Fake images?

A

arekdv

Active member
The images on the site look fake..

Specifically the porsche and the closeup of the watch.

They look 3D modelled/rendered porsche looks composited,

OR..

is it just that good?
 
tonacidigital said:
Even though you are implying the possibility that the RED team is lying to all of us..I think they will just take your statement as a compliment =)
Click to expand...

Well, let's consider for a minute that Jim is in fact totally mad (it does say so on his business card after all) and that the camera is all a big fake, this whole rigmarole purely for his own amusement. I mean, he's got the money to waste on a big joke like this after all, right?

So, what about Ted, Graeme, Stuart and everyone else? Y'know, the guys who can't afford to have their reputations and careers totally smashed? D'ya not think that maybe they'd have noticed by now that something doesn't add up...
 
didnt u know that red shoots in CGI out of hte CAM lol!!!!! All it needs is a flux capacitor add on :D
 
As much as I love seeing the footage they've aquired so far, I think the best representation of what the final "look" will be might not come for a little while. That's when the fun will begin. Seeing it shoot in a variety of conditions, under different styles of lighting, etc. Probably not fair to judge anything based on what has been posted so far, except to say that it looks great in the shots they have taken, and is very promising.

Not sure I would consider CG a compliment in regards to the look by the way. If you just mean clean, as in no noise, then that's cool. But I for one don't want the footage to look like it was created in a 3D program. I do want clean, natural looking footage that can be tweaked in post to attain a variety of looks and styles. I think with Jim's love of photography, we will see great images coming from this camera.

Steve
 
When Canon released the first photos from one of their pro SLR cameras, one of them was a studio shot of a silverware place setting. It was apparently done under a diffusion tent to get uniform reflections. The shot was spotlessly clean and many people complained it looked fake. People are not used to seeing perfectly smooth, unscratched, dust-free surfaces under highly controlled lighting, photographed with very low noise sensors. Such setups can look more like CGI than most of the dent-and-scratch-filled real world.

Another point is the Red sensor seems to have a big dynamic range, so an unprocessed image will look too "flat". We're used to seeing sensors blow out the highlights. Of course the big range is an advantage; you can do more in post with that material to get any desired look.

I actually thought the motion clip looked synthetic, until I noticed the small dust spots on the lens. You can see noise and imperfections in all the photos if you do push it far enough with sharpening and/or levels adjustment in photoshop.
 
Last edited:
stevesherrick said:
Not sure I would consider CG a compliment in regards to the look by the way. If you just mean clean, as in no noise, then that's cool. But I for one don't want the footage to look like it was created in a 3D program. I do want clean, natural looking footage that can be tweaked in post to attain a variety of looks and styles. I think with Jim's love of photography, we will see great images coming from this camera.
Click to expand...

I actually wouldn't mind if the footage looks fake since most of my backgrounds and props/objects will be from a 3D program. It will help the real actors and props blend in with the cg. After spending all my money on the camera setup (I still need other studio equipment too), I won't have any money left for location shoots. I'll have to do everything in the studio.

I agree with you though. I want just clean, natural looking footage. As long as the lighting is good, I don't have to worry about making a decision about the final look during shooting, I can just attain the look and style I want later in post.
 
Let die the thread, please?

This sort of title-crap isn't good for anyone...

I just posted now 'cause this is the right moment, not in order to push it. If not I won't dare. The indifference is the best medicine. Eventual suspicions (that someone can figure from that) are a dangerous way.

Aside any good intentions if it was the case, it's just FUD. End of story. IMHO, it should be close.
 
I think it's great if the only complaint people have is that the picture looks too damn clean. This time last year the complaints were about noise. If I've learned anything from this site, it's that people will always find something to complain about.
 
Vindicated!

I think the CGI look is a great look. I hate natural colors, grain, analog, weave, that's grandpa's footage. I want the 'Star Trek' TNG cam, too clean, gigaflops of data, every hair on a ferengi, everything's fake even the garbage look. That's my look that's the look of the future.
 
arekdv said:
The images on the site look fake..

Specifically the porsche and the closeup of the watch.

They look 3D modelled/rendered porsche looks composited,

OR..

is it just that good?
Click to expand...

Nope, once the camera is released and the cat's out of the bag Jim is moving to Siberia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top