Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Still changing...

Just saw Slumdog Millionaire, shot apparently on the SI-2k. Can't see why anyone would want to shoot with that camera. Looked really quite video at times, blue fringing, slightly blurry low-res look - and the over-the-top grading didn't help. I know most feature film mastering is done at 2K, but this didn't even look like 2k.
 
Tim Follin said:
Just saw Slumdog Millionaire, shot apparently on the SI-2k. Can't see why anyone would want to shoot with that camera.
Click to expand...

Because the design of the SI 2k Mini allows you to use a very small imaging head and keep the processing, recording, and control on a laptop that's in a backpack. This allows for very mobile, very unintrusive, very adaptable shooting when the conditions demand it - as they did on Slumdog, which is the primary reason that the SI system was selected. As has been said by others here, "horses for courses." The project, the conditions, and the ability of the shooting methods to accomodate them determine the best fit. It's not always solely about achieving pristine images across the board.

And regardless of that reasoning, the members of both the ASC and the Motion Picture Academy voted to give Slumdog their highest award for cinematography. So regardless of whether one agrees with that assessment, clearly it was a very sensible (not to mention successful) choice for this particular picture.
 
Tim Follin said:
Just saw Slumdog Millionaire, shot apparently on the SI-2k. Can't see why anyone would want to shoot with that camera. Looked really quite video at times, blue fringing, slightly blurry low-res look - and the over-the-top grading didn't help. I know most feature film mastering is done at 2K, but this didn't even look like 2k.
Click to expand...

Tim I understand your reasoning, and you would think this is the place to say this sort of thing.. But I'd like to think that here at REDUser, we not only love RED but anyone who would push the realm of digital cinema forward.

The SI-2K has done us proud in that goal as no one will dare say shooting a feature in ditigal can cost you respect. In the end we all like our team of choice to win the big game, but at the end of the day, it's about loving the sport itself.

It would seem, that the look you were not wild about served the story very well. It's clear someone thought so! :)

I myself have not seen it.... Yet... But I am looking forward to it.

Jay
 
The SI-2K has done us proud in that goal as no one will dare say shooting a feature in ditigal can cost you respect. In the end we all like our team of choice to win the big game, but at the end of the day, it's about loving the sport itself.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree with that point, and the multiple Oscar wins by Slumdog makes a strong political point that independents are just as 'important' (dare I say financially important) as films made by the big studios. But no doubt the studios will continue to favour film and peddle the notion that 'real' films are shot on film, while 'quirky,' albeit hugely appealing but ultimately cheap independents, are shot on video.

Mmost - I can see that the portability of the SI as you describe it would clearly 'make' this sort of film; as you say, horses for courses. However SI do make the claim that the camera is a cinema camera because it shoots 2k, though my impression of the image quality is that shooting 2k doesn't look enough - i.e., Red's philosophy of shooting 4k or 5k for final 2k mastering obviously makes a lot of sense.
 
Ok, I just spent an hour and a half reading these 34 pages of posts.

Jim and the RED team, this is just freaking awesome!

I too found it funny (odd) how many people ignore the INFINITELY configurable tag line of these camera systems, and instead have all this input on a render of a single cinfig? ... (not trying to be rude) just found it curious. So hopefully Jim made it clear now

ONE QUESTION:

Are the Silver renders scarlett and the one all black render an Epic? Was confuising to me why there was the one all black render versus the silver ones.

Thanks so much, Ive been involved with 2 Red One features now and LOVE that camera...

but this is all just so friggin exciting!
 
Tim Follin said:
But no doubt the studios will continue to favour film and peddle the notion that 'real' films are shot on film, while 'quirky,' albeit hugely appealing but ultimately cheap independents, are shot on video.
Click to expand...

I think at least for the next couple of years you might want to try to lose that chip that's on your shoulder. If one is looking for the "best," at least in the conventional sense of capturing the most information, having the most latitude, and having the best archival methods available, then at the moment one would likely have to select film as that medium - something even Jim Jannard has stated. A few years from now, who knows. But in 2008 and 2009, that is the case, so the continued use of film in high end production should not be seen as a threat or a hindrance, but rather as an expression of the current state of the technology. And fortunately, there are enough users of digital solutions around to support its further development, whether it's being used for a large number of high end features or not, thus providing lower budget filmmakers with an alternative - as well as providing an alternative for those higher budget projects that see specific value in going the digital route.

