RED L.A. photos/what have you's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zakforrest

Member
today at the nuart theater.

you have to see the image full size though or else you dont see the RED EYE!
 

Attachments

  • jimredeyenuart.jpg
    jimredeyenuart.jpg
    115.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
my DP was there and said the footage was simply awesome.

were the shots displayed CC'd or not?
 
just got home (damn traffic) normally a 50 min drive took me 2 hours (im in orange county next to red). anyways.. i was giddy when i first took my seat.. i was impressed witht he footage thats for sure. i wish they would have shown some 2k and 1080 footage.. and did a color comparison with 4k raw and then 4k raw CC. but i really did want to see the differences of 2k... oh well.. next time.

todays showing brought up some questions for me... im really into the viewfinder and definatly want that.. in fact i want the rail. cage. viewfinder and the storage hd.. does anyone have any idea what ballpark price we are talkin for those accessories...? or does the camera come witht he viewfinder stock?
 
seeing the footage the second time, sitting in the very FRONT instead of the middle, was totally insane. i dont think ive ever seen anything like that in my life. it was a raw, new experience. i was tearing up
 
I had been waiting for this moment for a long time... the promise of a digital camera that could shoot film quality type footage. After seeing moving footage on a giant screen I only have one reservation about the camera at this point.

First my impressions:
The stuff shot inside of people with a black background looked as sharp as I thought they would be after seeing samples on the internet. The color reproduction was amazing and the dynamic range was impressive. The best looking shot had to be the Porsche that could have passed for one of those fancy car commercials. Then the samples moved into the exteriors. At the presentation the host said two different lenses were used (the Cooke's and the Red Prime), and I'm curious what shots each were used on. The closeup of one of the girls looked crystal clear. However, when the camera moved into wider shots, the subjects seemed a little soft. I don't know if this is because the subjects were on the edge of the focus, or lighting issues, or whatever. I get the feeling that the Red team was trying to emphasize the DOF drop off in the background, but I'm wondering if by doing this, they didn't get the sharpest focus on the two women. I wonder if anybody else felt the same way, because everytime the shots went wide I thought it didn't look as sharp as the CUs. That's pretty much the only concern. Other than that, this camera is kicking serious butt!
 
I went in, hoping for the best and I feel I got it. As I watched the 4K footage I compared what I saw with what I'd expect to see if I went to watch a movie. RED succeeded beyond my expectations... Good show, fellas... :thumbsup:
 
My friend said the showing was, quote, "packed with every digital cinema nerd in LA.. it was awesome." :D
 
I wasn't able to attend the screening today, but this is something I have been wondering about too. The stills of the "girls on lunch break" are amazing but the closeup of the one girl drinking the milk seems tack sharp compared to the wider shot of both girls.

And now David Stump's color chart shots look a little soft to my eye. So I figured it might be one of these reasons:

1. Frankie is hard to focus and these are just tests anyway.
2. Graeme has stated that he is not applying sharpening like other digital camera's do so maybe I am just used to seeing fake clarity.
3. I am simply not used to being able to zoom in so far to an image and we are seeing past the limits of the circle of confusion.

I still haven't come to a conclusion, but it's good to know I'm not the only one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top