Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: KevinA on November 07, 2011, 05:28:03 am
-
Scarlet looks to be a bit of a temptress for a stills guy looking to shoot some video. But what are red code raw files what can you do with them and what do you need to do it. Heaven knows what kind of space and spec HD's you need to cope with 5k raw.It sounds fantastic on paper but I fear will prove impractical for the stills shooter looking to add video. This is more a video with a stills facility tacked on, I can't see it being a one size fits all. No doubt a fantastic machine for the dedicated film maker at a decent price. I don't see it stealing clients from the 5D type user, despite what Red say it will do. Never miss a shot shooting stills with video, nice idea in theory, I can see the camera is capable but the application of stills and video is completely different in my mind.
Kevin.
-
Kevin,
I'm not sure that the point is never miss a shot because we extract stills from video and therefore we can choose among an incredible number of frames and never fail. In practise, not all motion frames are still exploitable.
I think that the main points are basically those:
When on set one camera shoots motion and another stills of the same scenery, we never have exactly the same look and never the same frame because the video operator(s) needs space around, and even with both cameras monted on the same tripod with magic arms and the still operating with a remote control, 2 screens are necessary, it's a mess very little practical.
So my first point is that if a video camera is capable of commercialy exploitable stills, consistency in the look is assured. And this is a huge time saver. No need to say also that to acheive the same goal, stills+motion, only one camera is needed...
Then, if you grade in RCX, you'll extract a still graded. You won't have to do it twice in different softwares with very little chance to match exactly the same render. Then you do not need 2 files, have to look into different folders etc...
And of course the choice of frames is wider, although again just some % of the motion frames will be exploitable for still imagery.
And the other point is that you can play creatively with still sequences extract from video. Those are also exploitable by different applications for interactivity content etc...
-
Kevin,
I'm not sure that the point is never miss a shot because we extract stills from video and therefore we can choose among an incredible number of frames and never fail. In practise, not all motion frames are still exploitable.
I think that the main points are basically those:
When on set one camera shoots motion and another stills of the same scenery, we never have exactly the same look and never the same frame because the video operator(s) needs space around, and even with both cameras monted on the same tripod with magic arms and the still operating with a remote control, 2 screens are necessary, it's a mess very little practical.
So my first point is that if a video camera is capable of commercialy exploitable stills, consistency in the look is assured. And this is a huge time saver. No need to say also that to acheive the same goal, stills+motion, only one camera is needed...
Then, if you grade in RCX, you'll extract a still graded. You won't have to do it twice in different softwares with very little chance to match exactly the same render. Then you do not need 2 files, have to look into different folders etc...
And of course the choice of frames is wider, although again just some % of the motion frames will be exploitable for still imagery.
And the other point is that you can play creatively with still sequences extract from video. Those are also exploitable by different applications for interactivity content etc...
Thanks Fred,
Always ready with an answer you should get paid for this!
Ok that makes a lot of sense, I can see that being a huge advantage. Coming from a stills background I was thinking on a different track and applying it to what I do. I bet others think that way too, maybe if you are doing big budget weddings it would be something to look at, someone somewhere will see a great opportunity and new horizons and make a packet. As I'm shooting from aircraft mainly stills, combining the video and stills is not easy. Getting quality and smooth in video is very difficult when shooting, you can use gyro's which over complicate and limit the stills side, even then I still need a lot of post smoothing to get it presentable. I've been experimenting with various configurations of gyro trying to get a compromise between adaptability, usability and quality.I think the cmos wobble is a big hinderance when shooting buildings from a moving platform with cameras like a 5D, I don't have room for both stills and video at the same time, so you can see why the Scarlet caught my eye to begin with. The concept sounds fantastic at first, but when I started to think of the practical side it looked a million miles away.
I'm searching for the killer combination of stills and video from aircraft at the moment, not Cineflex quality or cost, but professional enough I can charge for it, as yet I don't have it.
Regards,
Kevin.
-
yes I agree with you and your anxieties regarding editing/ storage space. I can afford to buy a scarlet but I cant afford to spend endless hours editing huge raw files. I am wondering how much easier the canon c300 will be to handle in post. by all accounts it seems like it will use way less storage size for files and be quiker to edit......... but all of that is mute if it blows highlights or crushes blackes and then your back to wishing you bought the scarlet for the raw file.
there is something appealing about the ease of use with the canon but I know the scarlet will produce a better file, just not sure if can a handle the pain that I am assuming that will come with it.
-
yes I agree with you and your anxieties regarding editing/ storage space. I can afford to buy a scarlet but I cant afford to spend endless hours editing huge raw files. I am wondering how much easier the canon c300 will be to handle in post. by all accounts it seems like it will use way less storage size for files and be quiker to edit......... but all of that is mute if it blows highlights or crushes blackes and then your back to wishing you bought the scarlet for the raw file.
there is something appealing about the ease of use with the canon but I know the scarlet will produce a better file, just not sure if can a handle the pain that I am assuming that will come with it.
It looks a steal at the price to get shooting, I doubt that will be half of it in the end. Video is a time eater in any form, 5K would put it beyond all but the dedicated. Having said that I could not go the Canon route knowing this was on offer. From the little I know the Scarlet looks to make the Canon a bit pointless if video is your game. If I was Canon I would of gone from great excitement on the C300 launch to Oh $hit in the space of a couple of hours.
Kevin.
-
Red post production is really good.
Don't let you fool by the file size and the raw factor.
Storage is cheaper nowdays.
You can set-up a very simple workflow with R3D material.
In fact it is IMO more simple than editing AVCHD material that I have with the GH2. And with no significant slow-down in the process.
The fact that you have raw to work with is in the end a time saver and the guarantee of what Raw is allowing you.
In Avid, it's even possible to color correct directly using Raw datas within the timeline. You see the footage of course in 1080P, but you color correct using a raw windows and sliders. And this, without opening RCX...
Avid works way better with Red files than with AVCHD (in wich it simply doesn't work).
Not only that. R3D is R3D. Like PSD, Like Tiff, like DNG. It is a stable format.
In the editor, you can work with proxies in a laptop and re-link to the Raws in Da-Vinci to color correct.
The Red workflow is far from being hostile.
I'm not far from thinking that if RedCineX had advanced editing capabilities, it will be the end of the NLEs or suites with the Red material. Just RCX from A to Z.
-
Red post production is really good.
Don't let you fool by the file size and the raw factor.
Storage is cheaper nowdays.
You can set-up a very simple workflow with R3D material.
In fact it is IMO more simple than editing AVCHD material that I have with the GH2. And with no significant slow-down in the process.
The fact that you have raw to work with is in the end a time saver and the guarantee of what Raw is allowing you.
In Avid, it's even possible to color correct directly using Raw datas within the timeline. You see the footage of course in 1080P, but you color correct using a raw windows and sliders. And this, without opening RCX...
Avid works way better with Red files than with AVCHD (in wich it simply doesn't work).
Not only that. R3D is R3D. Like PSD, Like Tiff, like DNG. It is a stable format.
In the editor, you can work with proxies in a laptop and re-link to the Raws in Da-Vinci to color correct.
The Red workflow is far from being hostile.
I'm not far from thinking that if RedCineX had advanced editing capabilities, it will be the end of the NLEs or suites with the Red material. Just RCX from A to Z.
Hey thats great to hear that editing Red is easier than I imagined.
My mac pro is a brand new 12 core with 10 gb ram, I would think I would be fine with this.
My workflow is simple as I only produce short 5 second clips, not movies or finished commercials. Based on what you are saying about RedCineX I could probably just use one software and not export into FCP.
I guess Red Rocket would help speed things up but the $5 grand pricetag would hurt.
-
Billy,
Don't misunderstand me. My last sentence has an "if".
RedcineX doesn't (unfortunatly) replace yet a NLE. It features a timeline but it is primitive.
Maybe in a future , I hope so.
So no fireworks, no champagne for the moment.
-
Fred and all...
I love RCX Pro...but need it to do one thing. Accurate color and RAW decoding. From there it is
nice to choose your NLE.
Personally I like Cineform/Adobe PP CS 5.5 ... others AVID or FCP.
I think that the resources of RED and Graham are best used for the RAW decode and giving
us dead-on accurate color/skin tones.
It is a wonderful environment, at a great cost.
Best part is it is lean and RED mean...no bloat so it stays fast and on point. I cannot
wait to get some free time to work with Alchemy....
Just my opinion...and I do not have to crank out files for anyone else....
Bob
-
Billy,
Don't misunderstand me. My last sentence has an "if".
RedcineX doesn't (unfortunatly) replace yet a NLE. It features a timeline but it is primitive.
Maybe in a future , I hope so.
So no fireworks, no champagne for the moment.
Ok thanks, but all I need to do with my footage is trim the good parts into single short 5 second clips, color correct, exposure adjust, crop and export. Its kinda like processing stills. No putting together a storyline or even connecting 2 clips, just creating moving pictures at this point. I dont mind doing the bulk of the work in RedCineX and then exporting into some other app if need be.
-
I have a question for Grahme or anyone else knowledgeable;
-if I want to take stills thru a viewfinder do I need to buy a viewfinder for this? is the bomb evf the only one available?
-if taking stills at full resolution what is the crop factor of a lens ( canon mount ).
- I also plan on trying to extract stills from motion footage. I see that BC shoots his red one at 1/100th shutter speed and 30 p with no weird problems, will this be doable with the scarlet x? if so my crop factor gets more severe than when I am shooting 24p, correct?
-
Ok thanks, but all I need to do with my footage is trim the good parts into single short 5 second clips, color correct, exposure adjust, crop and export. Its kinda like processing stills. No putting together a storyline or even connecting 2 clips, just creating moving pictures at this point. I dont mind doing the bulk of the work in RedCineX and then exporting into some other app if need be.
Billy, for your work Red is overkill. For stills it's just an APS-C sensor.
Wouldn't a 5D Mark II, 7D or a 1DX be better?
-
Billy, for your work Red is overkill. For stills it's just an APS-C sensor.
Wouldn't a 5D Mark II, 7D or a 1DX be better?
yeah I think your right. my dilemna is that I want to upgrade from my canon 5d 2 ( for video ) but I feel like the scarlet x and the c300 are my 2 options right now. I kinda forgot about the 1DX, that may be the solution, although I hate the idea of turning those dslrs into robocams with all the addons, but in reality the scarlet and c300 need alot of those add ons as well. How much is the 1 DX advertised to be better than the 5D 2 though in the video component of it?
I was hoping for the AF100 or Sony FS100 but the blown highlights problem turned me off.
-
first: scarlet and c300 will be about the same price to you, the scarlet will probably end up costing more because of ssdcards and computer add ons....
the c300 will not give you still frames, the scarlet will...shoot the scarlet at 4k and you will have very odd shaped 8mpix files for stills....these files compare to any lower range dslr although DR is better....high iso definitely is not...
the 1dx will shoot iframes (?)..not raw frames but something like an actual frame for every frame...i believe the gh2 does this now...we will see how it will work....the announced c-dslr body might be the better choice....i would not be surprised if the 1dx video is a little neutered by canon to make sure there is no "confusion" between still and motion lines...
there are other options out...gh2 seems to be a great camera...sony a77 does 1080 60p (with AF)....
i personally placed an order for the scarlet and ended up canceling....i am waiting for the final (street) price of the c300...the workflow, footage, size, everything seems to be right....if it did 60 fps i would have placed my order for that already....
if you are looking for 5 sec clips the 5d is probably still the best solution for you for now....i think we will see quite bit of new stuff in the next 6 months...
just my opinion...
