Why are we not talking about The Raid: Redemption

I saw it on a smaller screen in San Diego but it didn’t looked washed, soft or noisy.
I have to admit I’m not big on horror movies or overly bloody movies but I really like martial arts flicks. However I liked the Raid a lot. I was exhausted when it was over!
 
Just saw Raid. The footage looked great. A few scenes were a bit grainy but so are a hand full of scenes in the Godfather. I didn't notice any banding issues, I'm sure using the Nano really makes a big difference. I'm really stoked to see the AF100 footage presented on the big screen because it was something that always made me curious. Well done Panasonic. It would be a great idea for Pany to really use this film to lay to rest any doubts filmmakers have when it comes to projecting their project on the big screen. I'd really love to know the scene recipe as well as the post workflow as far whether or not they had to do any major clean up or up rez to make it work.
 
Speaking of the Godfather... last couple of times I've been to the theater it's been in a fairly huge Cinemark XD screen, and they've been showing promos for The Godfather and The Godfather II, fully restored by Coppola... and yeah, it's grainy. Seriously, arguably the best films ever made, two of the highest-rated films in IMDB history, and if you want to see grain, go see The Godfather.

Does it matter?

Really?
 
Barry_Green said:
Speaking of the Godfather... last couple of times I've been to the theater it's been in a fairly huge Cinemark XD screen, and they've been showing promos for The Godfather and The Godfather II, fully restored by Coppola... and yeah, it's grainy. Seriously, arguably the best films ever made, two of the highest-rated films in IMDB history, and if you want to see grain, go see The Godfather.

Does it matter?

Really?
Click to expand...


No, it really doesn't, Barry. As a matter of fact all the greatest movies from that era have very very grainy scenes. As we evolve into the digital age or rather I should say we are here and present in the digital age, we are so accustomed to comparing everything to film. At least I have always done that. I shot my second movie on the Canon XL2 called "Played" and when I saw it projected in the theatre it really killed my spirit because I saw all the jagged edges and morie happening all over the place. It looked like absolute crapola to me and didn't hold up well at all. At least with the current cameras the technology has grown in leaps and bounds, thank god. I feel pretty satisfied with what can be captured with the AF100 but there is always going to be a part of me that wants the cleanest and best image possible at an affordable price of course. I suppose that is really the issue, budget. Again, Raid really pushed the cameras limits and it held up great. At least in my eyes it did. I would just loved to know what scene file recipe they were using.
 
Jon Furtado said:
That being said, the theatre I saw it at must have been mis calibrated. The film looked VERY out of focus on many shots. And in general, very washed out, grey and noisy. Did anyone else have this issue at their theatre? Is it just the one I went to? I hope so.
Click to expand...

The first time I saw it, Friday afternooon, the theater put it in a smaller room and yes, it was extremely soft and noisy.
The second time I saw it, Sunday afternoon, it was in a bigger room with a better projector and I saw none of the artifacts and issues from Friday.

The color was washed out, but I think that was a grading choice that was accuentuating the feeling of the building and that area of Jakarta in general.
 
Re The Godfather- I think as things moved more and more into the digital realm, things got (under optimal situations) cleaner and cleaner, to a fault.

Today, digitally, chances are, unless you have dark shadows, there will be little to no grain/noise.
And yet with 35mm adapters, one of the charms, besides shallow DOF, was the grain.

But now, at the first suggestion of noise, eyes bug and blogs rage.

But look at The Godfather- yeah, it's a jpg, but you (and Barry) know what the original looks like.

If Gordon Willis didn't have grain in his (incredibly dark) dark shadows and elsewhere, well... I'll make you an offer you can't refuse for your camera...


The-godfather.jpg
 
Barry_Green said:
Speaking of the Godfather... last couple of times I've been to the theater it's been in a fairly huge Cinemark XD screen, and they've been showing promos for The Godfather and The Godfather II, fully restored by Coppola... and yeah, it's grainy. Seriously, arguably the best films ever made, two of the highest-rated films in IMDB history, and if you want to see grain, go see The Godfather.

Does it matter?

Really?
Click to expand...

I'm not a pixel peeper. I agree with you Barry. Too many people get fixated on resolution.

pharpsied said:
The first time I saw it, Friday afternooon, the theater put it in a smaller room and yes, it was extremely soft and noisy.
The second time I saw it, Sunday afternoon, it was in a bigger room with a better projector and I saw none of the artifacts and issues from Friday.

The color was washed out, but I think that was a grading choice that was accuentuating the feeling of the building and that area of Jakarta in general.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so too. It was a deliberate choice to have muted colors. I've seen/shot much more colorful stuff on the AF100! So I know it's not the camera.

Erik Naso said:
I saw it on a smaller screen in San Diego but it didn’t looked washed, soft or noisy.
I have to admit I’m not big on horror movies or overly bloody movies but I really like martial arts flicks. However I liked the Raid a lot. I was exhausted when it was over!
Click to expand...