However SI do make the claim that the camera is a cinema camera because it shoots 2k, though my impression of the image quality is that shooting 2k doesn't look enough - i.e., Red's philosophy of shooting 4k or 5k for final 2k mastering obviously makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

The great bulk of digitally captured features up until this point in time have been captured on HD cameras, which are actually a bit below the resolution claimed by SI. Now, it's also true that the total number of pixels available across either the three chips (in the case of most 2/3 inch cameras, which generally have 3 1920x1080 sensors) or the single chip (as in the case of the Genesis, which contains a single 5760x2160 chip) in these HD cameras far exceed the 1920x1080 dimensions of the image that they produce. But the fact is that the 1920x1080 images have been recorded to film and released in theaters quite successfully, and no amount of griping about inferiority can change the fact that audiences have accepted those images as being of sufficient quality to be projected in even the largest theaters. As for the SI, I would never judge a camera's abilities based on one project, especially one shot under the type of run and gun conditions this one was. Nor would I judge a camera based on the work of one cinematographer, because all true artists have a specific vision they're attempting to present, and that may or may not represent an aesthetic that I happen to share. The only way to judge cameras is to get a hold of one and shoot your own material so that those kind of issues are moot. Barring that, one needs to look at varied types of work to see if there is a commonality of characteristics or problems that you find objectionable. Barring that, the judgement is only valid insofar as the camera was acceptable to the filmmakers and served their purpose in terms of getting the picture made and presenting their vision to the audience. That's it. It's a movie, not a camera test.
 
Tim Follin said:
Just saw Slumdog Millionaire, shot apparently on the SI-2k. Can't see why anyone would want to shoot with that camera. Looked really quite video at times, blue fringing, slightly blurry low-res look - and the over-the-top grading didn't help. I know most feature film mastering is done at 2K, but this didn't even look like 2k.
Click to expand...

Awesome! Even a camera that was part of an Oscar winning film for Best Photography can't get any respect around here. :)

BTW - That "Awesome!" was sarcastic.
 
mmost: The DP of Slumdog has publicly lamented the ridiculous nature of using a backpack with DRY ICE to cool the raid and laptop that was tethered to the SI camera. Please, while the images were beautiful and worthy of great praise, the configuration was a joke at best.

Nick.
 
Nicholas Shields said:
mmost: The DP of Slumdog has publicly lamented the ridiculous nature of using a backpack with DRY ICE to cool the raid and laptop that was tethered to the SI camera. Please, while the images were beautiful and worthy of great praise, the configuration was a joke at best.

Nick.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Dry Ice wrangler got an Oscar statue?

Chris
 
Tim Follin said:
and the multiple Oscar wins by Slumdog makes a strong political point that independents are just as 'important' (dare I say financially important) as films made by the big studios. But no doubt the studios will continue to favour film and peddle the notion that 'real' films are shot on film, while 'quirky,' albeit hugely appealing but ultimately cheap independents, are shot on video.
Click to expand...

Most big budget directors prefer film today simply because it offers the highest quality, and any budget savings of Red or any other technology would be insignificant. But there's no stigma attached to video (or "digital cinema", if we want to be more dignified about it). For that matter, any number of big budget directors have been known to seek status -- they're suddenly "independents" -- by shooting on video.

What stigma does exist revolves around money -- not so much as a prejudice, but as a measure of what can't be achieved, without it. Since "Slumdog" cost $15 million, with an internationally famous director, it's hard to see poverty or independence being redeemed by this movie.

This is where discussions here always run aground, if I may say so. A certain kind of film can indeed be made for very little money. But if you want to work in the mainstream of narrative tradition, creating persuasive dramatic illusions and fantasies (like Slumdog, for better or worse), taking people out of their daily lives, you can't do so without substantial resources. The content of the average Hollywood movie, bad or indifferent as it may be, would be insufferable and unwatchable, at low budget. It's the additional resources which keep the ball from going into the net.

Money buys illusion. Without money, it doesn't matter what you shoot on, or what the resolution of the camera is. You can make a certain kind of film. But you can't make another kind of film. Conversely, if you've got money, resolution won't be a big worry. It's nice to have, but probably not necessary, as it evidently wasn't on Slumdog.
 
I used to take my Dry Ice Wrangler for granted. But approximately two weeks ago, he and his assistants walked on an extremely important shoot requiring me to take a massive technological leap back in time when camera's actually used air to cool themselves. Needless to say, I've renegotiated with the Dry Ice Wranglers and I think I got the best of the deal - $897/day for the lead wrangler and $397 for the two accompanying assistants.

