- Moderator
- #1
Brook Willard
REDuser Sponsor
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,392
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Burbank, CA
- Website
- www.brookwillard.com
Hey folks,
For the past few weeks, I've been the DIT on a pilot J. Michael Muro was shooting [we wrapped last night]. A few weeks ago, Jarred and Keslow Camera arranged for RED to send us Jarred's own personal MX camera to our location days in Chicago for some key night exteriors.
Now over the past few years, I've spent way more than my fair share of days shooting with the RED ONE. I also spend a lot of time [more than might be suggested by how RED-centric I am online] working as a DIT for traditional HD camera systems.
Shooting with the new MX sensor in Chicago impressed me massively. I was hoping for a camera with more dynamic range and a lower noise floor and RED has delivered. The night exterior city footage from Jarred's preproduction firmware MX camera looked better at T4 than the RED ONE M sensor looked at T2.2. Now don't take that as me saying it's "X" stops more sensitive or "X" times better, but for this particular setup [overlooking the river], it was terrific. We ended up shooting the shot at T2.2 on the MX anyways... just to expose to the right as much as possible.
Those of you that went to RED DAY at RED Studios Hollywood would've seen a few of the shots from our project. I wasn't at RSH myself [was teaching the Data Handling training for local 600 in NY], but I'm told that [among others], a shot of Emmy Rossum on the phone was played. I want to give a little information about that particular shot as well.
It was our last shot before switching to night mode, so the whole conversation happens at sunset. The shot starts front-lit, follows Emmy around a patch of hot sky [and snow...] before landing with the sun setting behind her head. There was no fill light, only a ball as an eye light. Those that saw the shot know what they need to know, but to those that didn't, the entire sky [save the sun itself] was not clipped, but there was enough information left in Emmy's face to bring it up without introducing unacceptable noise. It's pretty cool.
Just as with the last example, don't take this the wrong way. It doesn't mean you don't need fill light, it doesn't mean you can expose for the sun and let the rest fall into place, etcetera. But for this particular shot, the exposure that we frankly guessed on seemed to do the trick.
When I'm looking at the MX, I don't think of it as a tool that's going to change the way we shoot movies. I'm not approaching it as something that will stop us from lighting or let us see in the dark - that's just not what it's about to me. To me it's about making what we already do just that much better. We're always going to light, we're always going to give our assistants a decent stop, etcetera. Yes, there are situations where you will be able to get a shot with this camera that you couldn't get with the M sensor... just as there are shots that play at a T1.3 instead of T2.8. There are entire productions that the sensor's sensitivity will enable. But for most productions, a stop or two of dynamic range won't reinvent the wheel.
No matter what tool one uses, there is always a solution. I've not kept my thoughts on certain elements of the RED ONE a secret over the years. Things like sensitivity, ergonomics, etcetera. But like everything else, there is a solution. And for the past two and a half years we've all been shooting with the camera and having a blast. Camera doesn't balance on your shoulder? Invent a way to make it balance. Camera looks noisy if you light it like 500T? Find a new way to light it to communicate your intended look through the scope of what the camera can see. Camera takes 90 seconds to power up? Find a way to keep it running all day. Solving problems is what we do.
So with that in mind, briefly try not to look at cameras in terms of "best" or "worst" - something that many people get a little too caught up on. Every system has pros and cons and every system can have solutions built for its problems. Nobody asks DPs whether they're "converting" over to chromes when they shoot a movie on reversal... why should we talk about "converting" to RED after shooting a movie digitally?
Panavision rocks. Arri rocks. Canon rocks. Sony rocks. Grass Valley rocks. Photosonics rocks. Vision Research rocks. Moviecam rocks. Aaton rocks. RED rocks.
So yeah, the MX is better than the M. Way better. It has a lot more dynamic range and a lower noise floor. Is it "better" than the F35? Does it have more DR? I dunno. I'm not one for OMG BEST CAMERA EVER type statements.
The MX has a few more stops of measurable DR than the M. It also has a lower noise floor, meaning that more stops are usable at lower light levels.
But if we were already lighting for the M sensor and fitting our world into the limitations of that sensor's world, doesn't that just steal all its thunder? Sure, it might mean we see a little further into the highlights or shadows... or maybe that we see a little more of that sunset than we used to... but does that really change anything? If you treat the MX exactly the same way as you treat the M, why upgrade? A lot of people have been asking themselves this question. I don't need the extra dynamic range or sensitivity, I'm happy with the M.
So what's the big deal about this sensor? I didn't really know until last night when I got to spend some time with a production MX camera in a situation I'm familiar with. Shooting off of a roof in Chicago at night or shooting unlit into a sunset are special situations that require special attention. But we have all been in hundreds of night exteriors and day interiors and know what to expect from them. Using the MX camera in a night exterior alongside a few M cameras really made the difference clear to me for the first time.
The MX sensor handles color in a way that I've never seen before with a digital camera. It's miles beyond that the M sensor and RedSpace are capable of. Highlights [brake lights, street lights, etc] maintain their color without pushing to white in a way that the M sensor never did. Shadows maintain color accuracy and saturation [and resolution, due to the noise characteristics] in ways that really impressed me. The subtle shifts of color, light and shadow I was seeing in our talent's faces was fabulous. Putting the T3.5 MX footage up against the T2.6 M footage was almost comical. Like any new tool or film stock, you will need to light differently with this sensor, both in terms of value and character.
RED has delivered something tremendously impressive here. If you own a RED ONE, you would be absolutely crazy not to upgrade. I haven't had enough time with the MX to form real, balanced opinions and experiences... but my initial impression is immensely positive.