I'm a huge martial arts fan. My collection of films is quite vast. For recommendations, let me know!

sstanek said:
Just saw Raid. The footage looked great. A few scenes were a bit grainy but so are a hand full of scenes in the Godfather. I didn't notice any banding issues, I'm sure using the Nano really makes a big difference. I'm really stoked to see the AF100 footage presented on the big screen because it was something that always made me curious. Well done Panasonic. It would be a great idea for Pany to really use this film to lay to rest any doubts filmmakers have when it comes to projecting their project on the big screen. I'd really love to know the scene recipe as well as the post workflow as far whether or not they had to do any major clean up or up rez to make it work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wish Panasonic would help promote this film more since it was shot on the AF100. I would also like to know the workflow details.
 
Just came back from the Raid, it was just as good as everyone has been saying. A real kick to the face to say the least. The camera work was really superb, they compromised pretty well between shaky and steady shots and it had the perfect feel for the type of movie it was. Outside of some underexposed shots, there was little visible difference between the AF and a RED. In other situations there would be more of a variance, but for a primarily dull / de-saturated interior serving as a backdrop, there wouldn't be any need for a "better" camera than the AF100.
 
Hey guys, Sorry I havent checked in sooner - its been a while since I was actively on here, but got a heads up that there was interesting discussion going on, and thought I would drop in and give thanks for all the kind words from everyone, I know the support it has been getting has been hugely appreciated by all of us that worked on it!

Just a brief word on the project itself, specifically the use of the AF100, as I know that this is the main interest for a lot of you. Overall I was very pleased with the camera and it suited the project amazingly well. Yes we did push it a lot in terms of low light etc., and yes in retrospect at some points pushed it a little too much. Or rather I should say we pushed it further than WE should have - I suspect given more hands on time we could have tweaked more, and got even more out of it. I am happy to accept that any perceived shortcomings were more from my misuse than the camera's potential :). The production, as I'm sure you guys can guess, was pretty manic to say the least, given the complexity of what was going on in front and behind the camera, and the shooting pace we had to keep up throughout.

I have to say though - and it seems fairly topical reading this thread - I would not count myself in the "pixel peeper" party - I'm a strong believer in the 'feel' of cinematography over the pixel count and technical count. Not knocking anyone who would argue the importance of the stats of the camera - I just believe in bringing the camera that gives the right feel and practicality to a specific project (I particularly enjoyed the discussion of the Godfather earlier in the thread. :)). I have no hesitation in saying that there are many people, particularly on this fantastic forum, that have a better knowledge of the innards of the AF100. I can just say that it worked great for our movie.

Even though at the stage of prepro and shooting, the camera was pretty new - especially as we were based in Indonesia, where we were literally waiting up till get go to get the kit released and available over here - we knew the aesthetics we were going for, and felt that the AF100 would work for us. If we were going for a different style and 'feel' then maybe we would have looked elsewhere with more interest. And saying that, the AF100 is a bloody good camera, and I can happily sidestep all the technical bashing/debate/shouting that goes on between it and other cameras, and just say, the camera is a super piece of kit at its price, and does what it does excellently.

SOrry, my 'brief word' has become an essay.

Again thanks so much for the support, it is very much appreciated and humbly received, given where it comes from - the dvxuser community has been an incredible resource for me and I'm sure countless other filmmakers. If anyone had any specific questions I'd be happy to answer - I have been a shameful lurker on here too long ;) - just bear with me if I am not the quickest in my responses, I will do my best though.

And please tell your friends to go see the movie - the release has been widened significantly by Sony in the US, thanks to the great response to the limited release the last couple of weeks. Check your local listings and support our little movie!
 
Hi Matt, thanks for getting on. I'm Hugh. I'm going tonight. It's playing close by, I just found out. If I could, I'd be interested in your scene settings and how you arrived at them. How it was working with the recorder. Was it nano flash? What were your settings there regarding bitrate, etc.? I find the AF100 to be pretty nimble. The thing that makes it great is the same thing that gets knocked sometimes. It's extremely flexible. Which means you can create great images and not so great ones.

Congrats on this film. The interest it's generating is really great, and I'm so happy to see an AF100 on the big screen, in multiplexes. I can't wait to see it. It's a thrill for all of us.
 
mattflan306 said:
Hey guys, Sorry I havent checked in sooner - its been a while since I was actively on here, but got a heads up that there was interesting discussion going on, and thought I would drop in and give thanks for all the kind words from everyone, I know the support it has been getting has been hugely appreciated by all of us that worked on it!

Just a brief word on the project itself, specifically the use of the AF100, as I know that this is the main interest for a lot of you. Overall I was very pleased with the camera and it suited the project amazingly well. Yes we did push it a lot in terms of low light etc., and yes in retrospect at some points pushed it a little too much. Or rather I should say we pushed it further than WE should have - I suspect given more hands on time we could have tweaked more, and got even more out of it. I am happy to accept that any perceived shortcomings were more from my misuse than the camera's potential :). The production, as I'm sure you guys can guess, was pretty manic to say the least, given the complexity of what was going on in front and behind the camera, and the shooting pace we had to keep up throughout.

