Skew...

[Bruce Allen]

Great to hear that, Jim.

I think people are more concerned about things like camera flashes, etc that start or end half-way through a frame.

If you guys can get the read/reset time short enough to avoid that in most cases, that would be super. Then Gibby can run around shooting an ENG piece and not worry about the photgraphers' flashes.

Of course, when shooting in a controlled environment (feature films, music videos, etc) this is not so much of a problem.

I am interested - when you go up to 120fps, is the per-frame skew greater or less than shooting at 24fps?

I ask these questions only because you guys are the only people with an honest enough customer relationship to let us know (okay, Silicon Imaging was actually very specific and helpful with progressive shutter info - to the point of talking about methods of strobe synchronization, etc). But you and them seem like the "good guys" of the camera world - anyway, look forward to greater info so that we can shoot correctly and make beautiful images with your camera.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jannard]

Bruce... I wish I could answer all the questions now, but we just don't have enough of these features to test. That is what we are doing now... enabling features. I'll let you know, as always, when we have the info. We don't hide anything. But I don't want to guess either.

Jim

 

[Bruce Allen]

Thanks Jim! Have a great weekend now...

Bruce

 

[Brandon Freeman]

Thanks so much for the info, Jim!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

We don't hide anything. But I don't want to guess either.

Jim

That should be made a sticky for easy reference.

"How does XYZ work"
"See Sticky."

 

[Steve Freebairn]

I'm glad to hear it is better now than it was before. I hate to admit that I was so enthralled in the story in Crossing the Line that I kept forgetting to be "critical" of the image :usd:

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

I'm glad to hear it is better now than it was before. I hate to admit that I was so enthralled in the story in Crossing the Line that I kept forgetting to be "critical" of the image :usd:

Thats called good Film making.

 

[Matthew Lochman]

if its good enough for tracking, who cares... is it?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Then Gibby can run around shooting an ENG piece and not worry about the photgraphers' flashes.

Of course, when shooting in a controlled environment (feature films, music videos, etc) this is not so much of a problem.

LOL...ouch!

Actually, of the 800 national television programs I've contributed to only around 50 of them were ENG. The remainder were: 650 non-hardlined EFP, and around 100 hardlined EFP.

I assure you that a large percentage of my experience has been in controlled environments - certain non-hardlined EFP and most of the hardlined EFP productions I've contributed to.

A brief summary of my background is on the the EFP/ENG and RED forum, at the end of my "EFP & ENG Definitions and Explanations" sticky post.
Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1105

 

[Steve Gibby]

Thats called good Film making.

Or in that particular case, good D-cinema making.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Or in that particular case, good storytelling about a stuffed animal and world war one trenchfighters which involved biplanes and used a prototype camera that recorded digital images to a hard drive.

aka film making.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Or in that particular case, good storytelling about a stuffed animal and world war one trenchfighters which involved biplanes and used a prototype camera that recorded digital images to a hard drive.

aka film making.

Hmmmm....film making, eh? Where was film used in the making of it? If none was used, why is it called film making?

 

[Emanuel A.]

Bruce... I wish I could answer all the questions now, but we just don't have enough of these features to test. That is what we are doing now... enabling features.

Fair enough.

Thanks for your update.

E.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sorry Gibby about the ENG / EFP thing! I always sucked at acronyms.

Another reason why Red is so great. Finally, a camera whose name isn't just a pseudo-cool pseudo-random combination of letters and numbers...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

Or in that particular case, good D-cinema making.

No doubt!

We'll probably still call it footage as well, long after our medium stops coming by the foot. Some things die hard. Flash-age or drive-age just don't sound right. Maybe raid-age.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hmmmm....film making, eh? Where was film used in the making of it? If none was used, why is it called film making?

I didn't see any cinema being used in the behind the scenes either. And Digitaling and cinemaing sure as hell isn't aren't verbs. For that matter shooting doesn't fire any bullets, striking doesn't involve any sparks, cutting doesn't break anything into pieces, Dodging doesn't block any light, Burning doesn't allow any light to continue and Feathering uses no feathers.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Relax Gavin…the point of my post was not to hijack this thread, but a quick, lighthearted view of the widespread use of anachronisms in our industry. Technically, nobody will “film” anything with RED One, and a “film” isn’t technically a “film” unless “film” was used in the in its acquisition, or it is output to film, in which case it’s a hybrid digital + film production.

Yes…English is a strange language indeed…

Example: We park on driveways…and drive on parkways!

And on and on…

I didn't see any cinema being used in the behind the scenes either.

Here’s the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “cinema”. I think you’ll find definition 2b fits “Crossing the Line” quite accurately. Digital cinema accurately describes what RED One does, and 2b “the art or technique of making motion pictures” accurately describes what R1 is used for. Checking the etymology of “movie” we find that noun grew from the expression “moving picture” – again, an accurate description for what RED One records, and definition #1 is “motion picture”. Then checking definitions #1 and 2 for “motion picture” we find a perfect description of both what RED One is used for and for “Crossing the Line”:

Main Entry: cin·e·ma
Function: noun
Etymology: short for cinematograph
1 a : MOTION PICTURE -- usually used attributively b : a motion-picture theater
2 a : MOVIES; especially : the film industry b : the art or technique of making motion pictures

Main Entry: mov·ie
Function: noun
Etymology: moving picture
1 : MOTION PICTURE
2 plural : a showing of a motion picture
3 plural : the motion-picture medium or industry

Main Entry: motion picture
Function: noun
1 : a series of pictures projected on a screen in rapid succession with objects shown in successive positions slightly changed so as to produce the optical effect of a continuous picture in which the objects move
2 : a representation (as of a story) by means of motion pictures : MOVIE


-----------------------------------------

And Digitaling and cinemaing sure as hell isn't aren't verbs.