I'll be posting more direct experience and footage here very soon. Stay tuned.
For the past few weeks, I've been the DIT on a pilot J. Michael Muro was shooting [we wrapped last night]. A few weeks ago, Jarred and Keslow Camera arranged for RED to send us Jarred's own personal MX camera to our location days in Chicago for some key night exteriors.
Now over the past few years, I've spent way more than my fair share of days shooting with the RED ONE. I also spend a lot of time [more than might be suggested by how RED-centric I am online] working as a DIT for traditional HD camera systems.
Shooting with the new MX sensor in Chicago impressed me massively. I was hoping for a camera with more dynamic range and a lower noise floor and RED has delivered. The night exterior city footage from Jarred's preproduction firmware MX camera looked better at T4 than the RED ONE M sensor looked at T2.2. Now don't take that as me saying it's "X" stops more sensitive or "X" times better, but for this particular setup [overlooking the river], it was terrific. We ended up shooting the shot at T2.2 on the MX anyways... just to expose to the right as much as possible.
Those of you that went to RED DAY at RED Studios Hollywood would've seen a few of the shots from our project. I wasn't at RSH myself [was teaching the Data Handling training for local 600 in NY], but I'm told that [among others], a shot of Emmy Rossum on the phone was played. I want to give a little information about that particular shot as well.
It was our last shot before switching to night mode, so the whole conversation happens at sunset. The shot starts front-lit, follows Emmy around a patch of hot sky [and snow...] before landing with the sun setting behind her head. There was no fill light, only a ball as an eye light. Those that saw the shot know what they need to know, but to those that didn't, the entire sky [save the sun itself] was not clipped, but there was enough information left in Emmy's face to bring it up without introducing unacceptable noise. It's pretty cool.
Just as with the last example, don't take this the wrong way. It doesn't mean you don't need fill light, it doesn't mean you can expose for the sun and let the rest fall into place, etcetera. But for this particular shot, the exposure that we frankly guessed on seemed to do the trick.
When I'm looking at the MX, I don't think of it as a tool that's going to change the way we shoot movies. I'm not approaching it as something that will stop us from lighting or let us see in the dark - that's just not what it's about to me. To me it's about making what we already do just that much better. We're always going to light, we're always going to give our assistants a decent stop, etcetera. Yes, there are situations where you will be able to get a shot with this camera that you couldn't get with the M sensor... just as there are shots that play at a T1.3 instead of T2.8. There are entire productions that the sensor's sensitivity will enable. But for most productions, a stop or two of dynamic range won't reinvent the wheel.
No matter what tool one uses, there is always a solution. I've not kept my thoughts on certain elements of the RED ONE a secret over the years. Things like sensitivity, ergonomics, etcetera. But like everything else, there is a solution. And for the past two and a half years we've all been shooting with the camera and having a blast. Camera doesn't balance on your shoulder? Invent a way to make it balance. Camera looks noisy if you light it like 500T? Find a new way to light it to communicate your intended look through the scope of what the camera can see. Camera takes 90 seconds to power up? Find a way to keep it running all day. Solving problems is what we do.
So with that in mind, briefly try not to look at cameras in terms of "best" or "worst" - something that many people get a little too caught up on. Every system has pros and cons and every system can have solutions built for its problems. Nobody asks DPs whether they're "converting" over to chromes when they shoot a movie on reversal... why should we talk about "converting" to RED after shooting a movie digitally?
Panavision rocks. Arri rocks. Canon rocks. Sony rocks. Grass Valley rocks. Photosonics rocks. Vision Research rocks. Moviecam rocks. Aaton rocks. RED rocks.
So yeah, the MX is better than the M. Way better. It has a lot more dynamic range and a lower noise floor. Is it "better" than the F35? Does it have more DR? I dunno. I'm not one for OMG BEST CAMERA EVER type statements.
The MX has a few more stops of measurable DR than the M. It also has a lower noise floor, meaning that more stops are usable at lower light levels.
But if we were already lighting for the M sensor and fitting our world into the limitations of that sensor's world, doesn't that just steal all its thunder? Sure, it might mean we see a little further into the highlights or shadows... or maybe that we see a little more of that sunset than we used to... but does that really change anything? If you treat the MX exactly the same way as you treat the M, why upgrade? A lot of people have been asking themselves this question. I don't need the extra dynamic range or sensitivity, I'm happy with the M.
So what's the big deal about this sensor? I didn't really know until last night when I got to spend some time with a production MX camera in a situation I'm familiar with. Shooting off of a roof in Chicago at night or shooting unlit into a sunset are special situations that require special attention. But we have all been in hundreds of night exteriors and day interiors and know what to expect from them. Using the MX camera in a night exterior alongside a few M cameras really made the difference clear to me for the first time.
The MX sensor handles color in a way that I've never seen before with a digital camera. It's miles beyond that the M sensor and RedSpace are capable of. Highlights [brake lights, street lights, etc] maintain their color without pushing to white in a way that the M sensor never did. Shadows maintain color accuracy and saturation [and resolution, due to the noise characteristics] in ways that really impressed me. The subtle shifts of color, light and shadow I was seeing in our talent's faces was fabulous. Putting the T3.5 MX footage up against the T2.6 M footage was almost comical. Like any new tool or film stock, you will need to light differently with this sensor, both in terms of value and character.
RED has delivered something tremendously impressive here. If you own a RED ONE, you would be absolutely crazy not to upgrade. I haven't had enough time with the MX to form real, balanced opinions and experiences... but my initial impression is immensely positive.
I'll be posting more direct experience and footage here very soon. Stay tuned.
cant wait!