The Red "LOOK"

polfilmblog said:
The main failure is in the high end bright spots, the highlight roll-off does not look like nature. Nature is the goal (not film). Film happens to mimic nature better than any digital sensor ever created because of its analogue characteristics. This is no trivial matter.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of digital vs. analog since every digital camera uses an analog sensor...there is no such thing as a purely digital sensor (ever heard the term AD conversion in digital cameras? It stands for Analog to Digital...the point at which it happens is a key difference between CCD and CMOS sensors). But yes, highlights are classically a difference between film and digital.

Nit picking aside, I asked for specific examples (I'm particularly interested in examples from the POTC4 trailer as compared with samples from the original films). Because nothing you've brought up is new to the table, and a lot of very smart and talented people have been working with issues like highlight roll-off. All you can really come up with is some ethereal magical non-description without really illustrating the difference. I have a hard time believing it's as clear cut as you make it out when we're an age of extreme digital color grading regardless of capture technology.
 
"It's not a matter of digital vs. analog since every digital camera uses an analog sensor...there is no such thing as a purely digital sensor (ever heard the term AD conversion in digital cameras?"
​
I should have used the word logarithmic as well as analogue. It is the logarithmic roll off toward pure white that makes all the difference in that area. But, apparently you should have known that already, as you're posturing as if you're schooling me on A/D conversion.

The POTC example is so color manipulated that one could hardly call it "captured" imagery vs. painted by a computer imagery. Still, Depp's face looks a bit plasticky.

If you really, truly, haven't noticed a set of characteristics of Red footage generally (which I'm not at all sure I would believe, since it's so prominent) then just swim on.
 
polfilmblog said:
I should have used the word logarithmic as well as analogue. It is the logarithmic roll off toward pure white that makes all the difference in that area. But, apparently you should have known that already, as you're posturing as if you're schooling me on A/D conversion.

The POTC example is so color manipulated that one could hardly call it "captured" imagery vs. painted by a computer imagery. Still, Depp's face looks a bit plasticky.

If you really, truly, haven't noticed a set of characteristics of Red footage generally (which I'm not at all sure I would believe, since it's so prominent) then just swim on.
Click to expand...

I already said it, but I guess I have to say it again...highlights are one of the main focuses in digital cameras, so while yes it's classically been a key difference, it's not like people aren't working on fixing it. One of the things Red is known for is how it reproduces highlights in a smooth filmic way (at least as far as digital cameras go). So this is why I keep asking for a specific example, particularly a comparison. Of course it would be silly to assume it's achieving it completely given digital's history, but as far as I can tell there are no harshly clipping highlights...it all looks pretty smooth and natural to me. But I'd love to see an example where similar lighting from the first movies is rendered differently in the new trailer...same DP, so the difference should be more down to the camera then to style I would think.
 
Sonys and Panasonics have a characteristic look, Canons and Nikons have characteristic looks, different film stocks have their individual characteristic looks too. Why wouldn't RED? There is no such thing as a perfectly neutral accurate capture device. Even the human eye varies quite a bit. Hell my left and right eyes see color differently.
 
"There, you answered your own question.

Congrats.

Move along."
​
No. This post (below) answers the question, to the extent of my knowledge on the subject. If you hadn't noticed, I was asking for TECHNICAL reasons for the plainly evident "Red look" that appears to be "baked in" to their footage, quite in contradiction to their oft-claimed objection to having a "baked in" look.

As for this technical question that received all of zero response -- merely the idea that some people like the look, or hadn't noticed at all -- I suppose that ignorance is chic these days.

I'll "move along" when I'm damned good and ready, confident that I at least attempted to address the issue seriously. Why not take your own advice, and leave the issue to those who can put at least a couple of brain cells together in the service of it.


"The relationship between stimulus and perception is logarithmic. This logarithmic relationship means that if a stimulus varies as a geometric progression (i.e. multiplied by a fixed factor), the corresponding perception is altered in an arithmetic progression (i.e. in additive constant amounts). For example, if a stimulus is tripled in strength (i.e, 3 x 1), the corresponding perception may be two times as strong as its original value (i.e., 1 + 1). If the stimulus is again tripled in strength (i.e., 3 x 3 x 1), the corresponding perception will be three times as strong as its original value (i.e., 1 + 1 + 1). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber–Fechner_law



"Spectral Response of the Human Visual System under photopic conditions
[from Section 17.2.2]

The theoretical perceived (as reported) spectral response of the visual system is given by the luminance channel signal as received at the cortex. This signal is defined by the logarithmic summation of the signals from the individual spectrally selective photoreceptor channels of vision. It should be noted that a logarithmic summation is significantly different from a linear summation under large signal conditions."

http://neuronresearch.net/vision/files/photopiceffic.htm


"Eye intensity response

Eye response to signal intensity (brightness) is logarithmic for the most part (Weber's law). This means that the perceived signal strength is nearly in proportion to the logarithm of its actual strength... At very low brightness levels, rod response follows the square root law (de Vries-Rose Law), changing approximately in proportion to the inverse of the square root of mean retinal illuminance. "

http://www.telescope-optics.net/eye_spectral_response.htm


Linear vs. logarithmic image capture is probably the elephant in the room here.
 