-
....i would not be surprised if the 1dx video is a little neutered by canon to make sure there is no "confusion" between still and motion lines...
Yep.
That's weired.
I have the feeling that Canon wasn't really aware of the bomb they launched with the 5D2, and then, if they follow this line deeper it could easily put the mess in their very defined products.
But the monster has been released and people are now asking for more...very embarrassing for Canon but I think it's too late.
There is a market that is not really covered wich is the convergence. And that's also the case for softwares. We are still in the old where the new (requierements) is knocking on the door.
And it's gona break it even if they have locked the door.
-
How much is the 1 DX advertised to be better than the 5D 2 though in the video component of it?
It's got a better codec and bit rate, at least on paper. Also, it's a new sensor (and better, if Canon are to be believed).
It can also shoot 12fps RAW. If most of your work is 'steady' without moving objects, you could even use re-timing to 'fill' in the rest.
-
I don't know much about the mechanics of running data off a sensor, but if a sensor is capable of 12fps at 18MP RAW, shouldn't it be able to deliver 24fps at 2MP (2K) RAW?
-
It's got a better codec and bit rate, at least on paper. Also, it's a new sensor (and better, if Canon are to be believed).
It can also shoot 12fps RAW. If most of your work is 'steady' without moving objects, you could even use re-timing to 'fill' in the rest.
We're talking about two cameras that nobody that is unsponsored haven't been used in paying production yet, so what the final look is anybody's guess.
In regards to the 1dx, Canon says it samples off the complete sensor (no line skipping like the 5d2) and greatly improves moire, which is a real issue with the 5d2.
The 1dx also is a much larger sensor than the 300 which can change plans when it comes to lenses, especially if you want to use PL mount lenses because you'd have to remove the mirror and most PL's wont' cover 24x36 (though some will).
Probably the right move for a 1dx that you wanted to use mostly for video would be to use manual focus Zeiss lenses that cover the full frame and that we using a follow focus system or a focus puller, you don't have to worry about the canon still servo lenses that reset every time you rotate past the end point.
The 1dx also doesn't allow for any audio sampling through headphones, without running a cable out to a box.
So in reality the 1dx isn't really a dedicated video camera, but probably would be close if not equal to the 300 because I believe they have the same sample rates.
It's a lot cheaper at 7 grand vs. 20.
In regards to shooting a sustained 12fps and putting them in a NLE or either a sequence composite like cs5 extended and letting the software pull it to 24p, you can do that and depending on how you shoot, what you shoot, the steadiness you shoot to, it can look good or it can look choppy.
I've done a lot of fast 10 fps still to video projects
http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic/
and the once kicker is the image will flicker, partly due to a slower frame rate of 12fps and partly due to the different synchronization of the light source vs. the frame rate, especially using practical lights like street lamps, etc.
If you have a still camera that will shoot 10fps to 12 fps jpegs, go shoot a series, drop them in fcp at .5 a second still import and then process out the clip. You'll see the exposure go in an out quite dramatically.
I've done it for the look and for a few projects it works well, but 12 fps stills will probably never make smooth video or film looks.
As far as the 300, until I see it used, or until I see it really worked in post processing at this stage I don't understand it. For 20k you can buy an original RED One, which is a much more tested and viable cinema camera that shoots a real 4k file, 4 audio channels, tons of lenses, mounts and accessories and has a fast and reliable grading suite to pump out dailies to final files in almost any resolution. Also the RED One doesn't change frame size as shoot 4k.
Or if you don't want to spend 20 large then there are prosumer video cameras almost as capable and a whole lot cheaper that do close to the same thing.
It all depends on what you shoot and what your future plans are.
P.S. Now we probably will buy the 1dx because it will work in parallel with our RED's as a high iso still camera that tethers. To me that is it's worth that and the fact we can use it as a small crash cam or car mount cam when we need to.
IMO
BC
-
As far as the 300, until I see it used, or until I see it really worked in post processing at this stage I don't understand it. For 20k you can buy an original RED One, which is a much more tested and viable cinema camera that shoots a real 4k file, 4 audio channels, tons of lenses, mounts and accessories and has a fast and reliable grading suite to pump out dailies to final files in almost any resolution. Also the RED One doesn't change frame size as shoot 4k.
you are so right....for whatever reason you can pick up a complete used red one kit (with most of the stuff you need to start shooting) for almost less then a scarlet kit will cost (realistically)....
the 1dx seems strange to me...i am sure the video will look great (at least better then 5d) and i am sure low noise/high iso and the full frame sensor will make some fun stuff possible but it seems a little pricey and i just don't see it making either still shooters or video guys really happy....the reason the 5d was such a success was that it was the first and it was affordable....
i guess vincent laforet is trying to get his c300 short on iTunes....then we can get a better idea of what the camera can do...
-
Sorry if I introduce a little cynical topic but all that strangely reminds me to some extend of the Gursky thread.
I can't help it.
When I read that the 5D2 output is "so so", I'm asking in wich context?
Do we realise that we are debating on high-end cameras, kind of hollywood equipment and we are for the most part of us just entered motion a few months ago and are shooting indy stuff or little unrisky campaigns?
And we talk about those as if we where talking about our morning coffee brand. I do not own the Skywalker ranch ! Not yet!
Because yeah, there are better options but at wich level and requierements this increment in quality is necessary? And until wich the 5D2 would block somebody to do a good campaign or movie ?
Or are we going to have another generation of Red shooters doing brickwalls and cheap models in malls? like it happened quite often with MF? I mean, people just looking for the highest possible IQ for the highest possible IQ. I have a strange feeling that motion will not be different...it really bloody smells MF forum more and more.
From wich level a 5D2 stops to be usable? I'd like to know that because IMO the 5D2, GH2 etc...are more than good enough for 90% of the requierements most of us (not all but most) are really needing at the moment. And the time we grow, if we really grow, then no problem to get whatever we really need.
-
We used a 5D2/7D combo for our motion work for a year or so but were very relieved to move on to a Panasonic AF100 because of all the niggles with the Canons for video work. (They're top notch as stills cameras, of course, and we still have them as backup to our MF kit for low natural light and fallback).
The Moire caused us lots of issues. The lack of monitoring generally was a pain.
The sound connectivity caused us grief. With no audio bars, you couldn't tell if a flimsy 3.5mm jack had become a bit displaced. Ended up having to reshoot a few scenes which is NOT good. Switching to dual system sound helped but that was a workflow pain (Pluraleyes, I do not miss you!)
But the killer for us was overheating. We often shoot fetish stuff with a tied up model, and you absolutely CANNOT tell a tied up model just to wait for 10 minutes while the camera cools down. Not acceptable for Health & Safety.
Shooting with the AF100, with built in waveform monitor, focus-in-red on a B&W viewfinder, full 4:2:2 SDI and HDMI out for monitoring, audio bars, XLR connections was absolute HEAVEN by comparison. We've not shot a frame a video on the Canons since getting the Panasonic (we even use our older HVX200's as B cameras since they are so much more robust and better to work with for video work).
So without denying that you can do great things with a 5D2, we would it a great relief to go back to dedicated video cameras.
Which is one bit of the Red Rhetoric I take with a big pinch of salt- using their motion cameras as stills cameras. I have stills cameras for that.
Cheers, Hywel
-
If we are speaking in absolute quality terms, the footage from a DSLR is pretty good. However:
The 5D cannot be used consistently well for high-end documentaries, ENG or handheld work due to either poor form factor, the jello-effect, no ND filter, lack of XLR, need to change lenses through entire focal range, recording limit, no timecode, etc.
The 5D cannot be used much for action videography - mainly due to the jello effect. The 5D cannot be used for high-speed photography for slow-mo, or for any kind of ramping (up or down).
The 5D should not be used where the footage has to undergo heavy grading or visual effects. In an ideal world, people shoot perfect chroma keys, but in the real world, it's 50:50.
The 5D should not be used by any high-end production that seeks to meet the broadcast standard of greater than 50mbps for interframe compression. Also, the 5D Mark II samples at 4:2:0, where the broadcast standard is 4:2:2 for high-end productions.
The 5D is also too light, and needs to be rigged up heavily for film work - which has limits. Focus-pulling is tough due to shallow DOF. Any minor vibration will transmit to the footage easily. It also has an unacceptable HDMI out that makes nailing focus a nightmare.
For 90% of the professional film and television world, the 5D Mark II fails. But for 90% of the professional video market, consumers and the indie crowd, it can work very well.
-
In the motion world you can rent anything and usually at favorable rates to still equipment in the fact you bid out your rental requirements and 2 days usually equal a week (at least in L.A.)
Still, a RED One kit with a few lenses normally retails at about a thousands U.S. a day so even at a two day week puts you at a few thousand a week and a long form 3 week project puts you a 6 grand.
Add it up and buying a RED One, or Scarlet makes sense if your busy.
Now I gotta admit I'm very positive RED to some extent. (and fyi I pay retail).
Previously I hated their purchasing system and their little accessories are way over priced, but I can put all that behind me for the look of the file. To me it looks like film (I know that's an over worn phrase), but the RED does not look like video to me where most of the video cameras look like video i.e. the AF 100 Sony.
Also we're dead solid on the RED workflow using a RED Rocket in portable and desktop configurations, but the main thing I like about the RED One is it's tested and solid. Knock on wood, but we've had zero issues . . . no shutdowns, no artifacts, no moire, no glitches, no breakdowns, no overheating.
I know early on there were issues, but our to MX bodies to date have been more reliable than our 1ds3 canon still cameras (we blew out two last week) which I think is pretty amazing as we use the RED's continually.
The best part is there is no jury rigging on the RED as every sound technician, boom operator, focus puller and steadican operator knows the RED One front to back.
In fact if I didn't own two RED's I wouldn't contemplate the Scarlet and though we've placed our order, I'm thinking about switching it to the Epic. I would like a little smaller form factor on the camera.
Regardless I have to admit that adding full fledge motion has been good for our business and allowed us to grow. It's been a hell of a leap and changed our working and pricing model, required us to add staff and build a whole new data base of outside suppliers, but doing motion with little compromise is a market that is growing.
Now they say the camera doesn't matter (I've said it a thousand times) but when you have moire, or funky skin tones, or complicated color grading from some of the other combo cams or video cameras, the actual motion file matters a great deal and right now RED is serving our purpose and I don't think the RED One's will be obsolete within the next few years.
I do know if I was looking at the Canon 300 or any other motion camera for that matter, I'd rent a RED One and give it a try. For about $45,000 you can build a RED One kit with a set of fast Red PL mount primes and accessories that come in for less than the Canon 300 and one Canon PL zoom.
IMO
BC
-
I agree with what Hywel, Sareesh and James wrote.
All you say is true. I'm a strong supporter of Red system and I'm aware of the Canon's limitations.
My point was a little different.
I'm frighten that we start to get crazy about resolution, performances etc...and that the overall tone of the motion forum is going to look like: we all need Red
and in the end falling in the same non-sense as what we know in MF. People talking about millionaire equipment and for the most part doing, well, not millionaire imagery.
Because that's what the most part of the MF internet world is about.
I personaly think that it would be a pitty because this forum is so far rather healphy.
My point about the 5D2 was not to say that this camera is the grail. By any means. It has problems and there are better options.
But it seems to me that a lot of time we tend to put the things in a wrong order.
The other day we shooted with a "so so" model and there is no way, no escape: resolution or not, lightning or not, it doesn't work.
