Red Scarlet footage anyone?

How does one know the images will be identical to the epic? Has one used it? Yes you need to take risks but a stock investor will take smart risks. If you need a great cinema camera and are prepared for the 4k workflow and your clients are... Go for it. If you are unsure wait a little bit. See how the reviews are. Spend that 20 grand on lighting or camera support tools or a proven lens... While you wait. Your images will improve just as much as taking a risk on a camera that does even have sample footage yet. Even the c300 had footage already
 
Razz16mm said:
Acquisition resolution and finish resolution are two different things. Most major films finished at 2k are still acquired on a 4k resolution medium, film, and scanned at 4k before being reduced to a 2k DI. The whole point of high resolution digital cameras is to match or exceed the quality of 35mm film acquisition in most ways. Oversampling resolution produces better images at the lower resolutions, lower noise and higher MTF for better detail without artifacts.
Click to expand...
No, most Hollywood films are scanned at 2k overall. 4k scanning is still primarily just for VFX shots, or the absolute largest budget films.
 
Razz16mm said:
Acquisition resolution and finish resolution are two different things. Most major films finished at 2k are still acquired on a 4k resolution medium, film, and scanned at 4k before being reduced to a 2k DI. The whole point of high resolution digital cameras is to match or exceed the quality of 35mm film acquisition in most ways. Oversampling resolution produces better images at the lower resolutions, lower noise and higher MTF for better detail without artifacts.
Click to expand...

The movies that Duke M. mentioned were all shot at 2k or 1080p. Interestingly enough the only indie film of the bunch, Slum Dog, was shot at the higher resolution (2k) while Avatar and Benjamin Button were 1080p.
 
reem12 said:
No footage anyone???
Click to expand...
Go look ar the 1st scarlet thread in recon on reduser, the last few pages are the raw stills pulled from a 4k motion stream. R3d movies are pretty big, and no ones forking over the space or bandwidth.
 
After going to a 4K cinema screening last night, comprised of 10 short films all shot on Epics - I've got to say my enthusiasm for Red footage has cooled considerably.

The images did have plenty of detail, but I couldn't say I noticed any real benefit to that compared to an 1080p screening of Drive that I saw the night before.

The real shocker was noise. Good lord, I haven't seen such obviously noisy cinema projected material since the Miami Vice movie that was shot on the Thompson Viper. And it wasn't just in nighttime/lowlight scenes. It was there in the shadows and practically any dark part of even brightly lit scenes. It was glaringly obvious.

To be honest, the comparison seals the deal for me. I'll stick with 2K/1080p and greater sensitivity, tonality and cleanliness.
 
All I know is that I thought Drive looked awesome. That level of quality would keep me happy for a thousand years while we all concentrate on telling interesting stories...
 
In fairness to the EPIC, ten films shown at a film festival aren't good testing platforms for how noisy the cameras are. Were they studio pictures like Drive? Or Indies?
No doubt in my mind the Alexa (for Drive) does better in low light, since it's native ISO is said to be 800 ASA vs Mysterium X 320 ASA.
Most likely ten indie filmmakers are going to be pushing the ISO on the EPIC out of its optimal asa settings, which introduces noise, especially in night scenes.
 
Doctor Wu said:
In fairness to the EPIC, ten films shown at a film festival aren't good testing platforms for how noisy the cameras are. Were they studio pictures like Drive? Or Indies?
No doubt in my mind the Alexa (for Drive) does better in low light, since it's native ISO is said to be 800 ASA vs Mysterium X 320 ASA.
Most likely ten indie filmmakers are going to be pushing the ISO on the EPIC out of its optimal asa settings, which introduces noise, especially in night scenes.
Click to expand...

But that's what I'm saying, even in brightly lit scenes that were clearly shot at a low ISO there was a tonne of noise in the shadows (any dark part of the frame) and this was in every film, in every shot that I could see. I was really quite shocked by it. I'd assuming operator error for a few of them, but it was every single one.

I don't know if it's something that's better hidden in 2K projection and whether it's the 4K projection that highlighted it, but it was painfully obvious.
 
Grug said:
But that's what I'm saying, even in brightly lit scenes that were clearly shot at a low ISO there was a tonne of noise in the shadows (any dark part of the frame) and this was in every film, in every shot that I could see. I was really quite shocked by it. I'd assuming operator error for a few of them, but it was every single one.

