RED at DV EXpo

We know the sensor works - call me shallow but I would like to see a working model that looks a bit less industrial, that you could put on your shoulder without embarrassement...c'mon boys, house it in a film-camera shell...
 
They'll get there. They said they'd build the first prototype sometime in December. So let the schedule play out... so far they haven't missed a date yet.
 
Zig_Zigman said:
We know the sensor works - call me shallow but I would like to see a working model that looks a bit less industrial, that you could put on your shoulder without embarrassement...c'mon boys, house it in a film-camera shell...
Click to expand...

OK Mr. Shallow... :-)

1st off, we aren't done with anything. 2nd, we can't please everyone. For everyone that likes what we are doing, someone else will want us to put the sensor in a 435. We aren't making a film camera so it is a bit hard to emulate one. You can't fit all the boards we have in a thin body. We have moved the design around a ton of times in an effort to fit everything inside that needs to be there, provide room on the outside for all the inputs and outputs, create opportunities for modularity and solve the aesthetic issue. Add cages, EVF, lens to sensor block, let alone get the thing to work as promised. We have our hands full.

Jim
 
Jim,

We can't please everyone but you will please the majority for sure. Your speciality, our faith and without any quality commitment or any other as it is the trade mark of all your tradition as supplier wherever is your business. It's the best warrant we could find.

I like the design! Very much indeed. A true digital camera not an old fashion one. Lightweight and small form factor as far as possible. What we could ask before. What could we ask more?

E.
 
Well, I'd already given up on it looking like an Arri LOL...I suppose some semblance of "cameralike" while retaining a reasonable shoulder balance would be fine....

Well, who am I kidding - I'm buying it even if it looks like Stillbirth of Frankenstein.
 
i dont think its a question of pleasing everyone. in the case of red, the people who want it to look like a 435 are just wrong, and their wishes should not be granted. if they arent pleased with the red design then they have to deal with it, red isn't making a film camera. go get a D-20...blabla...
 
IMHO a camera this revolutionary should look like it. The aesthetic that I have seen from Red so far I find very compelling. Does it matter what a tool looks like? Clients who don't grasp a lot of the technical mumbo jumbo are often impressed by the way a rig looks. In any case, there is a certain gestalt to design work that reaches for the best integration of form and function. Both with Oakley and the logos, renderings, etc from Red I have seen thus far I expect an extraordinary final design from Jim and the Red Team for the RedOne. Long live the Rebellion!

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19
 
The only retro look I would like to see implemented is that only one coming from that shooting @the_gus_station. :)
 
showed on a loser 1080P monitor

showed on a loser 1080P monitor

showed on a loser 1080P monitor
Click to expand...

I thought 1080p was state of the art. I saw one at Sears yesterday.
TVs have come a long way, but the cameras, untill Red came along, haven't changed much in 20 years.
http://www.totalrewind.org
(pics are from the link above which is a virtual museum of the VCR.)
 

Attachments

  • portapak.jpg
    portapak.jpg
    9.3 KB · Views: 0
  • prt_ad11.jpg
    prt_ad11.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 0
  • prt_ap31.jpg
    prt_ap31.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 0
ok guys... i know we all concider ourselves camera nerds.. but about the "softness/smoothness" issue.. or "camera isnt sharp enough" .. do u think our audience will be able to pick out details like that? most people dont even know the difference between film and digital (average person with no camera knowledge at all) let alone sharpness or smoothness to the red.
so everyone RELAXXXXXXXX:) red will be sick...and red will make us famous.
thats all..
 
Yes, it's sharp enough :-) Remember projected film is often sub-hd in resolution due to all the problems in typical projection and the film duplication process.

Noise and grain and "edge-enhancement" add fake detail and sharpness.
 
I was at the first Nuart screening and posted over on DVinfo about the "softness" if you want to call it that.

DP James Mathers and a few other mentioned that they thought it didn't look as "4K" as other 4K footage they have seen. I felt the same way. I thought it looked better than any 35mm projection I have seen. No audience would ever see the difference. Mathers said the projection quality looked more toward 2K than 4.

The issue is a matter of preconcieved expectations going in. Red has talked alot about 4K. People on this and other forums have talked non-stop 4K. It's not unexpected that the footage will wind up being compared to other 4K originated footage.

Some people who have seen some other 4K originated/projected footage have have said that Red footage wasn't as "sharp" as they expected. The word "sharp" here is simply the subjective, comparative look to the eye. It is does not convey the various "image enhancement" techniques camera makers have employed over the years under the terms "sharpning" or "sharpness".

I think if you projected "Mystic India" and the early Red footage back to back in 4K you would see a "softer" image on the Red. That doesn't make it worse, just different. The Red team is obviously tuning the camera to the look they want. I have no idea if the "Mystic India" project had "sharpening" techniques applied to the footage.

Mathers specifically stated that he was very pleased with the image. He has reservation #30 according to his post on CML. His said the image was "DAMN GOOD" and that he was not disapointed with anything he saw. He specifically mentioned the "Mystic India" 4K project and a remastering of the "Sound of Music" as 4K footage he thought looked "sharper".

The relentless 4K hype here sort of had me expecting a sort of "new visual experience" beyond what I had seen before. I didn't see that, but what I did see was great. I have not seen a better projected image for theatricals except special venue large format films.
 
Last edited:
Ofcourse, we could have made the image sharper:

taken off the optical low pass filter,
used a more aggressive demosaic algorithm,
applied edge-enhancement
appled local contrast enhancement

etc.

But then you'd have something that was initially totally in-your-face impressive. It would have made you have to wear custom Oakley's to protect your retinas from the information flooding into your brain.

But then everyone would have left with a head-ache, and we'd not have had forum posts about percieved sharpness.

However, the above is not my aesthetic. It's not Jim's aesthetic either.

However, if you want that kind of look, you can still shoot RED and apply it in post, but we believe in not pulling the wool over your eyes about what RED looks like (by faking up the image to look "impressive") and just showing you and telling you like it is.

Graeme
 
Also, to add to the above, I remember seeing the 8k NHK footage at NAB, and subsequently close up at IBC in 4k. While impressive with all it's detail, it was heavily edge enhanced and had the tonal characteristic of very high resolution VHS. That is so polar oppossite to my goal and aesthetic for the image from the RED camera.

With RED, the detail shouldn't be obvious - it should take repeated viewing to spot more and more, just like in real life looking at something. Detail should be there, but with a beguiling depth, and a smoothness that draws you into the image, not a fake sharpness that pulls you back out.

Graeme
 
Come on guys - surely everyone can agree that digital sharpness is the devils work? If what the RED ONE delivers isn't sharp enough then it's most likely because you used that late 1960ies Nikon f1.4 or because your focus puller needs to upgrade his contact lenses :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top