Or not a long time ago we needed a strong wind machine and they saved money on not renting a bigger wind machine but yes renting the Alexa, and guess what: it didn't work.
It would have worked better with the 5D2 and the wind machine we needed.
Regular MUA have ruined results and it's long to save in post-prod, same with stylists etc...
And yes, we see a lot of regular models with regular MUAs and so so lightning, and bad pre-prod...but with top-end gear. What's the point then?
In general, we rarely put priorities on what makes the result a winner result, and spend a lot of money on useless things: the camera, as crazy as it sounds, is just a little part of the equation.
I just hope this forum is not going to turn into reso-power kind of stuff and billionaire hollywood equipment talks that only 0,00001 % will ever really need to use practically.
-
On a lighter note: One thing I didn't like about the Scarlet is its name - I would have preferred Red Two (since Red One is no longer a priority) or Epic-Mini (since it is almost a twin). The new Scarlet has nothing to do with the earlier 'online' version of the Scarlet, and doesn't even cater to the same market - the indie crowd. I guess they had invested too much in the name to give it away, and nothing else exciting is in the pipeline.
And this is from a camera company that revolutionized camera names with the Red One - a very powerful name. I once owned a JVC with the name: GY-HD111E, and that was a prosumer camera! Full broadcast cameras have unprintable names. Even the small kitten-size super popular and excellent mass market DV camera by Sony is called the DSR-PD170P - small wonder then that their ground breaking camera is called PMW-F3L. At least give it a nickname!
And I have no idea why every camera has to have an 'X' in its name for some reason - as pointed out by Michael in his latest post - but then again C300 sounds boring. What's the weirdest camera name you've ever heard of?
-
kinda off topic but will the scarlet or the canon c300 be able to shoot vertical without any weird workarounds?
-
turn it sideways and deal with everything that comes with that...since both use external monitors or finders it should not really matter much....
i understand why you would want to shoot the red vertical but i am not sure why you would want to do this with the c300? i hope you understand that an iPhone will give you a much better image then a c300 still "frame"?
-
one camera that has not been mentioned here is the sony fs100...same super 35 chip as the f3...shoots to sd card or 4:2:2 via HDMI...because of the short flange it can accept pretty much any lens made via adapters....and it costs under 5000$...
i think we will see some fun stuff coming out in the next year or two...
-
one camera that has not been mentioned here is the sony fs100...same super 35 chip as the f3...shoots to sd card or 4:2:2 via HDMI...because of the short flange it can accept pretty much any lens made via adapters....and it costs under 5000$...
i think we will see some fun stuff coming out in the next year or two...
We have the fs100 with the plan on using it beside our reds, as a crash cam, small handheld and for the moments we need autofocus. We added the kit lens and a few of the fast Zeiss A mount zooms with the Sony adapter.
All I can tell you is to try it before your buy it.
I love the form factor, somewhat like a hasselblad v with a articulating viewfinder, the autofocus is good, the Zeiss lenses superb.
It has large xlr inputs, headphone jacks, sound bars and a pretty good but small lcd.
The downside is the camera's file. It blows highlights quickly and not that pretty. It also is hard to hit skintones with under any lighting we've tried.
In fact grading this file regardless of the setting has been difficult for us. There are a lot of color, tone setting . . . a some canned and user preset profiles, including a cinetone look much like the flat 5d2 and Canon 300 look that is made for post production grading.
Still, I just can't seem to get the file to look pretty like film, as it has a cast to it and I know this is very subjective . . . the Sony file regardless of frame rate and shutter is very video like to me. Not the worst, but certainly not something someone would say, wow what film did you use?
The last issue I have with the camera is the many little buttons for settings, some confusing some require the hand-eye coordination of a brain surgeon. Just setting the aperture on the side of the camera takes very careful turns and push to use, push to lock but don't push and turn or it goes to AE.
It's a great idea, could have been a 5d2/3 killer if only it shot a better file, but once again that is very subjective.
Try it before you buy it.
IMO
BC
-
are you using the HDMI port or are you shooting to sd card?
i love the form factor, and yes, i don't get all the buttons either....and why they did not build in ND filters is beyond me.....it does not make sense to me to specifically make a handheld (even with steady shot and working AF) self-contained unit and not put in ND filters...
like i said i am excited about the next versions of all these things...
sony's path of making their own sensors is starting to pay off....just like with canon in the early days...
-
I heard that the sensor is too close to the back lens to allowed engineers to built ND filters on this model. If this is true, this is indeed a big missing feature.
Having to change those filters from the matte-box is something I really do not enjoy and they are expensive. Screwing them is even more painfull and really not a suitable solution on set.
I'd find it acceptable on a Red because the goodies are such, but on that Sony no.
-
"Having to change those filters from the matte-box is something I really do not enjoy and they are expensive. Screwing them is even more painfull and really not a suitable solution on set."
how come? it seems like an easy solution to buy screw on ND filters and bypass the big mattebox ( I use lens hoods anyway ), it takes like 5 seconds to screw on a filter. I am not saying you are wrong or anything like that, you always make very sensible posts, I am just curious.
-
"Having to change those filters from the matte-box is something I really do not enjoy and they are expensive. Screwing them is even more painfull and really not a suitable solution on set."
how come? it seems like an easy solution to buy screw on ND filters and bypass the big mattebox ( I use lens hoods anyway ), it takes like 5 seconds to screw on a filter. I am not saying you are wrong or anything like that, you always make very sensible posts, I am just curious.
Because on set, in the middle of the mess, having to screw and descrew a little object is always more distracting than having to pull and insert a big filter with an handle. Yes, screwing filters takes a few seconds but it's not fixed into the structure wich is independant of the cameras+lenses. You also have to descrew the hood wich is another manipulation.
Those filters are easy to drop, they are fragile and also easy to loose. It's difficult to see wich is wich immediatly. Then you need different diameter and several filters for each lens diameter.
It's ok when you work with reduce lens set and on your own with no pressure. IMHO.
-
As and FS100 owner I can agree that ND is a PITA
Not a problem filming for fun in the park but with clients/subjects waiting looking on it is fumble city
I have step up rings on all my lenses to take the screw to 72, then I own multiple 72mm NDs
ie filming outside I can leave nd on two or three lenses
Nds seem prone to unpleasant flare when on the front of the lens too meaning I have had to construct a matte box (from an bronica bellows)
As for the file - yep its challenging unless the light is soft
----------
I handled an Epic this week - I was intantly struck by the rigidity and feeling of 'proper' ness compared to the FS particularly in the lens mount with a PL lens - wow it goes together clink clunk like a proper thing
this allmost sold Scarlet to me with the same body
----------
As for us stills people getting stupidly demanding for our motion gear - well we are used to high res raw, nice files and solid kit with good batt life, enough media for a days shoot, an adequate 'monitor' etc
we have high expectations
I also have clients who have high expectation of colour accuracy / control
to seek such things in our motion work seems to come naturally - and that could be expensive!
S
-
Stu at Prolost is very informative and a great writer ( friggin funny as well ), he just posted a damn good comparison of all the new cameras:
http://prolost.com/blog/2011/11/21/red-scarlet-canon-c300-and-the-paradox-of-choice.html
me? I am leaning towards the c300 as I am learning about all the baggage that comes with shooting raw footage from the Red ( money for storage, time for editing, money for batteries )
-
me? I am leaning towards the c300
I cant see buying this. of course its all about your job and clients
I guess that..
Batteries, Im pretty sure that soon Scarlet will run off of 'cheap' long lasting Vlock batteries
Media: As photographers we tend to do short takes - I certainly do
RAW : I think there is a lot of mythology amongst film makers about Raw workflow, as experienced still shooters the concept of Raw and how to deal is natural to us
Yes there might be some transcode times but im certainly used to a 'Tea based workflow' even with stills - ie setting the computer a task (like exporting a bunch of Tiffs from raw) and having a tea.. or even sleep while the computer does it
This can of course impact on jobs that need fast delivery
RAW: As a stills shooter having a non raw image seems just dumb bascially - yep I live with non raw on my sub $5k motion cameras - but spending $15k plus and not having raw - bonkers IMO
RAW: enables accutrate colour (do you work for people who make clothes etc who care about these things - I guess a lot of photographers doing motion will have such clients)
RAW takes the stress of onset monitoring away to some extent
RAW enables matching multi cameras no doubt
1080 - We all know that a 1080 still is basically a pretty crappy thing - we also know that 3k or above can bascically used for anything !
Now if you shoot 1080 and need to crop, straighten, stabilize pretty soon you only have a 720 deliverable
Lenses: the C300 is a choose PL or Canon, (what about nikon, contax) the Scarlet takes them all (?)
Of course the C300 is great in Low light and probably can deliver fast..
S
-
It may be worth reading this real world appraisal if you are considering a Scarlet.
Philip Bloom Scarlet summation (http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/)
-
It may be worth reading this real world appraisal if you are considering a Scarlet.
Philip Bloom Scarlet summation (http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/)
This is good information, but with the Scarlet for 20 grand you get a 4k, 24fps camera with interchangeable mounts that shoots raw at a clean 1000 iso and someday (who knows when in RED world) they'll have a dragon sensor that goes much higher.
Not a bad deal and if the Canon 300 did this the world would have gone goofy crazy for it.
It seems some people like RED some don't, but until you shoot with one it's kind of difficult to explain the look.
All I know is we use the hell out of our two RED One's and since Janurary the only glitch was two freeze ups which required a reboot and we've shot them in conditions that our Canon 1ds 3 still cameras just couldn't handle.
Last week we blew the shutter out of one of the Canons, the other a circuit board went south but the RED's just kept running.
As far a 5 grand for the RED rocket, that's pretty much a no brainer as it drops your processing time to real time, vs 4 or 5 times even using a very fast computer.
Motion ain't cheap in the front, middle or back end, but compared to a few years ago and film production the RED's are a steal. Compared to the Alexa they're almost free.
I had plans to change my Scarlet buy to an Epic but decided to stay with the Scarlet and my RED ones after talking to a production company that has used them all, including the Canon.
If I need 120 fps of the Epic, (which is very rare) I'll rent. If I need a billion iso of the Canon, which is also rare, I'll rent . . . actually if the Canon was a 5d2 replacement that came in at 7 grand I might buy it just for low light work, but it didn't so it's on the rental list.
IMO
BC
-
Media: As photographers we tend to do short takes - I certainly do
For film making and ads, short takes are the norm.
It's usually live events and documentaries where you shoot continuously or for long periods.
Which is why film makers were not really bothered by the 'short' capture time afforded by say the 5DII.
-
This is good information, but with the Scarlet for 20 grand you get a 4k, 24fps camera with interchangeable mounts that shoots raw at a clean 1000 iso and someday (who knows when in RED world) they'll have a dragon sensor that goes much higher.
But as many people got overexcited by a Scarlet that they thought would cost less than 10K.
Not to mention that shooting at less than 4k results in crop sensor shooting.
Not a bad deal and if the Canon 300 did this the world would have gone goofy crazy for it.
After having read the cinematographer's guide to using the C300, it makes a lot more sense.
What is worth bearing in mind is that it's mostly photographers, not film makers are the ones clamouring after a RAW cine workflow as photographer became used to the better workflow with RAW images. Or maybe became lazier with RAW due to its get out of jail abilities.....
-
Or maybe became lazier with RAW due to its get out of jail abilities.....
