zakforrest
07-03-2006, 09:38 AM
At first I was sad to see the lack of shadow detail in Superman Returns. Even though it is not shot with the Red camera, I figured the Genesis might be a fun comparison for me in the theaters while I wait for my red camera to arrive. Then a friend who read an article told me that Newton Sigel did tests with the Genesis, and found that there was only a 1 stop difference in the range, and he commended its performance in the blacks. So he basically carried on as if the Genesis was 35mm film, only taking into consideration the highlights. I guess the final product up on screen, which at first disapointed me, has the blacks CRUSHED to hell... Anyway, does anyone know so far, based on whatever stats we have been given, know a ballpark of how the Red One will perform in the UNDEREXPOSURE/LOW LIGHT?
I am going to be using my Red camera to shoot 2/3 of a feature (the first third was already shot on 35mm), shot entirely with natural light, with lots of low light situations. I have shot several scenes of the film on 35mm already, all entirely underexposed, and it looks great. I am wondering if I will be able to use the Red One in the same manner as I have been using my Arri BL3 with Zeiss Superspeeds at T 1.3, all the way open, with the light being around f1.0 most of the time, shot on 5229 Vision2 Expression 500T.
I hope some of the cinematographers shooting tests with the bread box will shoot some things in natural light, underexposed!
It will be interesting to see what RED images look like underexposed, and then brightened up in post (or perhaps left alone!), compared to what I have already done with film in the same manner.
I know cinematographer Harris Savides has used the Viper many times already and also shot the new David Fincher film with the Viper. Savides underexposes film to hell and back, creating such a thin and delicate negative which is so gorgeous because it rides the edge so close. It seems like if he took one more small step with his work the image would just fall apart, but right there at that fine line, where its such a delicate balance of underexposure, it becomes incredibly beautiful. I am interested in seeing what Harris Savides does with the Viper in the new Fincher film, because he wont be able to do his usual chemical tricks he does with underexposed film. I wonder if he will underexpose the Viper and bring it up in post, or if he will just use an entirely new approach to digital cinematography.
Savides, a great inspiration for me, always uses movie lights. In my film I am using entirely natural light. I pray the Red camera will let me do what I have already been doing for years with 35mm (and getting amazing results).
So, any speculations or thoughts? I don't know what the "65db" on the website translates into. And yes, I am aware that even if a camera has the same range as film, the 5229 stock I am shooting on currently DOES have a serious look to its own, one that might be extremely hard to reproduce. But then again, maybe not, maybe in post its not a problem to try and match it up. Either way, matching the softness of the 5229 is not so much a concern with me, if the camera has a different look than the 5229, but still has great performance in underexposure/low light, I will be extremely happy with my Red One....
(this was crossposted in DVinfo.. if that is not allowed or something let me know, this is my first post to both forums.... =]
I am going to be using my Red camera to shoot 2/3 of a feature (the first third was already shot on 35mm), shot entirely with natural light, with lots of low light situations. I have shot several scenes of the film on 35mm already, all entirely underexposed, and it looks great. I am wondering if I will be able to use the Red One in the same manner as I have been using my Arri BL3 with Zeiss Superspeeds at T 1.3, all the way open, with the light being around f1.0 most of the time, shot on 5229 Vision2 Expression 500T.
I hope some of the cinematographers shooting tests with the bread box will shoot some things in natural light, underexposed!
It will be interesting to see what RED images look like underexposed, and then brightened up in post (or perhaps left alone!), compared to what I have already done with film in the same manner.
I know cinematographer Harris Savides has used the Viper many times already and also shot the new David Fincher film with the Viper. Savides underexposes film to hell and back, creating such a thin and delicate negative which is so gorgeous because it rides the edge so close. It seems like if he took one more small step with his work the image would just fall apart, but right there at that fine line, where its such a delicate balance of underexposure, it becomes incredibly beautiful. I am interested in seeing what Harris Savides does with the Viper in the new Fincher film, because he wont be able to do his usual chemical tricks he does with underexposed film. I wonder if he will underexpose the Viper and bring it up in post, or if he will just use an entirely new approach to digital cinematography.
Savides, a great inspiration for me, always uses movie lights. In my film I am using entirely natural light. I pray the Red camera will let me do what I have already been doing for years with 35mm (and getting amazing results).
So, any speculations or thoughts? I don't know what the "65db" on the website translates into. And yes, I am aware that even if a camera has the same range as film, the 5229 stock I am shooting on currently DOES have a serious look to its own, one that might be extremely hard to reproduce. But then again, maybe not, maybe in post its not a problem to try and match it up. Either way, matching the softness of the 5229 is not so much a concern with me, if the camera has a different look than the 5229, but still has great performance in underexposure/low light, I will be extremely happy with my Red One....
(this was crossposted in DVinfo.. if that is not allowed or something let me know, this is my first post to both forums.... =]