hard to tell which RED camera it could be. Under more challenging lighting conditions (that is, higher contrast and possibly tungsten), they are much easier to descern...

Good times!

I never upgraded my M and nobody wants to rent it but I still love that camera. I'm going to use it for a feature.

 

[Milan Spasic]

100% agree with Gunleik. R1M is such an under appreciated camera. I actually miss it. It's mind boggling that nobody wanted to rent it for at least a year. it's been gathering dust, bar few personal projects.

This thread maybe serves the purpose of proving that M was and is a viable option for certain situations but proves little else, in my opinion.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Imagery is only one facet of a good story i'm sure we can all agree. Now if you can put a great story and imagery sequence together even better. This holds so true in the underwater doc arena. Funny enough just recently i sold a pile of stock to Nat Geo of old R1 M camera footage where focus was soft as i had no focus control and was a first underwater test-- for a sequence that they needed....I'd have NEVER guessed i'd have been able to sell that footage EVER....was only saving for some web videos. But the imagery helped to tell their story. that said, if you can perfect the imagery end of things and work with a great writer/directer then what a marriage.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

What other 4,5 year old camera can still be deemed good enough for a high-end feature? Bar filmcameras, of course.

But THAT is due to REDs decission to give out free firmwareupgrades and developing their signal-chain, processing and colorscience.

Actually, even though it is obviously very generous towards us customers, I do think it has ben a deed of neccesity to get RED where it is today to give out those firmwareupdates.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

The R1M is, of course, capable of producing AMAZING images.

But looking at just the final output doesn't tell the full story. You can make Epic Footage and Flip Cam footage match fairly easily (by crunching the Epic stuff waaaaay down.) That doesn't mean the Flip is better than the Epic. On a more subtle level, you can intercut Scarlet and the C300 and grade them to match fairly closely, so that most, or even all, viewers wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

But, a more interesting factor is: how hard was it to do that in Post? Is it harder to make a 5D match a Scarlet, or a C300 match a Scarlet? Is it harder to match a Red One M to an Epic? Is it just harder in general to work with the footage from a certain type of camera?

I've run a lot of footage from the Red One M through RedCine. And a lot of footage from the Red One MX. And the MX stuff is way easier to work with, to push and pull, to tweak, than the stuff off the M sensor.

The M stuff can still look AMAZING. Of course it can. No one in their right mind would argue that it can't. But I would rather work with MX footage in post given the choice, just because all the MX footage I've ever seen come through RedCine has more latitude than almost any R1M footage I've seen.

If all you ever see is the Production end of things, and then the Final Product, you miss this part: footage that is easier to work with in Post can a project time and money, or even let you pool those resources back in and end up with a better final product.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

How hard it is to match different images, is depending on what kind of shots you want to match.

If you have a scene with deep focus and lots of detail, no way you can match a 5d and a RED well. On a well lit CU of a face @ T1.3, sure you can.
And as to the C300, it seems to me that tonality is its achilles heel. Which comes as no surprise and makes total sense.

The cool thing with the "real" cameras and the funny ones, is their ability to work well under a lot of conditions.

As to the M vs MX R1... That's a loooong story

But I have put some hours of both through online and testing. They have their strengths and weaknesses, both of them... IMHO

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

As to the M vs MX R1... That's a loooong story

But I have put some hours of both through online and testing. They have their strengths and weaknesses, both of them... IMHO

Absolutely. My point is simply that, if we ONLY look at the end result, it ignores the journey to get there. Sure the path digging THROUGH the mountain will get you to the other side, but is it easier than walking around the mountain? Maybe, maybe not. But just looking at the end position doesn't tell you which was the easier way to get there.