Too right - Im absolutely lazy
Too lazy to use my 10.8 plate camera, too lazy to use my horse and cart and keep my horses fed, I caved in and got a car, I cant even be bothered with my neg scanner any more - or even my hassy digiback mainly
Lazy = Progress/Cheaper rates, more connection with the talent, smaller crew etc etc
S
-
RAW : I think there is a lot of mythology amongst film makers about Raw workflow, as experienced still shooters the concept of Raw and how to deal is natural to us
Yeh, that's exactly it for me. I *KNOW* RAW shooting inside and out, front to back. I know its advantages, as you've listed them, and am very familiar with the tea-based workflow which is the main disadvantage. (I wonder if ALL pro photographers posting on forums are waiting for a whole stack of TIFFs to come out of their RAW processing software?)
Resolution is a help, but RAW workflow is where I live, and I want to be able to use all the techniques for getting stunning images that I know from stills work and apply them to motion.
Hence the temptation to get a Scarlet, once I've heard from early adopters how they handle and once I've hired one once or twice. Although I'm wondering about picking up a secondhand Red One instead having read Philip Bloom's reliability report on his Epic- I can't wait a couple of years for them to finish the firmware, I'll need it to work from the off!
Cheers, Hywel
-
just read the prolost post and could not agree more...
there is no perfect camera for everything....
as for raw workflow with motion....i am not so sure....with stills i would not even think about shooting jpeg...
same goes for 4k...just not sure....the discussion reminds me of the silly dslr vs dmfb threads....in the end it comes down to what and how it is seen...there is nothing worse then the "typical" still guy first motion project....you can go down the checklist: slider shot, check, attempt at steady cam, check...and you can almost see the guy sitting in front of his iPad showing off his master piece...:you should see the detail!"...who cares....i don't think i would enjoy Solaris watching it for the first time on my iPad....some things are just meant to be projected....
in other words: well shot, interesting 1080p is WAAAY better then all the 4k of snooze....
nobody will hire anyone for their 4k footage...a lot of commercial stuff is still shot on 7ds and 5dIIs....
raw is great, but like bloom said....you can buy the c300 for what the SSD storage for his short moebius would have cost....and laforet shot extra, with backups....and i am not even talking about the extra cost in post equipment....and the latitude of the c300 is something to see IMO.....and i am not sure what i would have done to the files that need so much tweaking that they would fall apart...but of course laforet could have shot the entire thing on his epic and the production would have been the same and probably the results as well....i can't tell what camera that was shot on.....some of it looks great, but i would not call any of it great cinema....the story, the acting makes great cinema....
i think the red is a great camera and the concept is great and most important, they really lit a fire under everyone's a.. i can see where the workflow could be amazing and efficient....
i think everybody has to find out what they need and plan accordingly....
but regardless, it is completely crazy to think that getting one camera over the other will make anyone a better motion shooter....shoot you dog or kids with the iPhone and you realize how hard certain things are and how much planning has to go into a shoot and that in the end the camera questions answers itself....and probably differently for everybody....
-
snip........the story, the acting makes great cinema....snip
Paul your right, but any image, still or motion has to be able to get through the post production pipeline usable, pretty and in a reasonable time frame.
I still hold to the opinion, if the canon 300 was $7,000 people would be all over it, if RED dropped their prices on accessories, they'd probably sell more Scarlets, because I believe most photographers moving to motion, or adding motion, have honest concern about jumping in on the deep side of the pool. I can't blame them as it's a hell of a jump and I am biased RED as it's been good for us.
Anyway, workflow is as important to me as the camera, especially when we're sitting on a huge volume of data. So is camera form factor, so is the ability to pull stills, even small web based stills.
These two links are informing. One is on sensor size the other on a hdslr workflow. If your working multiple cameras or medium run projects this hdslr workflow I would consider mandatory.
hdslr workflow
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/125918
RED sensor sizes (yes . . . we all know not all of these sensors are out yet)
http://www.4shared.com/photo/RVTmcpcU/Sensor_Sizes.html?cau2=403tNull
IMO
BC
-
I think we are seeing a 'hole' and that 1080 or 2k raw in S35 chip (or larger :) )
Again us stills people are probably ahead of the video gang in being kind of done with resolution
whats 2k ? 6mp - a good 6mp frame looks pretty nice - I have files from my nikon D1 and D100 that look nicer than any motion frame I ahve ever seen that was not Red or Alexa
S
-
A side thought - but changing lenses (ND mate box follow focus) is such a pain shooting 1080/2k deliverable I can see the Scarlet has a great facility in just being able to crop - obviously the 'look' is lost to some extent, but a 17-50 is a bit useless wheas a 17-100 becomes very interesting even if kthat 100 has the 2/3 look
S
-
...a 17-50 is a bit...
A side note to your side thought.
I'm still considering a RED 17-50, but have heard a handful of mechanical complaints that are holding me back. For awhile I've wondered who made the glass, & it appears it's a rehoused Tamron 17-50/2.8. RED didn't even remove the plastic bayonet mount from the front element, & it's still treaded for 67mm filters.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html
That said the Tamron does get decent reviews, & is supposedly parfocal.
-B
-
A side note to your side thought.
I'm still considering a RED 17-50, but have heard a handful of mechanical complaints that are holding me back. For awhile I've wondered who made the glass, & it appears it's a rehoused Tamron 17-50/2.8. RED didn't even remove the plastic bayonet mount from the front element, & it's still treaded for 67mm filters.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html
That said the Tamron does get decent reviews, & is supposedly parfocal.
-B
Bern,
I've heard the same thing about them being Tamrons, but the RED's by all accounts are sharp and the price is good.
Especially the primes.
They are heavy but fast so I guess you can't have both fast, less price and small.
Lately we've been renting an angeniux zoom that's lovely, though 20 something thousand.
Beautiful lens even though it's a 2.8.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/662246-REG/Angenieux_16_42_OPTIMO_ROUGE_Optimo_DP_Digital_Production_.html
all the best.
BC
-
Lately we've been renting an angeniux zoom that's lovely, though 20 something thousand.
I've been considering renting a pair of those lenses for a project, but it keeps getting pushed. By all accounts they are lovely, so thanks!
On another note, do you ever use PLs on your Sony? Solid camera has PL adapter/handle that looks great.
http://solidcamera.com/SCI/Sony-FS100-accessories-PL-mount.html
-B
-
16_42_OPTIMO_ROUGE
THat the sort of lens that has not really intereted me 42 - you still are going to take it off all the time, so why have the convence of a zoom - to me the convenience of a zoom is to leave it on all day
with the crop still delivering 2k this becomes possible which I find really intereting and a good reason not to get the Canon - IMO
I dont think the 18-xx F3 sony zoom is going to really deliver either at 3.5-6.3
S
-
Too right - Im absolutely lazy
Too lazy to use my 10.8 plate camera, too lazy to use my horse and cart and keep my horses fed, I caved in and got a car, I cant even be bothered with my neg scanner any more - or even my hassy digiback mainly
Lazy = Progress/Cheaper rates, more connection with the talent, smaller crew etc etc
S
I think you completely missed the point I was making. I'm all for RAW video shooting but Cinematographers, not being used to that workflow have had no option but to get it right in cameras as you don't have a generous RAW file to be able to drag data out of. Shooting RAW means you do not need to take the same care whilst shooting video [or JPEG] as you have such incredible latitude in post. I shot some bracketed shots recently as I thought I may have to do a HDR image, but there was no need due to a single RAW file contained enough info to get shot.
So if shooting RAW stills, you can be lazier as you can so easily sort it out in post far easier and not to mention much quicker than the tedious render times needed when correcting video files. Which has absolutely nothing to do with size of crew, being a luddite and shunning progress as you then made out. ???
-
Which has absolutely nothing to do with size of crew, being a luddite and shunning progress as you then made out. ??
Im sure everyone here appreciates raw
Now, to get good colour on set - without raw - means careful metering - monitoring - you will have seen film crews lugging black tents around, full size 30inch screens in huge flight cases, breeze blocks to stop the the tents blowing away, people to carry the breeze blocks, people to make lunch for the people who carry the breeze blocks
Its one aspect that makes making movies so horrible, and there is a set of luddites who want it to stay like that
So IMO it does affect crew size
I am shortly apprearing in a video on the FS100 - shot on the FS100, now my office has nice nat light and a few practicals around, the FS100 is web clean at 800ISO - there is loads of light to shoot with no lights - but no - the crew arrived and NDd my practicals, pulled out a bunch of kino and dedo and carried on exactly like they were filming me with a 100 ISO film camera (while I, the subject, got nervous and ended up having little time to tell my story - most of the time had been spend 'lighting' my office) - to me missing they were missing the point of clean ISO, I see the same blinkers happening with raw...
Anyway the Scarlet has raw .. and I like it
:) SMM
-
geeze now you guys got me leaning towards the Scarlet again ........ I guess I will wait and see just how much the C300 actually cost. If its 15 grand it will seem much more appealing.
fyi, I will be shooting for web, in store display, and tv, not cinema FYI.
-
Red Raw... good shit. Like any tool it has it's issues, but I'm digging it.
Epic.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/A003_C018_111390.jpg)
Epic pointed out the window while crew was packing up.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/skyline.jpg)
Red One. Still Awesome.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/SG.jpg)
-
fyi, I will be shooting for web, in store display, and tv, not cinema FYI.
I dont think that is really a reason not to consider Scarlet - I guess 'ex photographers' are more likely to land clients like clothes prodcut makers than be DOPing features
And those clients that produce product are probably actually more demanding on colour than feature people who just want their feature to look 'cool'
With my current cameras I would not be scared if asked to Dop a feature, I would be scared to shoot a bunch of colour critical clips for a 'moving web shop'
And I certainly want to be able to shoot for 'moving web shops' as my current clientelle will surely be replacing thier stills based web shops soon with 'moving web shops'
not to mention the demands on resolution upright screens in stores/bus stops could present
Its clear to me, my next motion camera will be a Raw shooter
S
-
snip..... but Cinematographers, not being used to that workflow have had no option but to get it right in cameras as you don't have a generous RAW file to be able to drag data out of. .......snip
Huh?
DP's have been shooting raw for 5 decades, it's called negative film, telecine and years ago analog grading, today electronic color grading.
There may have been a few guys walking around with color meters and crews blocking off practicals with dubos and cutters, to allow the set lights to control the look, but in the end, the negative, the telecine, the digitization and grading in post was the equivalent of todays raw file, except it had extra post production steps.
With RED raw digital we don't light any different than we do with any file, film or baked in digital, I just don't worry about things like matching multiple cameras exactly in color and tone, because we can do it in cine-x so easily.
But raw, naw . . . that's been around forever.
IMO
BC
-
THat the sort of lens that has not really intereted me 42 - you still are going to take it off all the time, so why have the convence of a zoom - to me the convenience of a zoom is to leave it on all day
S
16 to 42 on a RED One is basically the full frame still equivalent to 24mm to 60 something mm, which covers a lot of territory in motion.
Now I'm not a fan of rubber lenses, because I think they can make you lazy and not position yourself properly for the shot as it's just too easy to zoom in or out, though this optimo is one hell of a nice lens.
What we rent it for is steady cam and jib work where the focus puller works off of a remote. Shooting primes with a mobile remote and a camera on a vest or jib takes a lot of time to change lenses and focus gears, get set and then get back into position, so a zoom can save you hours on a day in that configuration.
But given my perfect world, I'll opt for primes.
IMO
BC
-
16still equivalent to 24mm to 60 something mm, which covers a lot of territory in motion.