I'll say, from being an avid RED and RED MX user, that the OP isn't delusional or just nitpicking: RED footage has a distinct RED look, shape, feel, and very rarely does it break its own convention.

I'll give you some examples right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq73A-tkJLw - Rabbit Hole (RED (non MX) and Standard Speeds) -- it looks like RED footage, but to me I though they used Master Primes.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/antichrist/ - Antichrist (Lit by one of my fav DP's, shot on RED) -- It looks like RED fooage.

And now...

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/legacy/ - LEGACY (RED (non MX) -- It does NOT look like RED footage for the most part.

OP has noticed something Valid, and if I had to contribute an explaination I'd have to say it boils down to choices: lens, lighting--this is a big one, post processing, etc. It's a sum of it all that shifts the image from "it looks like RED footage" to "it looks like something else." I totally agree that the Pirates Footage looks like RED material, but not as sterile as some of the other examples that I've seen theatrically.

The Social Network also has the look, but again no as much as say KNOWING had.

When I mention that Lighting is a big deal, I don't mean the difference between an awesome Gaffer and a Sub Par one, I mean that people are literally afraid of Tungsten light and so typically turn to daylight. Fluo's, HMI's, etc. It's because Tungsten, simply put, makes the image sad. It introduces a lot of digital noise that people are horrified of.

Oddly enough, the best looking RED footage (see:most organic look) utilizes tungsten lighting. They treat the camera as they would a film camera and regardless of what might look like "flaws", they move on and produce. That ends up being the best RED footage to me.

I am a huge advocate of Fluo and Daylight fixtures, HMI's, but I do like nice Tungsten bounce, regardless of noise.

I think it also has a huge bit to deal with CMOS vs CCD. To me, the HPX3000 has a much richer, "thicker" quality to it than RED has. So does the Varicam, etc. If someone could make a massive CCD sensor that didn't take a power grid to manage, could crank out 4 or 5K footage in a somewhat RAW format, I think more people would gravitate toward it versus the alternatives.

TO me, Genesis doesn't resolve enough (although it looks great at 60 feet) to be this camera.

That's part of the reason why I do believe in Jim's 4K and 5K pioneering, because when it's all crushed to 1080 or 2K, it looks much better than most other digital formats originating at the same resolution.

Those were a lot of disjointed thoughts, but I agree with the OP in the end: you could say that he's seeing things and you would be right; I see them as well.
 
^ Very true.

I was watching television the other day, and I saw something while flipping through the channels. It was an exterior day scene, and I recognized the Red look. I did not know the movie previously, but a quick look on IMDB confirmed my beliefs. It was Red. I could tell by the ever-so-subtle color and highlight reproduction.

Again, all members of my family probably couldn't tell 35mm film from an HVX200... so my point is not to give any idea of a grand or obvious tell sign.

As far as your tungsten preference I agree. HMI's can put some nasty nasty into skin tones. Aesthetically speaking, it doesn't get absorbed into the skin, but seems to bounce off. Giving a sheen, I really hate.

If you ever get to see the Arri D-20 demo reel, there is a shot in there with the best horrible example of what using HMI's do to skin. Nasty.

Kholi said:
That's part of the reason why I do believe in Jim's 4K and 5K pioneering, because when it's all crushed to 1080 or 2K, it looks much better than most other digital formats originating at the same resolution.
Click to expand...

Ala, people also liking the Alexa, which does this in camera (3.5k > 2k/1080). Same positive effect, but less to play with in post.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha! I found the video!!!

It might be D-21, as I said D-20 earlier. It's not Alexa because this is considerably older.

http://www.arridigital.com/node/913


It's about 20% into the video. A shot of ringing bells, is followed by a wide establishing of an Elizabethan (or likewise era) shot. The NEXT shot is a two-shot close up of the two being wed.... Ugly. You can see the blueish tint from badly balanced HMI lighting. Not only is it a little overpowered in my opinion, but the sheen I was describing is all over the man's face. For me, when I see this, I just slam my head against a wall.
 
I agree Polfilm. You are not at all alone. There are TONS of directors and DP's that agree as well and hate that red video look which is why most funded features are still shooting film, and will be for a long while. They just don't speak up very often, if ever, since they are too busy living life and shooting projects they care about and that are being crafted carefully. If people cant see that red look, there is no reason talking to them. The red marketing and resulting fan frenzy is emotionally based; these people think that red is going to make them into a famous or at least successful DP or director, so you will find few who want to put it down and many will become truly upset over anything that even smells negative. A lot of them dont realize that soon almost everything will be shot with one or something like it and all the little movies not on film will really just look the same. Film has character and it is affected in so many ways, chemically, and this can not be replicated.

