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 :)

The Book of Eli...

Tim H. said:
They used Panavision Primo lenses so that is probably why.
Click to expand...


Maybe there is another reason.
Can't see why the RED camera wouldn't get any credit
just because of the lenses used on it. It's not like lenses
ADD anything to a camera's performance/ability?
Has anyone ever used a lens that INCREASED
a camera's or emulsion's image making abilities? I'm not talking
about lens to lens pros and cons, I'm talking about the
inherent abilities of cameras and emulsions- in this case
the ability of the RED. The issue with lens choice has to do
with NOT compromising what the camera or emulsion is
capable of. And did anyone ever refuse Kodak a credit because
Panavision lenses were used on the shoot?????
 
There's no conspiracy -- the Panavision rental agreement states clearly that there are specific print and screen credit requirements whenever you rent Panavision equipment.

Unless there is a legal agreement in place like that requiring screen credit, it's the producer's and distributor's discretion as to whether to credit a company for providing equipment of any kind. So ask the releasing studio (Warner Bros.) why they didn't put the Red Logo at the end in addition to the Panavision logo. They had to credit Panavision due to contractual obligations but apparently they were not legally required to credit Red. Or they just forgot -- that happens too, more often than you'd think.

I've seen movies shot on Fuji film stock where the end credit said "Kodak" because of contractual agreements between the distributor and Kodak, even if only part of the release print order used Kodak print stock.
 
Just saw this. Bravo for Red One. I found myself not even caring or paying attention to the quality of the "video" or how it was captured. I'd say that's success in my book because without that distraction I was able to enjoy the storytelling...and a great story it was. Loved it.
 
Bill Anderson said:
It's not like lenses
ADD anything to a camera's performance/ability?
Has anyone ever used a lens that INCREASED
a camera's or emulsion's image making abilities?
Click to expand...

We could go on a huge tangent with this one. If you think the lens makes no difference to the image which is ultimately "photographed" then, ummm, well ok.

Bill Anderson said:
And did anyone ever refuse Kodak a credit because Panavision lenses were used on the shoot?????
Click to expand...

The Red camera was not denied a credit because Panavision was given one. Unlike some cameras and lenses (Red for example) you can only use Panavision cameras and lenses by renting them, thus they have every right to require you to give them credit. If you shot this with Arri Cameras and stuck a Primo on them you would have to put the same Panavision credit on there.

So my post was simply stating that they had the Panavision credit on there because they used Panavision lenses. Simply nature of the beast.

See Davids answer above as he is spot on as usual.
 
Tim you're misreading my post: and perhaps I misunderstood
YOUR meaning regarding the use of Panavision lenses being
the reason behind RED not getting a credit. So what do you
mean when you say that RED received no credit because
"They used Panavision lenses so that is probably why" ????

I didn't say lenses make no difference to the image;
I said lenses do not ADD to a camera's or emulsion's
inherent ability. And they don't, they simply reveal what
the camera ITSELF is capable of. And in this context your
statement didn't answer anything. Unless you were hinting
at contractual obligations, as David clearly states.
I am still a bit curious, considering the new trends that
are likely to develop along with allegiances and partnerships.
Is this such an awful thing? We've got our wires crossed.
 
I saw Eli today and I was very impressed. I feel sorry for films that have to compete with Avatar but I thought that Eli was a great film, especially considering that Jan. is a dead zone for films. Anyways, I thought that the footage was great and RED obviously was perfect for the project. I know that everyone in the cinema was unaware of the cameras behind the footage but I knew and it makes me wonder why so many are still doubtful about the quality of digital acquisition.

Little bit of fun info. The printing press featured in the end of the film is owned and operated by my uncle who runs a print shop in New Mexico where the film was shot. I was unable to attend the shoot but he told me that a crew of about 50+ people were at his shop with 3 RED cams and around 25 lenses, plus lights and the works for 3 days. 3 days of filming for around 30 seconds of on screen footage, just goes to show you how much work goes into these productions. Hell, I filmed my first short film in three days.
 
Thanks David for this clear explanation. I made my wife sit through the credits since I have a Red and was disappointed to not see the shot on Red logo. I was hoping to get a little appreciation from her for my investment.
 
B Stanford said:
Thanks David for this clear explanation. I made my wife sit through the credits since I have a Red and was disappointed to not see the shot on Red logo. I was hoping to get a little appreciation from her for my investment.
Click to expand...

Well, the whole movie should have been verification enough that you made the right purchase...
 
Well said.
 
just saw this.. insaaaane color grading! converting to RED is the new black.
 