Nick.
 
Nicholas Shields said:
I used to take my Dry Ice Wrangler for granted. But approximately two weeks ago, he and his assistants walked on an extremely important shoot requiring me to take a massive technological leap back in time when camera's actually used air to cool themselves. Needless to say, I've renegotiated with the Dry Ice Wranglers and I think I got the best of the deal - $897/day for the lead wrangler and $397 for the two accompanying assistants.

Nick.
Click to expand...

I hear that in the next round of contract negotiations, the DIW (Dry Ice Wranglers) are planning to fight for a piece of the residuals from digital downloads and streaming content. They were spurred on by the .39 cents that the writers got.
 
Liam Hall said:
2/3rd Scarlet only shoots up to 3k. James asked if he is limited to 2k, 3k, etc. He is limited to 3k, or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

3k obviously on the 2/3", but full frame. The sensor is not cropped. On any of the 35mm versions it will be a 2k crop. A B4 won't cover anything else.
 
Nicholas Shields said:
mmost: The DP of Slumdog has publicly lamented the ridiculous nature of using a backpack with DRY ICE to cool the raid and laptop that was tethered to the SI camera. Please, while the images were beautiful and worthy of great praise, the configuration was a joke at best.

Nick.
Click to expand...

Because a RED has never been packed in ice, or had ice bricks on it? Wake up to yourself. India is a hot place and digital devices aren't treated well by hot conditions.
 
Are you seriously defending the portability of a camera that requires a laptop, raid, cat5 cable and dry ice all packed in an assistant's backpack? As I mentioned very clearly, the camera makes beautiful images but "portable" it is not.
 
caseyhayward said:
I make documentaries for a living and after reading this board I often feel a bit maligned. I have never found myself in a situation where there is "no time to focus." It seems like whenever people start suggesting ways to cut corners with these cameras, documentaries are the rationale.

Jim, please keep the modularity coming, those of us in the nonfiction world appreciate the options.
Click to expand...

There are documentaries and documentaries. Some of them can be done perfectly with manual focus all the way, when you have the proper time for setup and framing, while some require shots that are taken quick, or require unintrusive shooting. I also shoot documentaries myself, and I must say I have been in situations were I just couldn't look properly at either viewfinder or LCD to get "that " money shot. To each his own. I'm just here asking for some questions that I find important for some of the work I do. Jim and the Red team seem open to answer our questions, so what is the problem for asking something like this? Obviously its not a deal breaker question. It is just a feature that I find would be most wellcome for those of us that need that fast focus required for certain shooting situations. Its not like I'm asking for Video Lens autofocus performance- just SLR autofocus for a quick focus lock...

Lately, and I'm a frequent poster to some of the sister sites of Reduser.net, I find supposed "professionals" bashing other users for asking legitimate questions in these boards- not only me, but I'm talking about Ego (Who the heck are you?) bashing here. I'm not condemning the ocasional joke or two- heck, I've even being jocked from being over enthusiastic on the Scarlet and its form factor, but it was in a very tongue in cheek/ funny way. However, there are people that are just plain agressive, attacking even the choice of certain forum users of being anonimous. I have to commend RED and REDUSER for allowing anonimous registrations. I personaly write with an anonimous acronim here because I work in a place where I actually employ some of the RED users in this forum in certain situations, and my job requires discretion. On the other hand, I'm a Filmmaker myself, and am more than enthusiastic about the Scarlet and the way it will turn out.

I don't understand all this Ego discussions happening here lately. Hopefuly Jim and the Red Team will continue the effort of keeping us up to date and answer our questions.

I'm obviously very enthusiastic with the Scarlet: people complaining its form factor must really see the advantage of modularity by the renders posted by the Red Team. I say it again: I'm more than happy by the small form factor that a usable Scarlet can have- almost DSLR like. This is a feature that will open many doors for many shooting situations. The advantage of recording Redcode Raw in CF and having a battery in the handle for stealth and non intrusive shooting will open the door for even more creative shooting. I imagine that if the scarlet was available back then, certainly those Slumdog SI 2k shots would be shot with it. And the beauty is to be able to add all the rest and turn it into a "Proper" cam for wathever shooting situation needed. Keep it up, Red Team. A big cheer from the other side of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top