Does anyone know? I can't watch the whole movie but even the HD trailer looks like consumer video. Were they shooting with standard gammas and forgot to color grade it or something? I have a hard time understanding why the F3 looks like this. I'd have to try to make it look that bad. It clearly is not S-log footage and appears to be blown out often.
F3: Why does Red Hook Summer look so bad?
- Thread starter Shoots56
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
I'm sure it was shot in standard gammas to the internal SxS cards in 8-bit. Even so, it's just ugly cinematography - the short film about Sydney Sea Baths that Jason Wingrove shot for the launch of the F3, was shot internally with standard gammas, and that looked a million times more cinematic than Red Hook Summer. I don't think the camera can be blamed in this case.
Adam J McKay
Veteran
I don't think it looks that bad for what it is. Yes it totally looks like it was shot with a video camera, but maybe that is what Spike wanted? More and more people are moving away from the standard film look. In fact I can guarantee that is what spike wanted. I think public enemies looks work than this given the context of the story. That all being said, I personally have yet to see anything narrative shot on a Sony camera that appeals to my personal taste. (F35 aside) There is just something about them that feels off to me.
starcentral
Veteran
Why? Well only Spike Lee knows the answer. 
How? Probably using standard gammas, heck maybe even REC709 by the looks of it.
Also remember there was a time where slog cost $3200 and of course you still needed a good external recorder to record it in 10-bit. This added expense alone was one reason I'd say many didn't jump on the bandwagon with it initially, and if you look at it many of the feature films shot with the F3 (www.shotOnF3.com) don't appear to be shot with slog, probably either because it wasn't available yet or was just too damn expensive at the time.
How? Probably using standard gammas, heck maybe even REC709 by the looks of it.
Also remember there was a time where slog cost $3200 and of course you still needed a good external recorder to record it in 10-bit. This added expense alone was one reason I'd say many didn't jump on the bandwagon with it initially, and if you look at it many of the feature films shot with the F3 (www.shotOnF3.com) don't appear to be shot with slog, probably either because it wasn't available yet or was just too damn expensive at the time.
dustylense
Veteran
Has anybody on this forum that criticizes this films look ever have two nominations for an Academy Award? And I'm not talking about some movie that you might have pushed a grip cart around on.
And who cares? It looks like crap, end of story. Lynch made some truly great films, then he did that Empire movie which is unwatchable. Spielberg made Hook and that last Indian Jones movie and worse yet and I'll never, ever understand why but Kaminski shot that one too. The list goes on. I find it odd that just because someone has won awards or used to make something good, people assume they can never do wrong again. I guess I have to point out that Mann shot Public Enemies on a 2/3" chip HD camera and I don't think anyone can honestly say that it was not a huge mistake.
A lot of these guys get a little lazy and embrace technology too fast. I dont like Spike anyway but that little movie simply looks like a joke. Craft does count.
Did you make that list to try and make the F3 look bad? Sorry but I dont fully understand the purpose. 90% of those no budget things on there look like children shot it. There is more that looks just as bad that was shot with a red camera, and others of course, but since the F3 isn't used as much for narrative work a list like that really kills the chance of a producer wanting to use it without some better examples.
starcentral
Veteran
I definitely didn't go out of my way and spend my own personal time and money to create a site dedicated towards making the F3 look bad.
The list is based on the thread of productions maintained here on DVX: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?256546-Movie-and-TV-productions-using-the-Sony-F3 and at the time I created the site (last October in fact) I was a super huge advocate of the F3 trying to promote it anyway I could given Sony did such a poor job of marketing the camera upon its launch to the market. (Unlike the F5/F55 which they really did do a much better job marketing and hyping it up).
In the end one of the discussions which has circled in these forums over and over again is its not the equipment that will get you hired, but your own personal work and what you have to show for it. In this day and age anyone with a $900 Canon 7D body is a "cinematographer" so you can bet anyone looking to hire you is only going to care about seeing what work you've actually done.
carlosm2112
Member
Hi,
I asked a similar question a while ago as well. But, my question was why the red's seem over-saturated or appeared to have too much gamma. I found the answer to my question. It's because all the exterior footage was shoot at ISO 800 or above. The camera is rated at ISO 800, so the DP probably thought daylight exteriors should be shot at ISO 800 all the time... this is wrong. Exterior daylight scenes should be shot at ISO 280 or ISO 400 at most. Even with proper ND, the red's will show weird gamma highlights. Try this, shoot a woman in a red dress outside in broad daylight at ISO 800. You will see that the dress will show highlights that look overexposed and seem to have illegal gamma or something. Red Hook Summer has this. It's really apparent because the Thugs in the movie are "Bloods" and wear red t-shirts.
I asked a similar question a while ago as well. But, my question was why the red's seem over-saturated or appeared to have too much gamma. I found the answer to my question. It's because all the exterior footage was shoot at ISO 800 or above. The camera is rated at ISO 800, so the DP probably thought daylight exteriors should be shot at ISO 800 all the time... this is wrong. Exterior daylight scenes should be shot at ISO 280 or ISO 400 at most. Even with proper ND, the red's will show weird gamma highlights. Try this, shoot a woman in a red dress outside in broad daylight at ISO 800. You will see that the dress will show highlights that look overexposed and seem to have illegal gamma or something. Red Hook Summer has this. It's really apparent because the Thugs in the movie are "Bloods" and wear red t-shirts.