Im not sure I agree, I think with stills I could shoot most on a 24-70, my style tends to come in quite close (so avoiding a need for teles in the main)
With motion I tend to crave a longer lens - Im not sure why - its not about not being bothered to move
I think often in stills im shooting a half portrait upright with a 70 where-as in motion I would represent the person by standing at the same place and shooting either a pan up/down or two cuttable shots, hands/face
So.. representation of a person..
Still , stand at a 'comfortable distance', shoot an upright on a 70mm
Motion stand at that same 'comfortable distance'; shot 1, hands, shot2 face, lens needed 105 or 135 (FF), or pan up/down in one shot
this entry on my website we see the girl represented as an upright in the still (scroll down) and a series of close landscapes in the vid..
http://sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=53 (http://sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=53)
IMO
S
-
Motion stand at that same 'comfortable distance'; shot 1, hands, shot2 face, lens needed 105 or 135 (FF), or pan up/down in one shot
Kurosawa shot at 200mm+ - but not everyone has the space and light for that kind of luxury. In the 'client-on-your-back' world of video, I have found 24-135 to be the most used range. But occasionally we all need to go wider. Very rarely have I gone longer than 135mm (35mm equiv) - but never on people.
-
To me it is 'luxurious' to bring my viewer close into a place, I would find a 200 more voureistic with all but the tightest crops
The distance thing becomes even more intersting in motion with the ability to 'cheat'
S
-
Personaly, 135 is becoming my "standard" (with the GH2).
It's chalenging but really cool.
It's a great lengh because it doesn't compromise too much weight and size.
I tend to be away from wides, but the lightning and focussing are more critical.
I vastly use the "zoom" option (2,6x) on the gh2 that allows the zooming without loosing any quality.
An article of Michael Reichmann on that: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_11_mode_revealed.shtml
This is a very powerfull feature, it allows fast apertures with dead-long focals with high quality output.
So you can be at 300-400+ mm in low-light with a 2 aperture and it works like a Ferrari engine.
(IMO it works even better than the normal mode with the equivalent lens lengh)
So the setting is this: you want to shoot 135mm lengh, so you put a 50mm fast lens instead but in ETC mode. It will give you + or - 130 with a higher quality than an expensive equivalent lens.
That's because only the 2K center of the sensor is recorded...you see what I mean...
-
with a higher quality than an expensive equivalent lens.
That's because only the 2K center of the sensor is recorded...you see what I mean...
Ummm... Fred isn't this getting dangerously close to the fallacy that going from 35mm format to 6x7 format will give you the same 35mm quality but across the larger format when the reality is that 35mm looks like it does just because the lenses for the smaller format are designed to cover a smaller area and, so, can be better?
This was certainly the case with film, but do sensors really have magical properties to improve lens design, as different from simply providing a common but flatter plane of focus for any format... ?
I did, sometimes, have to blow up the central area of a 6x6 Hasselblad neg, equivalent to a full 35mm format frame, and I can vouch that using the Zeiss glass didn't match the result of using the equivalent Nikkors. Yes, it might have been different films - can't honestly remember that now, but it was certainly something I'd have thought about at the time.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might have totally misunderstood your concept.
Rob C
-
This is different Rob.
In motion, the camera uses a much smaller resolution than its full sensor capabilities. There is a convertion involved in that process. The camera shoots the full frame but it "downsamples" the all frame into the HD output.
In the case of this function in the GH2, the camera actually shoots the necessary pixels without this "downsampling" right in the area of the sensor. This brings a more "precise" output wich is noticiable.
Where that comes interesting? well, you have the hability to uses extremely/ long focal lenses, but with the performances of standard fast primes. Shooting a "135"mm at f1.2 is impressive.
On the GH2, a 50mm is a 100mm, so you have a based 100mm lens. Then, using the ETC, you multiply that by 2,6...still with your 1,2 aperture and fast standard quality.
But, (there is but, as always...) as Michael pointed, the image quality stands high in lower isos. Because the downsamplig has an advantage in higher isos.
In short: lower isos = ETC enabled = choosing a diiferent lens to match the desired output.
Higher isos, back to normal mode for a cleaner output
How much would cost a 200-250mm lens for motion with a 1.2-1.4 aperture? Tens of thousands.
In fact, the problem with the GH2 is when you need wide, but the other way is simply superb.
-
In motion, the camera uses a much smaller resolution than its full sensor capabilities. There is a convertion involved in that process. The camera shoots the full frame but it "downsamples" the all frame into the HD output.
What is the reasoning behind using a smaller resolution than is availabe?
Rob C
-
To save data rate/computer load - Even D3s, etc cannot record 25 FPS stills - way to much data
Of course Scarlet does NOT downsample - which is why its great - although you can only use the middle of the sensor when shooting at higher frame rates
S
-
Thanks for the info, Morgan; seems that the problem, then, isn't with the actual size of sensor or even the lens, but the shortcomings of the buffering systems, whatever they are?
As I seldom - if ever - used any sort of motor drive with stills other than as a winder (well, I did a few times with film and blanched at the cost), such things haven't crossed my path at all with digital. I imagine that the problem you mention must make highly detailed slow motion work a special nightmare with digital - if it can be done at all. But, I'm sure they'll get there in the end.
Thanks again -
Rob C
-
A Phantom Flex shoots up to 4000 fps. so slomo in digitial is not an issue, except for cost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DadBdeh1OlE
Sometimes it's a gimmick, but planned well sometimes it's essential to the story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKDTRQ3zZI4
IMO
BC
-
Nice links - just shows to go you!
;-)
Rob C
-
The Phantom is now easy to rent in Spain.
I've seen that Service Vision from Barcelona has a service in L.A USA also. But honestly, the "spanish way" to anunce something publicaly and then when you want
the contacts, the web link to the L.A site, it won't work!
Aaaarrrggg. Mediteranean holy mess!
12035 Sherman Way
North Hollywood CA. 91605 USA
Pho. (818) 623-1970
Fax. (818) 759-6911
This is what I (indirectly!) found.
Won't be surprised at all that this adress doesn't exist...
Anyway.
The Phantom, if I'm right shoots 2000ish in full HD, wich is impressive. The 4000ish Coot said is, if my info is correct, with reduced resolution only.
Then, the Phantom shoots also Raw video. I imagine that the Raw implicates a dedicated software from the brand (that has to be learned) so I think that most people who rent it will use the Prores codec.
-
C300 is looking better:
http://blog.planet5d.com/2011/11/has-canon-already-significantly-reduced-the-list-price-of-the-canon-eos-c300/
-
In LA a basic Phantom package, & dedicated tech, costs $5k+.
Additional digital mags are $1800/day.
-
Hey - my light has just come on to the 'perfect' camera package for delivering at 1080 (excluding Epic or Alexa on cost grounds)
Now the Scarlet has 'drawbacks' over the C300
Namely the High data rates, 'complex workflow' cost of media etc and also lowlight performance
Now what happens if you strap a Sound Devices Pix240 onto it??
This is a 1080 pro res recorder.
-You film at 1080
-You go to a higher frame rate and film at 1080 - maybe up to 120 FPS
- you are doing a complex high dynamic range scen, you slip in a card and shoot it raw, just to be safe
-you have onboard lossless zoom by going to 2k?
You can even take stills on it
Now this is a little compromised on the Stills front (AF, Sensor size) and motion low light
Add a CanonD1x record you lowlight motion with that and do your stills that need a larger sensor , or quality AF
ON a stills job yuou take the Stills body, but if you need a few video shots, you use the 1Dx, if you need a quick interview and dont trust the DSLR onboard sound you do synch sound on the PIx recorder
Job done !
Could this work
SamMM
-
I am sure the only reason the 1dx doesn't have sound sampling (other than bars) is a nod to Canon's video division, since the 1dx has high iso and down samples from the full sensor which is suppose to eliminate most moire, which would make it a competitor to Canon's own c300.
If this is a real price drop on the c300, I'm also sure it's a nod to the Scarlet and the Sony F3.
But when it comes to indie work, I think a lot of people are forgetting what a massive third part industry there is for hdslrs. Sliders, cages, wheels, mikes, time lapse, steady supports, software, lenses, PL conversions, hdmi to prorezz on the fly transcoding . . . and a million more things I haven't listed.
Indie guys love the dslrs, because the buy in is low and the form factor is small enough to use a lot of third party parts. I know before buying our REDs I spent almost three times the price of our 5d2, just on these parts to make it really useable and still didn't have the video file I needed for grading.
Maybe the 1dx will overcome this, maybe the c300 will be even better, who knows until you try it.
I do know that in the Canon league price is a major reason for buying and I'll bet they sell 20 1dx' to every c300, maybe more, unless the next 5d is something amazing, then canon will sell nothing but 5d's.
But even at the 5d price buy in, by the time you get it to work in most heavy production, your into almost serious money and the camera is probably a 2 to 3 year deal until some dslr maker comes out with 3k or 4k raw, then all of these cameras that shoot a baked in file will go on the shelf.
We can talk 4 color pixels to one all day long, but at the end of the day, it always comes down to price and usability. I think most people expected an raw file option, autofocus mount combination 5d2 and RED killer at under $10,000 and instead they got twice the price with singular mounts and less usability.
I still think if your going to buy at the 20 grand range, a MX sensored RED One will be more usefull and last a lot longer than the Canon . . . but that's just my view, others will probably feel the different and we'll know when the dealers start talking about sales.
Time will tell on the c300 and I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that Canon didn't have the ear to the ground on this one.
IMO
BC
-
If the scarlet video output is like the Red One, then it is not suitable for recording for the final project. It's a reduced quality de-Bayer to reduce processor load.
Also, RAW is not always necessary or desirable for movies. There are cameras such as the Sony high end and the new Canon that can record the full dynamic range of the sensor to a video format for color grading in post. One just needs to set a "close enough" white balance when exposing. This can make the post workflow easier, while delivering perfectly professional results. It would be best to record in 10 bits for this, (Canon is only 8 bit) but for many shoots 8 bits will prove surprisingly effective. Shooting S-Log video on a Sony F3 or F35 is not at all like shooting jpeg stills or video from a DSLR. Even the old Panasonic Varicams were capable of shooting rather high contrast subjects without unwanted clipping if one knew how to use it properly. (11-12 stops dynamic range)
-
Cant be bothered with this (reduser) thread but I think it is being touted as a usable image from the output..
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64848-Sound-Devices-PIX-240-ProRes-DNxHD-Video-Recorder-with-EPIC
-
As for RAW not being neccesary - I just think the other 'solutions' are a load of pony in comparison - raw is easy to deal with (if you have the computer muscle)
(that is about getting ultimate image and control)
In the real world having an Edit ready 1080 straight onto CF is the boon that the Pix provides is a great solution .. maybe
I can see me getting a Scarlet and potentiall only useing the onvboard record very rarely (as my clients only want 1080)
The main attraction being 'punch in' and other details of actual usability.. if they work which is not cleaer to me !
S
-
If the scarlet video output is like the Red One, then it is not suitable for recording for the final project. It's a reduced quality de-Bayer to reduce processor load.
from the man with iron fist, starring Russell Crowe.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WK-AZ969_cov_ju_G_20111122145638.jpg)
-
... - raw is easy to deal with (if you have the computer muscle)
I think we should break this mystic about Raw being difficult to deal with and requires the pentagon power to be manageable. That's not truth.
It's simple, in Avid, the RED raw workflow through AMA is faster than AVCHD native editing ! Try it by yourself if you don't beleive me.
