RED changing cinema

pablovi said:
They only saw dailies at the next morning, just like in film.
Click to expand...
On Miami Vice, they put it through an RGB converter on set, to see in real time what they were getting. There was a wee bit of a lag, but that didn't hamper the ops that much. They previewed dailies on a Barco 2K projector same day, also.

And to render it you need a render farm and a lot of time. But If REd cna really give us 4k RAW at 27MB/s it will be a different story.
Click to expand...
Yup. It should be cool to see what they ccome up with. If you can acquire 4K REDcode RAW at 27MB/S, process in REDcine at those rates, and then convert to whatever format and edit, then it's as big an innovation as the camera itself.

Will you be reserving if they can do it ? My advice is to bet they can and reserve it. After Oct. 31st the prices not may be the same :beer:


RED #'s rebel with a clue
 
D_and_G said:
On Miami Vice, they put it through an RGB converter on set, to see in real time what they were getting. There was a wee bit of a lag, but that didn't hamper the ops that much. They previewed dailies on a Barco 2K projector same day, also.

Yup. It should be cool to see what they ccome up with. If you can acquire 4K REDcode RAW at 27MB/S, process in REDcine at those rates, and then convert to whatever format and edit, then it's as big an innovation as the camera itself.

Will you be reserving if they can do it ? My advice is to bet they can and reserve it. After Oct. 31st the prices not may be the same :beer:


RED #'s rebel with a clue
Click to expand...
Miami Vice was shot at 1080. Not 4k


No, I won't be getting a REd camera or any other camera for that matter, I'ma cinematographer and who ever hire me rents the camera I will be working with. Usually a film camera.
 
My understanding is that with RED, while you won't be able to actually monitor at 4K resolution on set, you should be able to monitor with something like real color RGB at 1080p or maybe 2K, while shooting in 4K RAW.
 
If you want instant dailies you could always record an HDCAM or DVCPro 1080p copy simultaneously. It'd also give you a hard backup 'just in case'. Think XDCam workflow.
 
pablovi said:
Miami Vice was shot at 1080. Not 4k

No, I won't be getting a REd camera or any other camera for that matter, I'ma cinematographer and who ever hire me rents the camera I will be working with. Usually a film camera.
Click to expand...

I know (your quote was about the Viper). That's the point.

If seeing an RGB converted image on set, and viewing dailies same day is good enough for a big budget Miami Vice, then complaining about a 'film-like process times' for the small ---> indie productions is counter productive, IMHO. Specifically, I disagree if you think that there is a need to see a fully processed uncompressed 4K image on set. For big budget movies they can follow the Superman/Genesis route. And they didn't shoot REDcode RAW (27MB/s) so the overnight film processing might not happen :beer: :)

Regardless, we'll see how efficient the post workflow
is ...



:beer:



RED #'s rebel with a clue
 
Last edited:
There's been some discussion all over dvxuser (so I figure this thread is as good as any) about 35mm vs. HD and the "overly sharp" look of HD being a drawback to the format (i.e., that HD just can't look as good as film due to the unnaturally sharp image). But I just watched an interview with uber-experienced, Emmy Award winning DP Jody Eldrich who explains that this argument for film over HD is unfounded, specifically because film is JUST AS "OVERLY SHARP" as HD but shooters of film have learned over the decades that filters MUST be used to create an organic pleasing image, while users of HD often don't employ the same cinematic techniques. Eldrich says:

"I've heard a lot of people say that High Definition is too shart and too crisp. Well 35mm film is significantly sharper and resolves more image than does High Definition. I mean, there's not any question about that. But do any filmmakers who are shooting 35mm feature films...go around shooting with no filters? Of course not. They're always using some kind of filtration to make it a little bit softer. Well same in High Def--why would we ever just take a camera, just the way it's set up, and just go out and start shooting and think that we don't need to use any kind of filters."

Eldrich isn't talking about 4K cameras like Red, but it's even more appropriate, since 4K is even that much closer to the resolution of film. I thought it was enlightening, and from the mouth of a guy who knows what he's talking about. People can watch the interview, and more, over at the really cool site www.2nd-unit.tv
 
sean90291 said:
"I've heard a lot of people say that High Definition is too shart and too crisp. Well 35mm film is significantly sharper and resolves more image than does High Definition. I mean, there's not any question about that. But do any filmmakers who are shooting 35mm feature films...go around shooting with no filters? Of course not. They're always using some kind of filtration to make it a little bit softer. Well same in High Def--why would we ever just take a camera, just the way it's set up, and just go out and start shooting and think that we don't need to use any kind of filters."
Click to expand...

