and now with slowmo we have to suffer it even longer. glad the scarlet is not good at that.
Red Scarlet footage anyone?
- Thread starter reem12
- Start date
and now with slowmo we have to suffer it even longer. glad the scarlet is not good at that.
This is actually very good. Best GH2 footage I've seen. But still, look at the highlights, it can't handle them at all. But it doesn't really matter, because the care and attention of everything else is so good that you just accept it as what it is. Very good cinematography.
G
Guest
Guest
and now with slowmo we have to suffer it even longer. glad the scarlet is not good at that.
oh my. haha! =)
Tonaci's samples grabbed on the run tell much about the image quality potential of Scarlet. He and his Scarlet are now shooting a feature film in Viet Nam.
Fact is at any given resolution and compression setting Scarlet looks exactly like Epic. Red's sample reels for Epic came from footage donated by early owners months after the camera was in the field. That is Red's practice, not producing paid for slick marketing footage for advertising campaigns. They solicit sample reels from owners' work. By NAB next year I am sure there will be an impressive sample reel assembled.
C300 entered the market as a complete unknown, Scarlet did not. It is the same MX sensor and processing technology that has been in the field for more than a year now, two years if you count RED1-MX. Scarlet even uses the same firmware as Epic.
Last edited:
PabloOzzy
Active member
Brilliant GH2 example there - I had to watch it again to catch the bad highlights - which says it all really. I was engrossed in the story and masterful cinematography so that technical issues like blown highlights weren't really that apparent or even relevant. Reminds me of when I saw Monsters, shot on an Ex3 which had a lot of VERY noisy low light scenes but was an AMAZING feat of film-making on so many levels. The noisy low light was only something I pondered after the fact and did nothing to detract from the movie.
Give me a blank cheque Id choose an Epic any day of the week. Give me a project with a realistic (for me) budget and the more likely favourite (for now) would look to be the C300. Give me next to no budget then isn't it nice to know we have the GH2 ;-)
Give me a blank cheque Id choose an Epic any day of the week. Give me a project with a realistic (for me) budget and the more likely favourite (for now) would look to be the C300. Give me next to no budget then isn't it nice to know we have the GH2 ;-)
It seems the reason they didnt put up footage is because the scarlet, essentially is an epic with less features.
Watching epic footage is watching scarlet footage. Like the difference beyween the xha1 and the xhg1. Same camera, just one has less features.
Watching epic footage is watching scarlet footage. Like the difference beyween the xha1 and the xhg1. Same camera, just one has less features.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Something I hope people gain an appreciation for as Scarlet footage comes out is the very many ways RED footage can "look". Many people tend to grade for a very high-detail look. But RED can make some great softer images as well.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
It also looks like Tonaci will be putting some more together for people to look at soon...
Post at REDUSER.net
Post at REDUSER.net
wannabeapilot
Well-known member
thats a very impressive screen cap, its really really sharp
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Greg Williams is the man.
Grug
Veteran
I've found one of the most frustrating things about Red footage, is that so much of it is shot with a shallow depth of field, that you lose a lot of the advantage of having so much potential for detail in the 4K frame.
I noticed something this weekend watching TV. During the commercial breaks they were showing all the trailers to the coming movies. One was Soderbergs Haywire shot on Red and another was Girl with the dragon tattoo shot on Red and then Mission Impossible Ghost protocol shot on Film. When the Ghost Protocol trailer came on the screen just popped with clarity and color and the Red trailers looked dulled and creamy. Now it could be director choice in post or it could be the inherent baked in nature of the REd but damn what a difference. For me the excitement of Raw and 5k was diminished by its lack of vibrancy.
Its an observation Arthur not just on color but something more. Vibrancy, if you can see beyond just being snide, can mean a bunch of things. Is that too much for that peanut to handle ?
wow, have you been dumped or anything?
i was just giving an info.
anyway, film is film, digital is digital. I'm a pro photographer and went back to film medium format because digital cameras are just not the same. there is some pleasing micro contrast softness, grain, and colors that you can't find in any digital camera, all the colors are super well separated. approaching the same result with digital means painting the photo, working on individual colors, etc. people should just take digital for what it is, digital. I use digital for some works, and film for the rest. like people choose b&w or technicolor or anything that gives a different look. you want a film look, shoot film.
Last edited:
Its not about the film look, its about what film gives to an image. I agree that Red looks a lot of things but good (compared to film or Alexa), but people keep hammering the same specs over and over, and that is not what makes or breaks an image, most of what makes a quality image are 'secret ingredients' that the manufacturers can't and won't publicize.
Most people can't distinguish some aspects of image quality, while others just don't care. Whichever it is, is fine, this is about democratization of film making, so that everyone can create their 'art' without having to depend on third parties.
Everyone now can own a 4K camera and call himself a DP or director... But that doesn't mean they will ever do anything anyone will want to ever see, that's the price they have to pay... they're just another blip in the endless stream of noise.
Sorry but that's just the truth. There's a lot more to being a film maker than owning a good camera... and it usually involves years of bad work...
Unfortunately, some years from now, 90% of the people will feel embarrassed when they look back at now. What was the point of buying a Ferrari when I couldn't even drive a bicycle? If your lucky, persistent, hard-working and talented, by the time you've actually excel as a film maker, any expensive camera you (or your parents) bought, will be an old, dusty retro piece of equipment dying away in the attic. And of which didn't contribuite a single bit to making you what you (hopefully) will become.
Spending money on a good camera is for most, the easy way to call themselves a film maker. A copout.
Right now, I still believe a DSLR is the single most important piece of equipment a future film maker can have. On the other hand, if you're already a celebrated film maker, you know that the last thing you will spend your hard earned cash on, is a + 10.000 camera...
