Lets compare clips to be realistic.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.
 
vic777 said:
The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.
Click to expand...

Silliest statement in this thread.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I'm talking about the 7D's validity as a movie making tool compared to Scarlett. How you make money is non of my buisness and irrelevent to my point.
Click to expand...

There's always something better lurking over the horizon.

For all we know, by the time any Scarlet is available to the general public, there will have been another Canon or Nikon DSLR release or some new Canon DSLR in a video camera form factor that offers much of what the current DSLRs are, apparently, missing.

You'll wait forever waiting for perfection.

There's so much that's unknown about the Scarlet, including whether we'll see it within our lifetimes.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I'm talking about the 7D's validity as a movie making tool compared to Scarlett. How you make money is non of my buisness and irrelevent to my point.
Click to expand...
7D's vialidity compared to the Scarlet???? 7D, GH1, 5Dmkii and hell even the D300s at the moment are waaay ahead of the Scarlet, you wanna know why? Oh I bet you allready know the answer to that one since it's a rhetorical question.

But here are some not as rhetorical questions you ignored so I'll repost them, maybe you missed it while you replied all the other posts around them. I really wanna know man!
Johnny Cola said:
jamesmallonuk said:
I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.
Click to expand...
3-6 months? How are you arriving at this? And it's still not soon enough not to buy anything.

Late November? Um obviously this is prototype territory at best... right?

EDIT: You have been making unqualified statements, in other words you keep saying things about Scarlet and Red as if they were facts... so this really has me curious.
1) Do you work for Red?
2) Do you have inside sources at Red?
Since you extol unrelentingly the superiority of Red cameras and systems in a Canon forum, and champion their cause, obviously you have 1st hand experience with Red in some way
3) Where can we see something you have shot, directed or edited using Red products?
Click to expand...
 
vic777 said:
The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.
Click to expand...

Man come on, we allready have James swinging off the raffters in one direction, lets not start losing our minds in the other, that's not the way to balance things out. :grin:
 
jamesmallonuk said:
Actually it made me even more sure the 7D is a long way from Red Footage. Instead of arguments have a look at some 2K red files http://www.bealecorner.org/red/
Click to expand...

I think it's fabulous as it should be, for the price. Barry rightly points out above that Scarlet's prices and specs are a movable feast - Jim Jannard is no fool, he has built a great company, and I'm sure he is sufficiently attuned to both business and the needs of cheapskate filmmakers to deliver a great balance of quality and value, and I'm sure he's looking at the new offerings and thinking 'bring it!' rather than 'oh ****!'.

I've seen two films in the last few weeks shot on RED (District 9 and Gamer) which looked fabulous and are great advertisements for his products, and one shot on mainly on a Sony F23 (Public Enemies) which came out looking like ****. I I had the financial freedom to do so, I would run out and buy one right now, and I firmly believe that Scarlet is likely to destroy the competition around the $5000 price point - the Sony EX, Canon XL/H and Panasonic HPX lines are all living on borrowed time. Please do not mistake my disagreement with you for dismissal of RED's current or future products.

and tell me what you think, not pixel counting just what the average viewer might think compared to seeing a 7D clip, the ungraded leaves clip shows how flat an ungraded image Red is unlike the Canon look.
Click to expand...

Ah, the average viewer (FX: screeching brakes as the discussion takes a 90 degree turn).

Honestly, the average viewer, knowing nothing of cameras and caring less, will like the 7d footage just fine. It's rich and punchy. You and I know how desirable a flat image is - and I'm sure you know that the 7d footage from Philip is well contrasty - I don't know whether this was on the default setting, or whether this was as smooth as the camera can go; I suspect the former and look forward to hearing from him later. But the average viewer is not attuned to the demands of post and the idea of maximizing dynamic range at the expense of immediate impact, for later optimization in post.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 7d footage out there is as good as it gets, that the camera was pushed to its very limits and will never do better without the aid of a lighting truck. Let's say that the faults in that footage - the yellow cast from the practical lights, the blown-out highlights and purple fringes around them - are just the facts of life for that camera.

What I'm saying is that it's still very good for the price. I am a real hack when it comes to grading (I like directing and shooting is a means to an end rather than a vocation for me), and yet even my ham-fisted efforts were able to recover pleasing skin tones and pull back the most offensive highlight ugliness with little effort. By pushing settings too far (because I am a hack) I can easily see the sins of the codec and the Bad Things that happen when I pull brightness more than a stop or two away from the raw footage. Just looking at the histogram, the blacks are off the chart on numerous shots. And yet, with all its faults, it's easy to get a nice image.

So what this really gets down to is: is the camera good value for someone on a budget who hopes to be able to sell what they shoot with it? And let's assume we're trying to sell an indie movie to a distributor - not for megabucks, but just enough to get it a tiny release and pay back your cost of production, which is what counts as success for a first time filmmaker.