The big films using reds and F35's etc are doing so because it is cheaper and slightly easier in certain situations (and good for big CGI movies). Yes even on that scale they save money when possible. Also a lot of the big guys get a little lazy when compared to the hungry indie filmmaker and will often use what seems to make their job easier and less stressful. (They dont like to go to bed worrying about what the shots might look like the next day because of the studio pressures of a $100mil budget, etc) If the quality is close enough that your typical 13 year old doesn't notice, it is enough for the studio.

3D is what really lets them gain momentum. Shooting a drama is still, no doubt, best on film in just about all cases. Black Swan is a perfect example, much like Blue Valentine this year and the Hurt Locker last year, the Wrestler, etc. All 16mm and more visually interesting than anything red or HD.

Wait, what was your question? ;)
 
Something crossed my mind... We all rave about film DR, but the projection print is a contrasty medium, the real advantage of film would be the highlight handling and present DR when needed.

Isn't the problem of RED and other digital systems, the way they try to squeeze this DR into a digital image, making everything flat, protecting highlights through underexposure, and considering we don't have widely available HDR displays, we're limited to viewing this DR compressed into a very flat image.

I think digital is yet to achieve another breakthrough because of an alternative image capturing device. I mean, we're getting the most out of CMOS now, science needs to discover something new.

Kholi said:
I'll say, from being an avid RED and RED MX user, that the OP isn't delusional or just nitpicking: RED footage has a distinct RED look, shape, feel, and very rarely does it break its own convention.

I'll give you some examples right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq73A-tkJLw - Rabbit Hole (RED (non MX) and Standard Speeds) -- it looks like RED footage, but to me I though they used Master Primes.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/antichrist/ - Antichrist (Lit by one of my fav DP's, shot on RED) -- It looks like RED fooage.

And now...

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/legacy/ - LEGACY (RED (non MX) -- It does NOT look like RED footage for the most part.

OP has noticed something Valid, and if I had to contribute an explaination I'd have to say it boils down to choices: lens, lighting--this is a big one, post processing, etc. It's a sum of it all that shifts the image from "it looks like RED footage" to "it looks like something else." I totally agree that the Pirates Footage looks like RED material, but not as sterile as some of the other examples that I've seen theatrically.

The Social Network also has the look, but again no as much as say KNOWING had.

When I mention that Lighting is a big deal, I don't mean the difference between an awesome Gaffer and a Sub Par one, I mean that people are literally afraid of Tungsten light and so typically turn to daylight. Fluo's, HMI's, etc. It's because Tungsten, simply put, makes the image sad. It introduces a lot of digital noise that people are horrified of.

Oddly enough, the best looking RED footage (see:most organic look) utilizes tungsten lighting. They treat the camera as they would a film camera and regardless of what might look like "flaws", they move on and produce. That ends up being the best RED footage to me.

I am a huge advocate of Fluo and Daylight fixtures, HMI's, but I do like nice Tungsten bounce, regardless of noise.

I think it also has a huge bit to deal with CMOS vs CCD. To me, the HPX3000 has a much richer, "thicker" quality to it than RED has. So does the Varicam, etc. If someone could make a massive CCD sensor that didn't take a power grid to manage, could crank out 4 or 5K footage in a somewhat RAW format, I think more people would gravitate toward it versus the alternatives.

TO me, Genesis doesn't resolve enough (although it looks great at 60 feet) to be this camera.

That's part of the reason why I do believe in Jim's 4K and 5K pioneering, because when it's all crushed to 1080 or 2K, it looks much better than most other digital formats originating at the same resolution.

Those were a lot of disjointed thoughts, but I agree with the OP in the end: you could say that he's seeing things and you would be right; I see them as well.
Click to expand...

Nice examples indeed, the grading of Legacy is something we don't see everyday, usually people stick to the pastel, smooth image of RED.

I need to watch the trailer properly, because QT is all washed out here on Windows 7, bloody Apple and its gamma issues.
 
Last edited:
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
I think digital is yet to achieve another breakthrough because of an alternative image capturing device. I mean, we're getting the most out of CMOS now, science needs to discover something new.
Click to expand...

I think that's a little premature...at least as far as talking about CMOS sensors. There's a really wide variation in CMOS sensors, I mean the only difference between the original Red One and the Red One MX is that the sensor was better engineered and optimized...but spec wise it's the same. It just performs a whole lot better. It's like comparing a gas engine in a Model T to a modern gas engine...same general idea, but far more sophisticated engineering and optimization. So I don't think CMOS sensors are going anywhere, we're just going to see them evolve. We'll see them with a global shutter (already done on one of the new Phantom cameras), we'll see them with improved DR, ect.

And as far as highlight handling and such...I believe that's a battle to be fought in software, which is the reason Red choose the Raw route to begin with. If you compare the very first color science with the new stuff they just released you'll see a massive improvement in natural reproduction of highlights and skin tones and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top