But of course there are all kinds of business and some do require people to own their own camera, but those are by my guess just a minority here... the problem is, 99% of the people want to become film makers by tomorrow, and believe an expensive camera is the quickest way to achieve that... Well, that's going to be a short and uneventful ride...
By the way, Ghost Protocol was shot on Imax, 65mm negative with medium format Hasselblad lenses. Hence the extremely wonderful quality of the image.
Most people can't distinguish some aspects of image quality, while others just don't care. Whichever it is, is fine, this is about democratization of film making, so that everyone can create their 'art' without having to depend on third parties.
Everyone now can own a 4K camera and call himself a DP or director... But that doesn't mean they will ever do anything anyone will want to ever see, that's the price they have to pay... they're just another blip in the endless stream of noise.
Sorry but that's just the truth. There's a lot more to being a film maker than owning a good camera... and it usually involves years of bad work...
Unfortunately, some years from now, 90% of the people will feel embarrassed when they look back at now. What was the point of buying a Ferrari when I couldn't even drive a bicycle? If your lucky, persistent, hard-working and talented, by the time you've actually excel as a film maker, any expensive camera you (or your parents) bought, will be an old, dusty retro piece of equipment dying away in the attic. And of which didn't contribuite a single bit to making you what you (hopefully) will become.
Spending money on a good camera is for most, the easy way to call themselves a film maker. A copout.
Right now, I still believe a DSLR is the single most important piece of equipment a future film maker can have. On the other hand, if you're already a celebrated film maker, you know that the last thing you will spend your hard earned cash on, is a + 10.000 camera...
But of course there are all kinds of business and some do require people to own their own camera, but those are by my guess just a minority here... the problem is, 99% of the people want to become film makers by tomorrow, and believe an expensive camera is the quickest way to achieve that... Well, that's going to be a short and uneventful ride...
By the way, Ghost Protocol was shot on Imax, 65mm negative with medium format Hasselblad lenses. Hence the extremely wonderful quality of the image.
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Every medium has it's "feel". Every film stock is different, as if every digital image capture system.
It's interesting to me, however, that there seems to be so much ongoing debate regarding the RED. Some people say it is has too much color and is too electronic and too exciting. Others say it is dull and lifeless. Some say it has great skin tones. Others say it makes everyone look like their made of clay. Some say the resolution helps their footage look amazing. Others lambast it for being too much and too "sharp". Some say the footage is crisp and clean - like 65mm. Other say the footage is too chunky, too noisy, and without anymore detail than a half-decent prosumer 1080p camera.
I wonder why this is? I wonder if it is more a preference for the final grade and finishing of a work than a preference for the actual acquisition source? So much can be done now with any high quality file that footage can be manipulated rather easily to appear almost entirely different. Had they wanted to, how much of the "vibrancy" from the Ghost protocol trailer could have been captured with a RED? or an Alexa? or an F65?
Once could also look at the natures of the films discussed here as an explanation. Haywire and The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo share some similarities. Both are rather dark, highly emotional works. I wouldn't expect them to have the same vibrancy as a major motion picture action "blockbuster" full of toothy grins, witty one-liners, and generally gratuitous explosions.
Of course, if vibrancy is being used as a synonym for "that magical film feeling" then - yep, I'm afraid I have to agree with Nuno. Digital doesn't have it. And it's interesting to me too, because people can't really figure out what that little missing element is. Some people say it's the different layers of emulsion giving the image a unique softness due to micro-focus differences between colors. Some say it has to do with internal refractions within the medium. Or the organic and random nature of the emulsion itself. Or the grain that is produced in the image. Or the micro-contrast (as Nuno mentioned). Or the dynamic range distribution. Or the inherent latitude. Or the resolution. Or the frame-rate. Or the mechanical shutter. Or the...
It's interesting to me, however, that there seems to be so much ongoing debate regarding the RED. Some people say it is has too much color and is too electronic and too exciting. Others say it is dull and lifeless. Some say it has great skin tones. Others say it makes everyone look like their made of clay. Some say the resolution helps their footage look amazing. Others lambast it for being too much and too "sharp". Some say the footage is crisp and clean - like 65mm. Other say the footage is too chunky, too noisy, and without anymore detail than a half-decent prosumer 1080p camera.
I wonder why this is? I wonder if it is more a preference for the final grade and finishing of a work than a preference for the actual acquisition source? So much can be done now with any high quality file that footage can be manipulated rather easily to appear almost entirely different. Had they wanted to, how much of the "vibrancy" from the Ghost protocol trailer could have been captured with a RED? or an Alexa? or an F65?
Once could also look at the natures of the films discussed here as an explanation. Haywire and The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo share some similarities. Both are rather dark, highly emotional works. I wouldn't expect them to have the same vibrancy as a major motion picture action "blockbuster" full of toothy grins, witty one-liners, and generally gratuitous explosions.
Of course, if vibrancy is being used as a synonym for "that magical film feeling" then - yep, I'm afraid I have to agree with Nuno. Digital doesn't have it. And it's interesting to me too, because people can't really figure out what that little missing element is. Some people say it's the different layers of emulsion giving the image a unique softness due to micro-focus differences between colors. Some say it has to do with internal refractions within the medium. Or the organic and random nature of the emulsion itself. Or the grain that is produced in the image. Or the micro-contrast (as Nuno mentioned). Or the dynamic range distribution. Or the inherent latitude. Or the resolution. Or the frame-rate. Or the mechanical shutter. Or the...
Last edited:
Funny how this "missing element" always disappears when film stock is shot side-by-side with modern digital cameras. The film stocks tend to look much worse. Except for highlight handling. And grain if you like that.