I think the answer is yes (in fact I could say this about a bunch of cameras including the GH1, but...). It's in the same price range as a lightly used DVX for god's sake - and while Philip has a tasty lens on this 90% of people don't care about lens characteristics, they just want the subject to be in focus. The kit lens is adequate and you can rent lenses - this will be just as true for the Scarlet. Aliasing is pretty minimal - zoom in on the glasses and eye of the man at 0:44 and tell me that doesn't look good. The only thing I've found not to like so far is the inability to set custom gamma curves. The only reason I can see not to shoot with it tomorrow is that it won't hit the streets until October.
 
Eddy Robinson said:
I've seen two films in the last few weeks shot on RED (District 9 and Gamer) which looked fabulous and are great advertisements for his products, and one shot on mainly on a Sony F23 (Public Enemies) which came out looking like shi*.
Click to expand...

COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!
Gamer looked amazing and had several distinct looks depending on the story environment that were super fabulous in their own way!!!
Of course this was written and directed by the same guys that did Crank2 which was shot on HDV (XHA1) and AVCHD (HF100); the story of Crank2 is way beyond over the top, and not for everyone, but I just watched it on BlueRay and it looks f-ing good. Anyone who has shot on a 1/3" cam or a small camcorder in the last couple years should really see this movie in HD, I was amazed at what they were able to do.
Obviously I think everyone on these boards should go see Gamer and D9!
 
Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. So why do you keep giving advice and timelines as if you know what's going on? It's disingenuous - at best! And the condescending tone you take towards people who have experience like Barry, who is giving out advice based on the actual facts and his extensive knowledge base is abhorrent. What did they tell you on the Red forums when you kept playing 21 questions? That the camera doesn't exist yet and they don't know when it's coming out and they couldn't tell you the specs or how it performed until it did. THAT's on the Red forums! So why are you taking nonexistent information and degrading people on this forum? Are really that starved for attention? If you need a platform to feel important, go do something, anything and come back and tell us about it, we'll gladly listen to your experience.
 
Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.
Click to expand...

Won't happen. It will take until sometime next year, if life doesn't make things change. In the meantime I have the GH1 and is looking better everyday that goes by.
 
vic777 said:
The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.
Click to expand...

This is the silliest staement in this thread by a mile- Nearly EVERY single innovation in the field of motion picture technology uses film as the base scale for visual quality; because after 100 years or so of making films we (as a world of filmmakers) are now just able to match that same quality with an alternative digital process within these past few iterations of the RED, Viper, F23/35 and now the blooming HDSLR/VDSLRs.

The elusive "film-look" is part of the major reason why this forum and many others like it exist- so anyone with a connection to the internet can connect and find a place to share and collect tips on making their work more "filmic" with video or even how to take their physical 35/16mm film to the next level.

You are outta line on both sides of the discussion here because the OP is concerned with the comparison of the RED systems to everything else and is arguing day and night because he believes that aside from film itself- Scarlett would be the answer for budget-conscious individuals. (i may be off as i am representing someone elses opinion in an abridged form so you must read to get their perspective if you are new the forum)


There will be over 200 (or waaay more) major film releases by the bigger film studios in the next 24 months and countless comercials that glaze past your eyes daily shot on 35mm or other film formats- while there are wonderful examples of this new inclusion of non-film acquistion across the board; do your research and you will find a majority of the films you will buy a ticket to see on the big screen will still be shot either with a series of 35mm prints from Kodak or Fujifilm. Film is the standard that movies have been shot on since the beginning and like all other things we cannot know where to go without knowing where have we come from;-)

Film will be around for time to come as well as the digital world will grow grow like wildfire so its a matter of choosing what you can afford or gain access to and making it the best.

To the long life of film- sincerely yours,
elijah
 
This thread is probably the most disingenuous one on the entire site (that hasn't been closed by mods). As far as I'm concerned, James has thrown his credibility out the window, and I think that everyone should just ignore him from this point forward.

There are two main problems (aside from all of the quibbling in details so far) with everything that James has said.

1) The thread is based on the premise of what looks acceptably "cinematic" or "film-like" to James. We can spend all day debating with him and providing him with examples, but the truth is that to his eyes and mind, nothing that we present might be good enough for him. And it's not even necessarily that he's so narrow-minded. It's that, at the end of the day, such an evaluation is highly subjective. What looks like film to one person might look like video to another person. And to the average and casual moviegover, and even to most film critics, the distinction probably doesn't even matter. All of that is what I've been trying to get James to understand.

This is why his so-called "advice" is utterly useless. I don't think that any of us here would have a problem if he didn't want to get anything less than a RED for himself but also didn't care about what anybody else used. The problem is that he's insisting that we all wait for the Scarlet and that we're idiots for buying DSLRs in the interim. He might not have used the word "idiot," "stupid," or "moron," but that's clearly what he means when he says that the wise people are the ones who will wait for RED and that DSLRs are a waste of time and money.