In Edius, it's faster to work from Red files than with this popular consumer AVCHD. And I'm talking about 4k editing, not 2k.
I've actually discovered that using HQX codec (converting the R3D) in 4K editing it's possible to maintain the quality while editing way faster. Impossible to notice visually a difference.
Avid grades directly the Raw datas in the timeline (with a raw pop-up windows that looks like ACR) without problem on a 4 years old workstation (fair to say that some renders are required from time to time).
No fear of Raw. It works very well.
-
I looked at the link for the recorder, and it seems to be used for editing footage, to be graded later from the original RAW footage. It records the meta-data for each clip enabling syncing to the original RAW files for grading.
-
from the man with iron fist, starring Russell Crowe.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WK-AZ969_cov_ju_G_20111122145638.jpg)
I shot my latest feature with the RedMX camera. We recorded the video output live, just for playback. It was in no way suitable for final mastering.
Is the point of this photo to show that they have some on-board recorder for the video output?
-
Then I don't get it Bruce.
That's the normal procedure in Avid or Premiere without needing any device. (unless it is for FCP users)
One more external gadget (and in the end the robocop we are complaining about with dslrs will still remains tha same?)
-
I shot my latest feature with the RedMX camera. We recorded the video output live, just for playback. It was in no way suitable for final mastering.
Is the point of this photo to show that they have some on-board recorder for the video output?
I guess I'm missing your point.
Why would you try to master from the hdmi output on the RED. The reason for RED is raw in either editing/grading in Avid, or just grading and output in any format you wish?
Anyway, don't get me wrong, if it turns out the c300 is a better camera than what I own or what I intend to buy, I'll buy it in a blink of an eye, because even at 20k that just the entry level for good lenses.
It doesn't change the fact I think Canon missed the mark on this, but as I say it's just my opinion and my workflow, vs a lot of others that work differently and It matters nothing to me what cameras anyone uses.
I do know that we've had great results with the RED and only one issue where the footage didn't grade well and that was a quick street shot in Paris under practicals without fill and graded to blue. That broke it up, but it also broke up the 5d2 and the Sony footage, but I should have expected that given that the scene was natively bright orange.
Other than that no issues for us.
IMO
BC
-
I think we should break this mystic about Raw being difficult to deal with and requires the pentagon power to be manageable. That's not truth.
It's simple, in Avid, the RED raw workflow through AMA is faster than AVCHD native editing ! Try it by yourself if you don't beleive me.
In Edius, it's faster to work from Red files than with this popular consumer AVCHD. And I'm talking about 4k editing, not 2k.
I've actually discovered that using HQX codec (converting the R3D) in 4K editing it's possible to maintain the quality while editing way faster. Impossible to notice visually a difference.
Avid grades directly the Raw datas in the timeline (with a raw pop-up windows that looks like ACR) without problem on a 4 years old workstation (fair to say that some renders are required from time to time).
No fear of Raw. It works very well.
I'm not editing my own photography, and the professional editors I've worked with don't edit using the R3d files. We conform and grade the RAW files at the end of post production.
The biggest challenge that I have for color grading is dealing with shots that have been re-framed and speed altered. It ends up that there will be many shots that have been rendered to 2k that need to be matched with clips graded directly from the RAW files. It can be very time consuming to sort this out. Same goes for clips with visual effects sometimes. If the editing had been done with original s-log video files, this task would be much faster and easier.
And lastly, from my experience, color grading the R3d files, the basic de-bayer from the RED software looks rather odd. Not at all like a Canon still camera RAW conversion, which usually looks quite good right off the bat. The RED RAW files need quite a bit of work to look cinematic and natural. In my opinion, much more than they should. Color grading s-log footage from a Sony F35 is a breeze in comparison. And in the end, the projects are rendered to 2k or 1080p HD anyway. This is more than enough resolution for cinema delivery today.
The main point of my post was that many who read this forum will assume that cinema camera RAW shooting is just like still camera RAW shooting. And that cinema camera non-RAW shooting is just like shooting JPEG in camera. But it's not really comparable unless one is shooting for direct broadcast or delivery of in-camera video. High quality / high dynamic range imaging is possible using either RAW recording or log video recording. If one needs a low cost camera for moderately budgeted productions, RAW recording might not be the best choice. And many high end movies have been shot digitally without RAW recording as well.
-
I guess I'm missing your point.
Why would you try to master from the hdmi output on the RED. The reason for RED is raw in either editing/grading in Avid, or just grading and output in any format you wish?
IMO
BC
I agree completely. An earlier post seemed to be considering recording the RED video output for HD delivery. I just wanted to point out that it's not the same quality as SDI out of many non-RAW cameras.
-
... We conform and grade the RAW files at the end of post production.
So do I...normaly.
But the word I don't like is the last one, "normaly".
Conforming, reconforming, ok, but there are different possible solutions as you know well. Like in any other medium let's be frank, there is also orthodoxy.
In Avid I use AMA and it doesn't slow-down significantly. Avid only motion adapt the R3D to the HD standard, and even when using the DNxHD codec to edit, the conforming task is dead easy with the bins capabilities.
There is a significant advantage. When you have for ex 3 types of cameras on the same timeline, let's say a Red, a Sony F3, and a 5D2. If, the red files have been graded in RCX or even by the camera opeator on set, and there is a color issue within the timeline with the other footage, you can, while editing and viewing the footage in 2k, call the raw datas and alter them in real time without having to do anything but keeping editing. That means that it's only interesting when you decide to by-pass the conforming stage otherwise it makes no sense because you'd loose those settings. (to date that I know, maybe they solved that with Red engineers)
Now, cutting in 4K is another path that not all the NLE are able to acheive. If that can be done without experiencing a significant lost in performances, why not using it? This is another way, not saying the best, but in some cases it really is a great option. It means that what you ingest in the editor will not be conformed-reconformed.
Working in full screen with 4k while editing is an interesting experience.
I can tell you this: without any Da-Vinci, you'd be able to stay in Edius 6 until the finishing, but it means serious habilities in the grading knowledge while there is no dedicated color correct soft involved, it's more tedius. Where does it shines? Documentary shooted with Red for ex.
The biggest challenge that I have for color grading is dealing with shots that have been re-framed and speed altered. It ends up that there will be many shots that have been rendered to 2k that need to be matched with clips graded directly from the RAW files. It can be very time consuming to sort this out. Same goes for clips with visual effects sometimes. If the editing had been done with original s-log video files, this task would be much faster and easier.
This is very truth.
-
Lets try and clarify what I was trying to say. Maybe use some photo language.
Tonight I have done a stills job - it is 2200 hours here in the UK and my deadline is 0830 - I intend to get some sleep
What I have done is shoot Raw and Jpeg on my Nikon D3, I am confident the jpgs are good enough for the client
I will download the card and work up the jpgs a little and send, done.
Should I have got my colour or exposrue way off I would go into the raws and do some recovery.
Really I only shot the Raws as a little insurance for myself.
Spool forward a year and Im asked to do a 2 min video of the same event next year with the same deadline
I want to come home and get editing right now
Users of sony XDcam, or a pro res shooting camera can do that - drop onto the timleline, edit , export , deliver
I dont see that as being possible with native scarlet files - its clumsy enough for me just with the FS100
Is it possible with the C300 - Im not sure?
It it possible with native Scarlet - I dont think so
So I was putting forward the concept of using the camera in different modes appropriate to different situations
Using native file recording for more serious projects and recording straight to pro res for lower budget projects or those with hard deadlines
Some projects would require shooting 'Raw and JPG' for instant deliver and integration into a more serious project in the fulness of time
Match that with a potential ability for the Scarlet to record a crop of the sensor (in this mode) making a lens like a 16-35 into something like a 16-70 that could be great too
On that basis if the output is a half decent quality of 1080 pro res the camera to me becomes far more versatile than the Canon
Shoot..
4K
5K stills
.. all the other raw options
Plus
1080 444 pro res full frame
1080 crop mode at up to 60fps
maybe 1080 super crop mode at up to 120fps
Is a lot more functional than..
30p 1080 or 60p 720 offereed by the canon
Of course I know what the pix can record, but have no idea what comes out of the Scarlet SDI
Clear as mud no doubt
S
-
Oh yeah! Super clear
...as the Amazon river water...
(I'm teasing, I'm teasing)
-
How about this
Could I shoot RAw on big important projects and 1080pro res on simpler projects that are on a hard deadline
or both on some other projects
S
-
How about this
Could I shoot RAw on big important projects and 1080pro res on simpler projects that are on a hard deadline
or both on some other projects
S
But this where I don't get you.
You have your raw file. Once it is ingested into the NLE (let's asume that you do not work with FCP), it can be whatever you like it to be. 2k, 4-5, 50000K, 5 billion Ks and you can choose the appropriate codec.
But again, it's asuming that you work in a NLE like Avid or Premiere. (Edius is another path).
So you only need one file that potentialy "contains" the options you want.
-
There are variousappeals to shooting direct to 1080 (on the right projects)
-Mass of data and moving it around - even 'downloading the cards' takes time?
Is this right? http://www.theblackandblue.com/2011/08/04/epic-cost/
-The speed of editiing
-amount and cost of media
Remember this is a Twitter Facebook age, things seem old by yesterday
For example the launches on Nov 3rd - really you wanted to have a launch report online within an hour or two of the event, not the next day
Id like to do that with the same camera that could also do serious projects
My nikon D3 can shoot Small, Med Large and Raw too or not
In my business each file is appropriate on occasion
S
-
Now I'm finally following you.
Yes, interesting thoughts.
I agree with most of your points.
-
Match that with a potential ability for the Scarlet to record a crop of the sensor (in this mode) making a lens like a 16-35 into something like a 16-70 that could be great too
On that basis if the output is a half decent quality of 1080 pro res the camera to me becomes far more versatile than the Canon
Shoot..
4K
5K stills
.. all the other raw options
Plus
1080 444 pro res full frame
1080 crop mode at up to 60fps
maybe 1080 super crop mode at up to 120fps
Is a lot more functional than..
30p 1080 or 60p 720 offereed by the canon
Of course I know what the pix can record, but have no idea what comes out of the Scarlet SDI
Clear as mud no doubt
S
Sam,
Why bother...other than time and you can sleep while CS 5.5 PP does the work.
I have shot 4K Red One files...import to PP output to Cineform 442 ( save space ) at 1920x1080 after editing in real time on the
timeline....then later color correct in First Light and output to MOV files.
Most of this I do while I am off reading...sleeping...living my life. Red Cine Pro X allows a very quick workflow for the same.
With a RED Rocket all of this would be in real time. As I do this for myself I do not see the need to run at the highest level
of output...but it is nice to know that the option exists.
Bottom line is there exists a 4K Master file that is scalable...this is R1. Epic and Scarlet allow 5K same workflow.
My EX1R had wonderful color and terrible aliasing...sharp with artifacts....not what I saw as a viable form. This was
with a Nano Flash at 100MBPS....
Color is correctable and the RED files look more analog ... like a M8(.2) to me. I cannot add resolution after the fact.
With RED I have it to begin with...
In the setup you can select 2 to 5K ... your choice : unavailable with Canon or Sony at this price point.
Looking at your web site your output with the Canon 5DII is wonderful...I imagine with a C300 or a Scarlet
it would be incrementally better...you have the process down. I do not think that either would overwhelm your
free time if staged correctly.
Bob
-
Maybe why bother - maybe the workflow is not that slow
I will say it again ..