Saw the film Saturday. Didn't care for the story, or basically anything else. The grading is too "gamish" for my taste. As far as the image quality goes, RED proves itself once again.
 
I didn't have any interest in seeing this movie before, but since it's shot on Red I have to. The only other time I saw Red on the big screen was District 9 projected digitally at AMC! The quality is unbelievable! No matter how bad a movie turns out... it's not all a waste if its shot on red.

BTW, long time follower, first time posting. Glad to be part of the group.
 
Gintare Bandinskaite said:
I didn't have any interest in seeing this movie before, but since it's shot on Red I have to. The only other time I saw Red on the big screen was District 9 projected digitally at AMC! The quality is unbelievable! No matter how bad a movie turns out... it's not all a waste if its shot on red.

BTW, long time follower, first time posting. Glad to be part of the group.
Click to expand...

Welcome.

Jim
 
Just saw it last night digitally projected off a Christie. I was bummed cause the projector looked out of focus. Even the trailers before the film looked out of focus but unfortunately there didn't seem to be anyone from the theatre to fix the problem.
As for the film, I really enjoyed it. My only criticism was I thought the matte paintings were aweful! Especially the SF backdrops. Other than that I thought it looked good.
I'm am slightly bummed cause this was the first digitally projected RED film I have seen and I wanted it to shine. I haven't seen Gamer but the film print I saw of Knowing wasn't great either. District 9 actually looked great when i saw it. Sucks seeing Book of Eli this way cause I work with DI out of Scratch fairly consistent now and know how great RED shines digitally projected when everything is correctly calibrated and set up properly. Either way, I enjoyed the film and its another good example of RED in the mainstream market.
 
@mikeburton

I think your post really highlights a frustration that I've had for years and years now. That last link in the chain is killing the image. I suppose that Dolby and it's standards was the first to try and standardize theaters so that you would know you're getting a high quality projection. All the talk on this message board and all the man hours and dollars spent on image quality are just wasted energy when it comes to actually sitting down in the theater. From poor focus to turning the bulbs down to make them last longer to using a print who's best days were weeks ago, it gets so frustrating seeing movies sometimes. I wonder how often the projectors are calibrated, or prints tested. Hollywood is pouring all this effort into stereoscopic images to get people in the theater, maybe if it was just possible to see the movie as it was intended more people would go.

Perhaps as RED pushes into this space with RED 4K things will change a bit. RED team I hope you are listening.
 
Ralph B. said:
@mikeburton

I think your post really highlights a frustration that I've had for years and years now. That last link in the chain is killing the image. I suppose that Dolby and it's standards was the first to try and standardize theaters so that you would know you're getting a high quality projection. All the talk on this message board and all the man hours and dollars spent on image quality are just wasted energy when it comes to actually sitting down in the theater. From poor focus to turning the bulbs down to make them last longer to using a print who's best days were weeks ago, it gets so frustrating seeing movies sometimes. I wonder how often the projectors are calibrated, or prints tested. Hollywood is pouring all this effort into stereoscopic images to get people in the theater, maybe if it was just possible to see the movie as it was intended more people would go.

Perhaps as RED pushes into this space with RED 4K things will change a bit. RED team I hope you are listening.
Click to expand...

I think RED is probably the most frustrated with this issue. I can imagine that's the entire purpose for creating REDRAY or RED4K as it is currently named. Honestly, I think its really only the professionals that know what its supposed to look like that care. The general public could care less IMO. There were probably about 50 other people in the theatre with us last night that probably didn't notice the slight softness of the projection but since I see this stuff everyday, it stands out like a sore thumb. The general public really has no reference point therefore just doesn't really know any better unless its screaming out at them.
The problem is always going to be the individual theatre not keeping their projectors current in calibration and keeping up with new models cause they are soooooooo expensive to purchase and to maintain. The average Barco or Christie 2K Digital Cinema projectors are roughly 65-125K depending on whether or not its equipped with REAL-D or Dolby Stereo. And, the Sony 4K projectors which are few and far between in the whole start at 80k-200k depending on your setup (Old model, not sure what the new models price range is). Times that by 12-25 screens and your talking a major amount of $$$! The industry can create all the standard file formats and direct attach players such as (REDRAY, sorry, RED4K) they can muster but that's not going to compensate for a small town theatre that can't afford to pay for their maintenance or upgrades or focus their projectors. Unfortunately, this is something I don't see changing anytime soon and you just have to pick your theatre experience carefully. After all, your paying how much a ticket now?
 
Saw Eli last night. Put a smile on my face to know I own the same camera that shot those gorgeous images.

I liked the film, but it's not for everyone.

-Thor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top