2) He confuses himself on what exactly he's trying to recommend. At first, it was about what looks acceptably "cinematic" or "film-like": That was the original point of this thread. Then he started talking about owning a piece of "industry-standard" technology. These are clearly two separate issues, but I'm not sure that he understands that they are. And if he does understand, then he's employing sophistry in his arguments. If his ultimate point is about the technology, then of course nothing less than RED could possibly compare. I think that we all have shown that there is no disagreement there.

If, instead, it's about the "look," then I don't know why we're debating. It's subjective. If you don't like the look that a camera does for you, then don't buy it. Debating about "looks" is kind of pointless. And yet, "looks" are still a part (though a thankfully waning part) of debates between 5D, GH1, and D90 users. Discussing usability issues is way more objective, but still rather subjective, than the aesthetics of a camera's image. Some people don't like the way that 5D footage looks; others love it. Same goes for the GH1 and the D90/D5000/D300.

Note to James: Just because you don't think that any given footage looks like film doesn't mean that anybody else agrees with you, and just because we disagree with you over the look of any given footage doesn't mean that we're "idiots" or "blind." We have just as much a right to our own opinion as you do yours. So how dare you talk about the image quality that we "deserve" when we, as autonomous, thinking adults, can decide for ourselves what we deserve!

In that light, the original post seems like trolling to me. I vote that this thread be closed, because I don't see the potential for any more productive discussion on this topic.

But since the discussion has veered away from providing examples like James originally wanted, I'd like to throw one more in there. The teaser trailer for "Casulo" is one of the best, most "filmic" DSLR samples that I've ever seen: http://www.vimeo.com/5133770

I think that I have a very discerning eye when it comes to the film look, and for me there's definitely an "uncanny valley" thing going on with most well-done video footage that looks close, but not close enough, to film. To my eyes, "Casulo" looks just like film. If that doesn't convince James, then I think that nothing will. Now, shall I try to dig up some RED footage that looks like video?
 
jamesmallonuk said:
Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.
Click to expand...

at this point I would like to see where this is going because i'm not understanding what your grounds of argument is- based on the premise that what you are saying consistently is that something that doesn't exist yet will defeat something that does...

the Scarlett spec sheet will not be able to shoot my next feature but anything between a 5dmkii, 7d, gh1, hv20, pd170, arri 435, si 2k mini, hvx or genisis will get the ball rolling alot further than the light that bounces off my screen as i look at only proposed 3d images of a wonderful camera (ahem, which is scarlett).

I completely agree once again with everyone else here that IF/WHEN it comes that the RED Scarlett in nearly all of its incarnations will more than likely be the best bet proper camera in beating the niche market now being smashed by dslr's and a certain share of pro shooters... I think this issue should be best left alone until the things come out then we can compare the apples to oranges and watermelons (because essentially that'd describe what this all is anyway;-)
 
ydgmdlu said:
But since the discussion has veered away from providing examples like James originally wanted, I'd like to throw one more in there. The teaser trailer for "Casulo" is one of the best, most "filmic" DSLR samples that I've ever seen: http://www.vimeo.com/5133770
Click to expand...

I found this discussion threw up a lot of passionate opinions, never been insulted so much for giving my personal opinion on a camera. :grin:

This is my honest opinion and with no agenda I find that clip is just TOO video looking to my eyes and I'm brave enough to have that opinion even if the world thinks it is, its just my opinion. Sure its quite clean and has some pleasing bokeh but my brain at no point believes it is a movie. I started this thread to pose the question among all the sudden frenzy of everyone saying they will buy a 7D. My reason was to maybe save people from the effort to buy and equip the 7D to be patient for the Scarlett thats all. My target was not hobbyists or just video production workers but Indie-filmakers wanting to produce a serious short/Documentary and wanted to give it the best chance of success commercially.I have no furthur thing to add to this discussion, if you agree with my point maybe you'll wait for the Scarlett and if not I wish you you all the luck in the world using the 7D. Many of you guys are awesome.......and your work deserves a camera that will convince others of that.:beer:
 
Jeebus guys, with all the effort you've put into this thread we could have had 24p and no auto audio gain on the 5D mk2 firmware twice over... :beer:

The 5D is the available, closest to usable camera a budget minded shooter (that is actually shooting NOW & not typing) needs support for. Maybe we can direct some of this anger into calling Canon to request the firmware updates we desperately need: 1-800-828-4040

Thanks, and don't take all this so seriously. Film is fun. Make some.... after you call Canon.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.
Click to expand...

He said IF everything goes to plan, we'll (no explanation of who "we" is) get "our first look at" Epic and fixed-lense Scarlet in October/November."

Who knows what the hell "our first look" means. For all we know, it could be our first look at an updated brochure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top