Really informative interview! It's abit optimistic to think that images straight of the sensor can produce the same quality we see in Hollywood. I believe the shots Red posted on their site is without any filtration, and though it is sharp it is still pleasing on the eye. So after listening to this interview, the stuff Red has produces so far is even more impressing!!

Would be great to see some Red test with filters and really taking advantage of the tools out there.
 
sean90291 said:
But I just watched an interview with uber-experienced, Emmy Award winning DP Jody Eldrich who explains that this argument for film over HD is unfounded,
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that although he is a talented DP, in the last year and a half he has been somewhat of a prominent, and probably paid, shill for Sony.
 
It seems to be no one is really talking about Red changing Cinema....

Digital changed the film industry just like it changed the music industry, just much more slowly.

Red is just another step down the digital path. It may accelerate the use of digital aquisition, or it may not, time will tell.

I can't see why both film and digital aquisition can't be part of the standard workflow. As long as the post is all digital, I don't care what it's shot with.

It wasn't like there was a heavy industry lobbying for replacing film aquisition.

I can see why studios want digital distribution and I say that's more benificial for indies than digital aquisition.
 
All the digital vs film talk just shows how complicated it can be to have a good post workflow.

It's one thing if someone else is paying for implementing that workflow, but another when money is more precious than time.

Many indies will be upgrading from their DV cameras. Jumping from a DV tape workflow to a 2k/4k tapeless workflow is going to be interesting, and we'll see how many tools enter the marketplace to help indies out.

The Viper workflow for Zodiac is online and it's complicated and expensive. Shooting with Red will probably be less expensive, but that doesn't mean it will be less complicated, even with RedCine, FCP and whatever other tools we'll end up using.

Since you don't have DV's lower resolution or film grain to hide set flaws, poor lighting, or bad makeup, I bet audiences will notice the huge differences in production quality between low budget and big budget productions when they are shot 2k/4k.

Hollywood productions will demand innovations in make up formulation, production design techniques, and other technologies for improving digital image capture, but how long before any of that trickles down to an affordable price for indies?

It would seem you would have to be more diligent in creating good images when you don't have money to throw at the problem. This may have always been the case, but it'll be even more critical with 2k/4k
 
we will all adapt to whatever changes come in the future ..
there will always be several ways to get around problems ( from low $ to big$) ..
IMO there is no big problems .. makeup - you do a make up test - view it - make adjustments .. same with lighting ... these adjustments will happen fast ...

at the moment studio's with big $$ are the only ones posting in 4k ... with RED making 4k possible for many - lower cost post workflow will follow .. in the meantime we just have to use work arounds that fit our budgets .
 
donatello said:
we will all adapt to whatever changes come in the future ..
there will always be several ways to get around problems ( from low $ to big$) ..
IMO there is no big problems .. makeup - you do a make up test - view it - make adjustments .. same with lighting ... these adjustments will happen fast ...

at the moment studio's with big $$ are the only ones posting in 4k ... with RED making 4k possible for many - lower cost post workflow will follow .. in the meantime we just have to use work arounds that fit our budgets .
Click to expand...

As logical as it sounds, this is assuming testing is being done. There are plenty of filmmakers who go about their merry way without testing and assume any problems they come across can be fixed easily in post.

Lower cost post workflow doesn't mean easier workflow. We'll see how this all evolves in the coming years.
 
film has a certain quality to it, it makes us feel like were in a different place. Digital video on the other hand has a more rough look, more real life. Both formats serve their purpouse well in different situations.
 
I agree with Pablovi....

I agree with Pablovi....

I agree with Pablovi....video still has a long way to go to replicate
the intricracies of film: the natural compression of light, the softness
of color, the exactness of specular grains within each image is what
allows it to look so magical and gives it depth, also, the thing that
video REALLY has a long way to go is the organic move that film
generates through all these factors combined.......
a 24p video camera isnt just gonna make it better.
They've gotta make a camera that looks at life the way film looks at it.
One of these days, a company is going to try to start imprinting these algorithmic nuances into the camera itself, then, they might start
getting MUCH closer. Because POST editing these nuances can only
do so much to something that started out as video:
contrasty, depthless, video-like movement, and harsh colors.
 