I don't know if it's something that's better hidden in 2K projection and whether it's the 4K projection that highlighted it, but it was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was a problem introduced in projection? I'm working on a project shot on both MX and the original M sensor, and the only noise is on a couple shots that needed to be pushed to 1600 and 3200 ISO. Also you can't entirely eliminate operator error, there are a ton of Red cameras out there...
 
Grug said:
But that's what I'm saying, even in brightly lit scenes that were clearly shot at a low ISO there was a tonne of noise in the shadows (any dark part of the frame) and this was in every film, in every shot that I could see. I was really quite shocked by it. I'd assuming operator error for a few of them, but it was every single one.

I don't know if it's something that's better hidden in 2K projection and whether it's the 4K projection that highlighted it, but it was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

For properly exposed footage, where one places the cutoff for visible noise vs deep shadow detail is very much a creative choice with raw files. Also high quality downscaling to 2k will result in more cleaner noise free footage too. If you compare Alexa and Epic at 2k there is not much difference. Personally what some people call noise I call texture. But unless you know the details of the entire process chain, including what format and how it was encoded for 4k display, you can't critically judge the camera itself based on a finished product. That goes for Alexa too. You could just as well say that you prefer the way Drive was graded to the way the festival films were graded.
 
hey Grug, is this what yuo are referring to?
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67298-scarlet-noise-and-need-help-with-redcine-x-denoise

Grug said:
After going to a 4K cinema screening last night, comprised of 10 short films all shot on Epics - I've got to say my enthusiasm for Red footage has cooled considerably.

The images did have plenty of detail, but I couldn't say I noticed any real benefit to that compared to an 1080p screening of Drive that I saw the night before.

The real shocker was noise. Good lord, I haven't seen such obviously noisy cinema projected material since the Miami Vice movie that was shot on the Thompson Viper. And it wasn't just in nighttime/lowlight scenes. It was there in the shadows and practically any dark part of even brightly lit scenes. It was glaringly obvious.

To be honest, the comparison seals the deal for me. I'll stick with 2K/1080p and greater sensitivity, tonality and cleanliness.
Click to expand...
 
Razz16mm said:
For properly exposed footage, where one places the cutoff for visible noise vs deep shadow detail is very much a creative choice with raw files. Also high quality downscaling to 2k will result in more cleaner noise free footage too. If you compare Alexa and Epic at 2k there is not much difference. Personally what some people call noise I call texture. But unless you know the details of the entire process chain, including what format and how it was encoded for 4k display, you can't critically judge the camera itself based on a finished product. That goes for Alexa too. You could just as well say that you prefer the way Drive was graded to the way the festival films were graded.
Click to expand...

Well after all I'd heard about the detail Epic captures in the shadows, I was quite excited to see how it performed. But the noise was so significant and blocky, that most of the time it obscured any extra detail the shadows might have held. I was actually far more impressed with how Epic handled highlights than I was shadows.

J Davis said:
hey Grug, is this what yuo are referring to?
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67298-scarlet-noise-and-need-help-with-redcine-x-denoise
Click to expand...

Not quite, the stuff I was seeing was larger and blockier with more colour noise (particularly blue). I've tried to find a more appropriate screengrab to help illustrate it, but this is the best example I could find (I was seeing that same level of blockiness and colour noise in the shadows of even brightly lit scenes):

9mlJw.jpg
 
"To be honest, the comparison seals the deal for me. I'll stick with 2K/1080p and greater sensitivity, tonality and cleanliness."
otherwise known as the Arri Alexa.
This is why this camera has become hollywood's star, it is as noiseless as anything i have ever seen.
 
I'll stick to 1080p until I see a $1500 4k monitor at Bestbuy. The only thing I could justify shooting 4k is the ability to reframe an image in post. I'll just use the whole frame in my 1080p cam. It's called composition and being a photographer. Raw, 4k... Just another way to make photographers lazy.
 
I like RED RAW. I've seen so results from RedOneMX that I absolutely loved. EPIC and Scarlet are only "better". 4k? Not thrilled. It will only take my computers to their knees. The only reason I can see to do 4k is if you plan to crop to 2.4 ratio. Then it makes sense to keep resolution. But really, if you are going to be doing a legit screening and filming for 2.4 in cinema, shouldn't you be renting anamorphic lens kits anyway?
 
dustylense said:
I'll stick to 1080p until I see a $1500 4k monitor at Bestbuy. The only thing I could justify shooting 4k is the ability to reframe an image in post. I'll just use the whole frame in my 1080p cam. It's called composition and being a photographer. Raw, 4k... Just another way to make photographers lazy.
Click to expand...

LOL! smh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top