I didn’t bring up any separate verbs in my post, just a reference to a phrase “film making”, which is a noun + a verb. “Digital cinema making”, “cinema making” (see 2b above), and “movie making” (etymology: moving picture), would all be accurate noun + verb phrases for what RED One is used for. A “short movie” would be an accurate description for “Crossing the Line”.

The verb “filming” obviously grew from users of the film medium describing what they’re doing. The term “taping” obviously grew from users of videotape describing what they’re doing. As new mediums emerge won’t it be just a matter of time before users follow suit and create a verb describing what they do that has its origin in the medium they use? But, with cameras like RED One that can record images to multiple mediums (HDD, Flash, tape via dual HD-SDI, etc.) there is a problem forming a descriptive verb because of the multiple mediums used. So, what are some verbs that accurately describe what users of RED One are doing, that are not based on anachronisms? “Recording” would fit that bill, because it’s not medium-specific, and it accurately describes what users are doing – “recording” images to various mediums. There may be other verbs that fit.



-----------------------------------------

For that matter shooting doesn't fire any bullets, striking doesn't involve any sparks, cutting doesn't break anything into pieces, Dodging doesn't block any light, Burning doesn't allow any light to continue and Feathering uses no feathers.

Slang is widespread in the motion media industry. We all use it, and yes it doesn’t accurately what’s being done. “Shooting” probably had its origin in early use of film because putting a camera on your shoulder and pressing a button is very similar to putting a rifle on your shoulder and pulling a trigger. When I started into still photography in the late ‘60’s I remember me and my associates calling it “shooting”. When I was first introduced to using 16mm film, we were “shooting” or “filming”. When I first started using video in the late ‘70’s, I accurately called it “taping” because that’s what we were doing. “Cutting” obviously had its origin in the physical cutting of film in editing – and yes, its an anachronism for anyone who isn’t cutting film to use the term. None of your example slang words (shooting, striking, cutting, dodging, burning, feathering) has a recording medium noun as its base (ex: film).


--------------------------------------


For me, when I’m shooting film, which I still do occasionally, I’m “filming”. When using RED One with a drive or CF, I’m “recording” or “shooting”. When using RED One via dual HD-SDI to and HDCAM deck I’m “taping” or “shooting”. I’m not a “filmmaker” unless I’m using “film” in the process. To me, when using RED One to produce features, I’m a “movie maker”. If I’m using RED One to produce a television program, “television producer” or “television director” will do. “Shooting” will be the collective term for what I do with cameras regardless of medium or technology (film, D-cinema, video, stills).

IMO the widespread use of the terms “film”, “filming”, and “filmmaker” by people who are not using film in the production process, even by young guys who have never used film for a production, is a curious anachronism that is perpetuated by the flood of former film industry workers that have now entered a convergent motion media industry, and feel that the descriptive terms for the work process with the new technology should still be the same. I’m one of those old “film guys” who started using film forty years ago. But at some point as I spread out into other mediums like video I simple felt the need to be accurate in describing what I did.

Everybody will obviously continue to describe what they do in terms they’re comfortable with….and I’ll do the same.

Gavin, you should be happy that I’m an accuracy-oriented person. You’re on my LART team and I will be looking for accuracy in our testing.

All of the above is given as a lighthearted, whimsical introspection on our curious use of anachronism in a convergent motion media industry!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread…

 

[number6]

I have consciously started referring to what I hope to be doing as "moviemaking" Sometimes I slip and occasionally referring to it as "filming" when I've never even had experience with film. I think this is goin' to take some time, but occasionally being reminded is going to make the transition happen just that much faster. Sorry about getting off track, but most of the technical stuff gets hashed in these threads at an early stage... then the posts become "fair game" IMAHO

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Haha yes we did take quite the divergence, I'm sorry I'm not directing anything at you so much as the universe. I meant nothing by my post except it seems like no matter what you say in this industry it's probably wrong to somebody somewhere. The audio guys get on my back when I say recording or taping. My gun nut and still photography friends get confused when I saw I'm out shooting and now a lot of people have complained when I say filming! I can't win! Just a pet peeve of mine.

Perhaps the reason filming is starting to stick is because of its uniqueness to our industry. Especially since production (especially after the RED) is going to be so format agnostic.

Oh well none of it matters. If the director asks if you could 'sequester' a moving image for him nobody is going to turn him down

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

No offense, Gibby, but IMHO the terms "moviemaker" and "moviemaking" are kinda clunky. It's too bad that "cinematographer" is already taken. I'm inclined to use "filmmaker" until something better comes along. If we reach a time when nobody shoots on films any longer and all projection is digital, it won't matter if we anachronistically speak of "filmmakers" making "films". Everyone will know that we're actually shooting digitally, and the terms will have some charm as they'll harken back to the early days of motion pictures (you know, the first 150-200 years or so).