I have to say though - and it seems fairly topical reading this thread - I would not count myself in the "pixel peeper" party - I'm a strong believer in the 'feel' of cinematography over the pixel count and technical count. Not knocking anyone who would argue the importance of the stats of the camera - I just believe in bringing the camera that gives the right feel and practicality to a specific project (I particularly enjoyed the discussion of the Godfather earlier in the thread. :)). I have no hesitation in saying that there are many people, particularly on this fantastic forum, that have a better knowledge of the innards of the AF100. I can just say that it worked great for our movie.

Even though at the stage of prepro and shooting, the camera was pretty new - especially as we were based in Indonesia, where we were literally waiting up till get go to get the kit released and available over here - we knew the aesthetics we were going for, and felt that the AF100 would work for us. If we were going for a different style and 'feel' then maybe we would have looked elsewhere with more interest. And saying that, the AF100 is a bloody good camera, and I can happily sidestep all the technical bashing/debate/shouting that goes on between it and other cameras, and just say, the camera is a super piece of kit at its price, and does what it does excellently.

SOrry, my 'brief word' has become an essay.

Again thanks so much for the support, it is very much appreciated and humbly received, given where it comes from - the dvxuser community has been an incredible resource for me and I'm sure countless other filmmakers. If anyone had any specific questions I'd be happy to answer - I have been a shameful lurker on here too long ;) - just bear with me if I am not the quickest in my responses, I will do my best though.

And please tell your friends to go see the movie - the release has been widened significantly by Sony in the US, thanks to the great response to the limited release the last couple of weeks. Check your local listings and support our little movie!
Click to expand...

Great insight Matt! Thanks for sharing.
 
I recently saw this on a screen projected by Sony CineAlta 4K SRX-R220. I did notice the noise and I was looking for it. It seemed most noticeable in the low light scenes where the color wasn't completely black but a dark grey. The black color still looked pretty good. With good light, especially outdoors, the image quality was awesome. Can't believe how crisp it looked on a 4k screen. I'm curious to know which lenses were used. Probably ones requiring a PL mount? The rolling shutter was hardly noticeable, mainly because the whips happened across a background that was already blurred.

Some of the shaky camera seemed unnecessary. The only time it really bothered me was during the scene right after the bad guys leave when looking for the two dudes that were hiding in a stranger's apartment.

Pretty sweet though, $4k camera can produce that. Also makes me realize how much skills these dudes have.
 
Saw it last night. the story is blah but i didnt go for that :). This was a non stop ride of graphic (x2) violence. That little dude was crrraaaazzzyyyy! The AF100 looked great. yes I did notice the noise and some scenes being 2 dark but overall the film looked great. The tools are here! yes we'd all like 4k cameras and the newest shiniest toys....but the tools are here now to do the job at a reasonable price.
 
Thanks for the post! Any chance you could post the settings you used? Just really curious! Thanks again!
 
I saw the movie last Saturday night, before I knew anything about what cameras were used, etc. I only found out because I was curious and checked the technical specs on the imdb listing. I found out about the movie from my brother (who is not into filmmaking). He invited me to watch it with him because he had heard it was an old-school, kick-ass action film like we hadn't seen in years.

The movie was awesome and delivered on all aspects. There's nothing about it that I was disappointed by, not even the story, which I thought was actually pretty decent for the genre, especially if you compare with some other action flicks where the story doesn't even make any sense or seems way too contrived. If anything, the only thing I wondered about at one point was why the first gang was armed to the teeth with automatic assault rifles, but the later, upper gangs only had machetes and knives, etc. :smile: I was also most definitely not disappointed by the image. I didn't notice any of the issues some have mentioned here: grain, too dark shots, washed out images, what have you. I was just completely entertained by the movie, and never stopped to think about image details like that.

By the way, on one of the production video blogs you can see the camera and lens pretty close and it looked to me like they used proper Zeiss cinema primes (not sure if compact primes or higher end). It could actually be a different brand, but you can tell from the size of the lenses (and the hot rod PL adapter) that they were full-on cinema PL glass.

Highly recommended movie. Amazing what they were able to make with such a budget. I will try to see it again at the theater if it's still out when I have a chance, and will probably pick up the DVD.
 
Reviving an old thread, but I just rented this on VUDU (HD version on a 55" LCD). Holy smokes, what a fantastic movie!!! Best action film I've seen in a few years, hands down. And the look of the movie was perfect for the subject matter: raw, gritty, painful and in-your-face. Nothing about the cinematography jumped out at me as being lesser quality than what I expect from a modern movie. The AF100 deserves a lot of credit. Nobody can claim that micro 4/3 doesn't look cinematic now!
 
Jaime Valles said:
Reviving an old thread, but I just rented this on VUDU (HD version on a 55" LCD). Holy smokes, what a fantastic movie!!! Best action film I've seen in a few years, hands down. And the look of the movie was perfect for the subject matter: raw, gritty, painful and in-your-face. Nothing about the cinematography jumped out at me as being lesser quality than what I expect from a modern movie. The AF100 deserves a lot of credit. Nobody can claim that micro 4/3 doesn't look cinematic now!
Click to expand...

Thanks for reviving the thread... I have been looking for some stuff to add to my Netflix queue. Added and upped to #1 position. I really liked the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top