The print industry didn't seem to have so much trouble with the transformation. Film is cool for sure, but it is not better than what we will see with video VERY soon. It is different, but not better. More of a pain in the as*, harder to use, more expensive, worse on the environment, and all that, but not better.

RED 258
 
how can you say that film isnt better?
As a whole....film is hands down..better!!!

But as a context,...video is definitely suited for its
needs such as: documentaries, news, certain other formats
if it works for it.

I'm talking about QUALITY of image. Not quality as in
its sharpness. Sharpness is irrelavent anymore.
It comes down to quality in all these small
nuances that I talked about that gives the motion picture
a pleasing and organic quality that video is not calibered
for yet. Thats why Hollywood KNOWS its not the time
yet. Except for those few powerhouses who can afford
to take the HD leap like G.Lucas (which I thought was
bad anyway) however, the movie "Collateral" was superb!
inasmuch, they used 35mm film along with it to pick up
the difference where HD would fall short...and the director
knew that.
Yes, video is different, and I'll go ahead and agree to that. As
long as you use it in its proper place, it works. And, like Collateral,
Hollywood can find ways to make it work pretty good, but
as a whole, film is still way ahead in the race!

I personally think Lucas ruined Starwars!
But the guy basically owns California, so who am I! HA!
 
Last edited:
taken from another post in this RED FORUM:

"I've heard a lot of people say that High Definition is too shart and too crisp. Well 35mm film is significantly sharper and resolves more image than does High Definition. I mean, there's not any question about that. But do any filmmakers who are shooting 35mm feature films...go around shooting with no filters? Of course not. They're always using some kind of filtration to make it a little bit softer. Well same in High Def--why would we ever just take a camera, just the way it's set up, and just go out and start shooting and think that we don't need to use any kind of filters."
Emmy Award winning DP Jody Eldrich

Also some filters that can help with the super detail of HD.

Some interesting hdtv-centric filters from Tiffen.

http://www.tiffen.com/pressreleasehdtvfx.html The Tiffen Company has introduced the HDTV/FX filter line to the motion picture, broadcast, and still photographic markets. With the increase in HD production for both TV and Motion Pictures, HDTV/FX filters address both contrast and sharpness issues associated with HD.
HD video is very high contrast than traditional film. The HDTV/FX filter takes the edge off undesired "tack sharpness" associated with HD. It creates a "Film Look" by reducing contrast and also provides subtle improvements in shadow detail. The HDTV/FX filter smoothes out unwanted detail and makes people look their best, especially when shot on HD without evidence of filtration. Although results may be very subtle with still photography, the effects of the HDTV/FX are seen more substantially with digital and video applications.
HDTV/FX filters are available in ¼, ½, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 densities in sizes 4x4, 4x5.650, 6.6x6.6, 138mm and 4-1/2" and in screw-in sizes 52mm-82mm for the digital and still photographer and videographer.
 
"The Viper workflow for Zodiac is online and it's complicated and expensive. Shooting with Red will probably be less expensive, but that doesn't mean it will be less complicated, even with RedCine, FCP and whatever other tools we'll end up using."

I think RED is tackling complication head on by providing a very simple workflow. As their website states :SIMPLE. 4k TO ANYTHING.
 
There was mention that 35mm/65mm is equal to 2k resolution.

This is wrong, the full resolutions for 35mm is 4k, 35mm Vistavision is 6k, 65mm would be 8k.

Until recently it was impossible to efficiently work in 4k because of the storage and processing requirements. It's still hard to do visual effects work in 4k, since it requires way more resources.

8k is still inefficient, except for archving.

35mm film can be scanned at any resolution, but working in a resolution above 4k won't be be of any benefit.
 
Just another thought.....

They spent about the same amount of money to shoot
Starwars in HD, do all the magic, and transfer it to 35mm
film...then it would have costed the same to just shoot
the thing on film to begin with.
Transferring video to film is OUTRAGIOUSLY expensive.

I can understand to fact of video is EASE OF USE, and
you have UNLIMITED FOOTAGE. But its just not there
yet! sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top