Speed - int the internet age some projects need delivering very quickly - either same day or ready for the next morning
Space - lets say filming some boring corporate speech - could be 4 hours maybe more, maybe many camera
128GB = 90 mins at highest compression, 12 hours of footage, 1000GB of raw footage before any proxies or orther formats
is this a problem - I dont know - it would be on my current computer Im sure
1TB lasts me a couple of months at the moment!
Back up ? Copy time to backup, editable drives - cost of of on location media or a DIT running bla bla
The wrong camera - maybe - but it would be my camera
And just cos its a conferernce it doesnt need to be 1/3 hell
Bascially a Raw only Scarlet is a non starter for me (being realistic)
Then ther is the 'punch in' factor - if you are recording at 1080 you could get a small portion of the frame
Saving lens changes while shooting
Im not saying it would work - I am enquiring (where is Gnatress) if it is a viable solution
And at the weekend or with my best clients shoot wonderful 4k
S
-
Maybe why bother - maybe the workflow is not that slow
I will say it again ..
Speed - int the internet age some projects need delivering very quickly - either same day or ready for the next morning
Space - lets say filming some boring corporate speech - could be 4 hours maybe more, maybe many camera
128GB = 90 mins at highest compression, 12 hours of footage, 1000GB of raw footage before any proxies or orther formats
is this a problem - I dont know - it would be on my current computer Im sure
1TB lasts me a couple of months at the moment!
Back up ? Copy time to backup, editable drives - cost of of on location media or a DIT running bla bla
The wrong camera - maybe - but it would be my camera
And just cos its a conferernce it doesnt need to be 1/3 hell
Bascially a Raw only Scarlet is a non starter for me (being realistic)
Then ther is the 'punch in' factor - if you are recording at 1080 you could get a small portion of the frame
Saving lens changes while shooting
Im not saying it would work - I am enquiring (where is Gnatress) if it is a viable solution
And at the weekend or with my best clients shoot wonderful 4k
S
I seem to remember a proposed prores recorder from RED that could be added to the Epic/Scarlet body. I don't think it's been released yet, but the idea would have been to do what you propose. At present, the video out via HDSDI from the RED cameras looks just a little bit better than standard def video, and "jaggie" artifacts are common, even though it comes out as HD video, it's not really HD quality. HD video from a Panasonic HDX 170 looks better...
Also, the black level from the RED oneMX video out isn't really "0" black and will need to be corrected in post. Ironically, the color debayer through the video out looks a little bit better to me than the debayer through the Red software modules. I have no idea why this is.
Maybe a camera like the new Canon or Sony F3 might be just the right product for your style of production? I think both are quite capable of shooting a "hollywood" feature that would be viable for distribution provided the project could attract $14 per ticket :)
If you can deal with rendering from RAW images, you might like a RED camera more, Mr. Moore...
-
Earlier I linked to a recorder the Sound Devices PIX240
Sound Devices is a company whos stuff tends to do what is supposed to do (unlike some of the other more indy style recorders at lower price points)
Maybe the output from Scarlet is like you describe on the Red only useable as a preview
Maybe not.. that is my question
F3, C300, is absolutely possible, but if the SDi out on Scarlet gives similar quality to recording on cards on one of those cameras the Scarlet would go straight to the top of my list !
-
The more this thread keeps going, the less I follow you guys on those points.
Basically, what Morgan is asking is a proper HD output option within the Red camera and the possibility to choose between raw - Prores QT.
Perfectly fine and usefull desire.
It's true that the RED proxies generated suck and can't be an option.
But then, wich Prores? the 4.2.2 ? I don't see it.
The Alexa does that. Arriraw or Prores 444.
I don't get the cost of space, if the cost of space has never been so low and will keep going to decrease. Computer performances are growing while costs are getting lower. What can be costly today will be the norm tomorrow. Computer engineering goes faster than gear. So 4-5 or more ks won't be any issue tomorrow at each time lower costs.
If a camera is able to shoot a Raw master, then whatever your output might be, it gives you flexibility as in the end one file is needed for any output.
You seem to think like you'd had to deliver only one format and that's it, format that would have been defined before the shooting :o but I've never received such a sheet because
what I always got is at least 5 different outputs required for the same project, and those are generally starting from the maximum possible size to mobile phones outputs.
Then, let's say the Red features 2k HD prores option, you have choosen this setting, then the clients asks for stills later...you're in deep trouble: "why the hell haven't I choose the Raw...." will resonate in your head...
Let's be serious for awhile. I've never ever seen once a client that asks for just one output.
You do a master at the max possible quality and then dispatch. Why complicating? You'd have this option in camera that it will be in fact a dilema more than a solution.
If you decide to shoot HD "only" with a camera that features 4-5K reso, it's the open door to future problems.
To solve one, you'd put yourself potentially in others later.
I think that the master should be the maximum reso available. If it's 2K Alexa it will be 2K, if it's 4-5K Red it will be 4-5 K.
If it's possible (and it will be more and more possible) to edit with resolution independance, then this is the path IMO.
And another observation. Reading some post between lines (I might be wrong so correct me if it's the case), it seems that many are FCP users right?
I won't comment on that any further, but you know that there are options...
-
Remember the 'low quality' output I would be after would match the output of a SonyF3 (shooting to card) or Canon C300 at all
I guess using those cameras is not a recipe for 'deep trouble'
Judging this , reduser, thread some seem to ask for instant proxies, other for a cheap deliverable, which is available is not clear to me.. or I think to anyone until they get the camera in the hand
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64848-Sound-Devices-PIX-240-ProRes-DNxHD-Video-Recorder-with-EPIC
of course the cost of memory is coming down but at this point I do not think is is negligable once again, opion is split (comments)..
http://www.theblackandblue.com/2011/08/04/epic-cost/
My conclusion .. output quality is as yet unknown, cost, in both money and time, of memory when shooting raw impacts on some projects not others depending on budget and deadline
is that a reasonable conclusion to this aspect of the camera?
S
-
Aaaahhhh...here we go...
Keep in mind (I could verify it) that many many of the Redusers in the US are using FCP.
Therefore their claims are justified.
Now, this is a totaly different story with Avid or Premiere.
The cheap straighforward solution within the Red camera is already a reality with a more powerfull editor.
We rarely talk about that but the problem is also that in the US (I insist), FCP has become the norm for many.
If there were good reason in the past for it, there are now bad reasons in the present time.
Another title could be : the hidden cost of FCP7. But nobody is willing to admit it.
-
Interesting point :)
-
Very interesting thread guys, thank you!
I'm hiring a RED One this week to do a test shoot* and see how it is to actually deal with. I'm thinking of either a second-hand RED One or a Scarlet for next year, and this should give me enough of an idea of how the while chain handles to let me know if I am crazy or not.
(* test shoot = shooting my normal sort of thing with my in-house model and using both current camera and RED for a direct comparison of workflow in my actual shooting style).
For now, since my deliverable is direct sales to end consumers via the web, my final output is only 3kbps 720p MP4. I'm currently mastering in 1080p Prores 422, for a bit of future proofing, and currently 95% of my footage is shot on my Panasonic AF100 with on-board codec. I can't say I'm satisfied with the current camera's output. It is a step up from the dSLRs (in quality, robustness, useability, moire, rolling shutter and most important of all ergonomics and reliability of the cameras on set) but I'm comparing with stills taken on the same day in the same location with the same model on a Hasselblad H3Dii-31 and all I can really see is how sludgy and sucky the video is.
Fortunately, unlike Sam, I never have the imminent deadlines to deliver to customers by next week. I have to deliver at a steady rate of one short per week, but today's shoot can cheerfully go up in six months' time and none of my customers will be any the wiser. So I'm thinking that a tea-based workflow grading the footage in RED CINE and exporting to ProRes at leisure when the Mac is relatively idle might be OK for me. As long as the conversion can be done in batch overnight once I've chosen the look, I'll be OK.
To start with I'll edit the footage in FCP X via exported ProRes and just see how it compares. I could edit native in Premiere but I prefer FCP X so I'll try that workflow first. I'll be very interested to see how "stepping down" from 4K RED RAW to ProRes for the edit compares with "stepping up" from AVCHD to ProRes from the AF100- in terms of quality gain bang for the buck, and in time required to get there.
I'll let you know how I get on...!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
To start with I'll edit the footage in FCP X via exported ProRes...
Ouch...
(for the X)
I could edit native in Premiere but I prefer FCP X so I'll try that workflow first.
Ouch ouch...
... "stepping up" from AVCHD to ProRes from the AF100- in terms of quality gain bang for the buck, and in time required to get there.
Ouch ouch ouch...
(no quality gain, just not more degradation)
I'll let you know how I get on...!
If you have survived the process.
-
I am missing the point of the last 1/3 of this conversation.
If you really want a pro rezz 422 file out of camera ready to cut, with no transcoding, then Arriflex has it.
If you want a raw file, then it's basically just the RED.
Don't think though that you won't do some color grading on the arriflex file or any baked in video because you will, everybody does, except the 11 pm news.
We cut primarily in FCP 7, might move to avid, doubt if we'll ever move to premier, though have hope for FCP X if Apple lights a fire under their _____ and makes it RED raw compatible and fixes a whole bunch of little things.
Anyway, we shoot raw for different reasons. First is the ability to grade and match multiple cameras, secondly is the ability to crop and third is you can pull some stills if needed out of the RED footage.
Actually, let me amend that, first is the look of the RED file. I personally love it, but I know it well . . . Anyway.
In regards to cropping, don't underestimate that need.
All of us view "content" differently than we did even 5 years ago. Watch a 5 year old movie or TV show and notice how slow it is compared to today.
Try to watch a old commercial or longer form web spot and you'll yawn most of the way through it. (yes I know there are exceptions to every rule).
Today viewers consume imagery in partial seconds, not minutes and we get bored very quickly.
Recently we finished a large project with 4-4 minute dialog videos. When we did the edit it was good, the client was happy, we followed the script, but honestly it was getting boring and redundant.
I could tell the response was "ok thanks, that's good" and I wanted a response of "Holy _____ that's great", so I cut a new style piece, gave it to our in house editor and we recut and styled all the videos.
They went from 4 minutes to 1, every image sequence moves, freezes, turns and crops, every title has meaning, everything is faster and the graphics much bolder.
It went from standard 3 point editing video to a multimedia piece and the result was the client went "Holy_____, that's great".
Doing that with standard 2k footage is much more difficult and I don't care how well you plan everything, when it comes to working in post everything is going to change, so though I don't advocate just shooting and cropping, it's nice to have that option . . . sometimes is mandatory to have that option.
As far as processing out RED files, I do think they are like processing out stills, especially in cine-x. It's easy, it's now stable, it's also easy to put out a prorezz file and a smaller h264 for web gallery view and do it all at once, but you'll need the RED rocket card if you going to work any volume of data.
I know it's 5 to 6 grand, but it's the best 5 to 6 grand you'll ever spend and you can run it portable in a box, or in almost any desktop mac and the machine doesn't slow it down, as the card is doing most of the heavy lifting.
If you decide you want to come in on an image you can quickly locate it, add your look and process out it out, drop it in the NLE and do it in minutes. It may not be elegant but it works.
I may be wrong about this, but IMO I don't think RED cares if you want a prorezz file out of camera or not. I think RED looks at the raw file like a negative, ready to go to telecine, first in one light, later in three light and that's the traditional way to work and honestly until you've done terabytes of footage and hundreds of hours of editing from RED files you won't understand it.