Well yes, true, but still that site isn't helping matters. Seriously some of those things could have looked better on an iphone with a decent DP, not kidding.
I would use some discretion in what I chose to put on it, but that's me. Also, just because someone gathered up $10k and made a little movie doesn't mean its a "movie". You can always spot those things by their posters which are always made by the director's girlfriend or cousin who studied graphic design 15 years ago.
I find that, without exaggeration, 90% of people making projects now are completely insane and have no idea what it takes to make even a simple short film worthy of watching.
I would use some discretion in what I chose to put on it, but that's me. Also, just because someone gathered up $10k and made a little movie doesn't mean its a "movie". You can always spot those things by their posters which are always made by the director's girlfriend or cousin who studied graphic design 15 years ago.
I find that, without exaggeration, 90% of people making projects now are completely insane and have no idea what it takes to make even a simple short film worthy of watching.
Not much you can do with some cameras. Still, there are other issues going on here. Overexposed and poor gamma choices. The red boys are more often making very poor decisions in the grades I think. They try to cover up a lack of professional production design and costume work, not to mention the often amateur acting where everyone is 26 years old (first time directors friends).
starcentral
Veteran
In an odd way, I do appreciate your candor. Perhaps if others feel the website does more damage than good I should take it down. I don't have any emotional connection to it per say so it'd be interesting to hear what other member might think about it.
As for 90% of people being insane, I'd say its higher. I own more lighting than my F55 costs me yet people are sure they can shoot anything better than me under any lighting conditions with their cousins Canon 5D at ISO 6400 or even higher. Who needs lighting right? :huh:
Duke M.
Veteran
That's a lot of criticism for someone that I would bet has not seen 90% of the movies on there.
I know Star, I guess we all deal with that "no lighting" thing more and more. Even some feature producers now seem to think you can rent a 4 light arri kit and that will solve any issues because of course, all cameras see at night now. isnt it also funny how they think a 5D is the best thing you can use now? If you say F3, they think you are talking about a camera from the 90's, lol. I have been involved in this exact thing and decided recently that I will no longer discuss it or try to convince people. It never leads to work for me and who would want to work on something that no one cares enough to rent some professional gear for anyway?
Do I need to see more than a trailer Duke? Sometimes, yes, but that is rare and if a filmmaker can't even bother make the trailer look interesting, much less not bother to hire a starving graphics artist for $400 to make a poster for them, then why would I waste my time watching the stuff they are trying to sell? I think people need to be more harsh in this field and stop coddling wishful filmmakers who obviously can't make it work... but that's just me. The whole package is the film, not just the idea or good intent. Does anyone recall that RED shot "Time Machine" movie? That's what I think some of those films on that list do for the F3.
Do I need to see more than a trailer Duke? Sometimes, yes, but that is rare and if a filmmaker can't even bother make the trailer look interesting, much less not bother to hire a starving graphics artist for $400 to make a poster for them, then why would I waste my time watching the stuff they are trying to sell? I think people need to be more harsh in this field and stop coddling wishful filmmakers who obviously can't make it work... but that's just me. The whole package is the film, not just the idea or good intent. Does anyone recall that RED shot "Time Machine" movie? That's what I think some of those films on that list do for the F3.
bill totolo
Veteran
Going back to "Red Hook Summer" I saw this in the theater because I own an F3 and wanted to see what I could take away from the film.
I'm not sure why they decided to shoot in the manner they did, we can all see the flaws, but there are positive things I can say.
The F3 absolutely has enough resolution to fill a large movie screen, without doubt. Also, the African American skin tones which can be tricky at times to shoot, looked pretty good.
With a talented DP (like Amy Vincent) I'm sure they could be very good.
Also, because they likely shot in a PP at iso 400, the movie looked very clean and free of noise.
And I really enjoyed the third act.
I'm not sure why they decided to shoot in the manner they did, we can all see the flaws, but there are positive things I can say.
The F3 absolutely has enough resolution to fill a large movie screen, without doubt. Also, the African American skin tones which can be tricky at times to shoot, looked pretty good.
With a talented DP (like Amy Vincent) I'm sure they could be very good.
Also, because they likely shot in a PP at iso 400, the movie looked very clean and free of noise.
And I really enjoyed the third act.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
There are bad things like camera work, angles, editing and to me the footage looks a bit to clean. But nothing that relates directly to the F3. Indirectly the choice of the F3 to shoot a feature tells me this was a budget flick. Budget=compromises.
I bet the director wanted saturated colours and mostly hand held footage. But to me the biggest distraction is how each shot is framed and how the whole piece is edited.
I bet the director wanted saturated colours and mostly hand held footage. But to me the biggest distraction is how each shot is framed and how the whole piece is edited.
david1pittman
Member
Spike used his own money to make that film so yes some compromises had to be made. But check out Old boy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrLcnrnEqyI
starcentral
Veteran
@ 6:38
Spike: "yes Sony has been very helpful. The film before the last one, Red Hook Summer was shot on the F3. It was great we shot that film in 18 days. It was run and gun. Those cameras are so light, affordable, great look. We've not been able to do Red Hook Summer shooting film, even in super 16. Not with the budget we had."
@ 7:15
Sony: "on your new project you elected to shoot with the F55 right?"
Spike: "now with the new untitled film we will shoot with the new Sony F55. Which is 4k right? And the F3 is 2k. I would just like to thank Sony for believing in me and giving me the tools that I need to make the stories I want to tell".