I also think we're just at the start of NLE's evolution, or better put revolution. FCP X is loathed by most traditional editors, but FCP X has the basis on what it takes to work in a modern world. It's not there yet, but it could be and if/when it gets there it will be just as revolutionary as the original Final Cut.
IMO
BC
-
I also think we're just at the start of NLE's evolution, or better put revolution. FCP X is loathed by most traditional editors, but FCP X has the basis on what it takes to work in a modern world. It's not there yet, but it could be and if/when it gets there it will be just as revolutionary as the original Final Cut.
IMO
BC
That's also what I was thinking,
But more and more I have the feeling that this FCP X # _ will be a dead end.
But RCX, if RED smells it, if they really want to see the potential, could fast be a sort of Lightroom of motion or a mini-nuke with a timeline and no nodes ;). If they could implement a proper timeline and file/bin management as powefull as Avid, resolution and format independance, this would simply be the end of all the NLE, FCPX included and the workflow we know it. And a all new generation of newcomers like me will go to the church and light a candle, I promisse, Haleluia.
Now, have you seen this new Media Composer, done in a hurry? It smells they wanted to react to Apple but it also smells it's not really ready yet. It's funny how sometimes this industry tend to repeat itself...
-
LOL I see fredjeang doesn't think I have much of a hope!
To explain, I like FCP X because it edits the way I think. Stuff like overlapping sections of clips labelled by keywords just happens to be the way I think about things in my own head. I always prefer to work with software whose designers seem to have been on my wavelength. Apple's usually are; Adobe's never are. This is why I much prefer Aperture to Lightroom and FCP X to Premiere Pro. It isn't just familiarity- I learned to edit on Premiere back on the PC almost a decade ago, switched to FCP 6 about three years ago, and FCP X earlier this year. I just find myself banging heads with Adobe's UI design and workflow decisions over and over again.
I know right now FCP X is missing a heap of features, but as a micro production house with only me full time (and three others part time) on the production team, all-in-one workflow is a selling point. We simply do not have a separate person to cut, grade and audio edit, we have to do it all ourselves. We shoot on a single camera, with location sound, on file-based cameras and FCP X actually supports that workflow pretty damn well.
But the main reason we switched over was that my technophobe actor girlfriend, who co-writes and co-directs a lot of our work, was previously reduced to the screaming meamies at the very sight of FCP 6 or PPro. She got the hang of FCP X in a single weekend and now puts together about half our rough cuts, and does it with quite some flair. So it supports the way she thinks better than the older programs, too.
I should not have used "stepping up" when referring to AVCHD -> ProRes, I mis-spoke. Clearly going from REDcode down to ProRes is stepping down, but you can't bring information back once it has been thrown away, so the very best ProRes can be is no significant extra degradation cf the AVCHD originals. We edit with the AVCHD files natively, grade in FCP X - another advantage is its floating point colour science, meaning we don't need to finish in After Effects any more (* I am doing some grading externally right now because Magic Bullet and Colorista aren't available for FCP X yet). ProRes is merely our archival format for the finished product, our "Master" copy, if you like. I'm just going to be interested to see how the RED footage and the AF100 footage captured at the same time in the same set with the same lights compare by the time they've been through the whole chain and we have a "like vs like" comparison of two ProRes files to compare, if you see what I mean.
The "bang for the buck" and "time to get there" comments were meant to refer to "compared with shooting everything on our AF100 in AVCHD as we do now". How much longer WILL this infamous Red workflow take, if I do the grade before the edit and export everything to ProRes overnight? Will I get any significant advantage taking it all into Resolve Lite afterwards via XML, for example?
How cumbersome ARE these REDraw files? And what is the bottom line- when it is all squashed down into horrid 3000kbps H.264 720p for the web, can you even tell which file was which?
I know what other people's answers to these questions are, I want to know what the answers are as they pertain to our films, our shooting conditions, our preferred editing workflows, and our final destination media for our customers. Should be a fun and interesting shoot!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
That's also what I was thinking,
But more and more I have the feeling that this FCP X # _ will be a dead end.
But RCX, if RED smells it, if they really want to see the potential, could fast be a sort of Lightroom of motion or a mini-nuke with a timeline and no nodes ;). If they could implement a proper timeline and file/bin management as powefull as Avid, resolution and format independance, this would simply be the end of all the NLE, FCPX included and the workflow we know it. And a all new generation of newcomers like me will go to the church and light a candle, I promisse, Haleluia.
Now, have you seen this new Media Composer, done in a hurry? It smells they wanted to react to Apple but it also smells it's not really ready yet. It's funny how sometimes this industry tend to repeat itself...
Not to take this off topic, though a NLE regardless of brand has a lot of reference to the cameras and obviously the final output.
Fred, as you know a NLE is not thought of as a color grading suite, a compositor, though more and more most NLE's have moved that way and I think FCP X has more than the potential to be a suite that once you enter it you don't leave it until you push the finish out button.
The problem is every editor I talk to loathes it, though everyone of them has not really used it.
If FCP X goes no further it will be because nobody is pushing for it.
I'll admit I'm not 100% up on FCP X though I know FCP 7 up and down and FCP X is perfect for a clear mind because the people I know that knew nothing of editorial work it flawlessly in a few days, where ever other NLE takes months, years to master.
IMO
BC
-
Actually, let me amend that, first is the look of the RED file. I personally love it, but I know it well . . . Anyway.
Yeh, it is the look that I really want. I love the way the stills from my Hasselblad look with my "fave" set of adjustments in Phocus.
But I've NEVER had a "Holy crap how awesome does that look?" moment from any of my video cameras to date.
I've had some "hey that look pretty damn good" moments from Canon dSLRs and the AF100, but taking that footage the last 10% of the way to awesome always seems to elude me. I know it is a combination of things, not just the camera (lens, lighting and production design, most notably) but the camera is a significant part of the jigsaw. I've liked a lot of stuff I've seen from the RED, so I'm shooting for a "Holy crap!" moment :) :)
Cheers, Hywel.
-
James,
Don't get me wrong about FCP X. When I started to watch some tutos after the first Tsunami complains, I was blowned by some of the workflow.
Then, because of that, I started to read more and watch more and more material about FCPX editing capabilities, and I can't do other thing than to recognise that you are right.
There is a great potential, or at least a glimpse of what could be the modern editing.
Yes, I have zero doubt on that.
Apple as often, open a door of usabilit and break patterns, but you also know very well, actually you say it, that they opened a door that didn't fit completly and it became a black hole where you can enter into it but you never go out.
What's the utility of an editor that can not be used for serious assignements, or, in the best case, solving youth issues with plug-ins and third-party mini software bombing, softwares that have to be
reseached, tested and downloaded over the internet, as if there were not enough more serious problems to deal with in motion.
Do we imagine buying a Porshe and you sit in the leather seat, there is no windowns button: "oh, this manufacturer on the corner will provide it", then there is no steering wheel: "no, prob, if you walk 1 km to the _ supplyer you'll get a brand new adaptable steering wheel", then it doesn't take the standard gazoline but kerozene: "easy, say the vendor, go to the airport and fill the tank" ...?
This wasn't serious from Apple. Yes, FCPX didn't deserve such a hate, but Apple did deserved a serious warning from their users.
----
About the NLE, yes, to my desperation, they are not thought to be a proper color grade or compositing. Now...orthodoxy has to be broken no? It's not because they are not yet completly merged, that it wouldn't be desirable it happened. In fact, in some systems the "convergence" is already advanced. I'm sure the tech is already there, the only difficulty would be to reach a really good usability and intuitivity to take advantage of all the capabilities in one software. But after all, engineers are paid to solve those things and make them evolve to more powerfull and simple.
I think FCPX has the potential, but I do think that RCX does have it even more. I'm sure within a few years, raw workflow will be the standard, in any Ks, 2,3,4,5 or more. Won't be surprise if tomorrow we will edit from A to Z in something that will look very closed to RCX.
-
I am missing the point of the last 1/3 of this conversation.
If you really want a pro rezz 422 file out of camera ready to cut, with no transcoding, then Arriflex has it.
I did not intend it to become 1/3 of the conversation !
Now wanting 1080 straight from the camera
Well I do Bcam for other production companies who just want to be able to hoover up my card at the end of the day and then be able to deal with it on thier machines/workflow
I want to just dump my data and collect my cash
they would love edit ready ProRes even if it is not the best image the camera can deliver
Of course I want RAW for my own work
Also there is the speed element - you mention cutting your 4 mins to one - also there is IMO increasing desire for speed of delivery
I dont know if you were 'watching' the product announcements on nov3rd (as a consumer) - but the critical info was pretty much being published real time, blogs and films released on the 4th of novemver seemed.. dated
I can see an increasing need for speed in terms of delivery of some projects
Its a different world - I took some pictures of a rock festival in the summer (for the sponsoring beer client) and they were all about how many like the images got on facebook, not if they got in the press etc
I have also worked for clients that are flying bloggers around the world - bloggers - not the heavy hitters from the newspapers that I am used to seeing on such 'jolly' sponsored junketts
Again they wanted the (stills) real quick
S
-
LOL I see fredjeang doesn't think I have much of a hope!
To explain, I like FCP X because it edits the way I think. Stuff like overlapping sections of clips labelled by keywords just happens to be the way I think about things in my own head. I always prefer to work with software whose designers seem to have been on my wavelength. Apple's usually are; Adobe's never are. This is why I much prefer Aperture to Lightroom and FCP X to Premiere Pro. It isn't just familiarity- I learned to edit on Premiere back on the PC almost a decade ago, switched to FCP 6 about three years ago, and FCP X earlier this year. I just find myself banging heads with Adobe's UI design and workflow decisions over and over again.
I know right now FCP X is missing a heap of features, but as a micro production house with only me full time (and three others part time) on the production team, all-in-one workflow is a selling point. We simply do not have a separate person to cut, grade and audio edit, we have to do it all ourselves. We shoot on a single camera, with location sound, on file-based cameras and FCP X actually supports that workflow pretty damn well.
But the main reason we switched over was that my technophobe actor girlfriend, who co-writes and co-directs a lot of our work, was previously reduced to the screaming meamies at the very sight of FCP 6 or PPro. She got the hang of FCP X in a single weekend and now puts together about half our rough cuts, and does it with quite some flair. So it supports the way she thinks better than the older programs, too.
I should not have used "stepping up" when referring to AVCHD -> ProRes, I mis-spoke. Clearly going from REDcode down to ProRes is stepping down, but you can't bring information back once it has been thrown away, so the very best ProRes can be is no significant extra degradation cf the AVCHD originals. We edit with the AVCHD files natively, grade in FCP X - another advantage is its floating point colour science, meaning we don't need to finish in After Effects any more (* I am doing some grading externally right now because Magic Bullet and Colorista aren't available for FCP X yet). ProRes is merely our archival format for the finished product, our "Master" copy, if you like. I'm just going to be interested to see how the RED footage and the AF100 footage captured at the same time in the same set with the same lights compare by the time they've been through the whole chain and we have a "like vs like" comparison of two ProRes files to compare, if you see what I mean.
The "bang for the buck" and "time to get there" comments were meant to refer to "compared with shooting everything on our AF100 in AVCHD as we do now". How much longer WILL this infamous Red workflow take, if I do the grade before the edit and export everything to ProRes overnight? Will I get any significant advantage taking it all into Resolve Lite afterwards via XML, for example?
How cumbersome ARE these REDraw files? And what is the bottom line- when it is all squashed down into horrid 3000kbps H.264 720p for the web, can you even tell which file was which?
I know what other people's answers to these questions are, I want to know what the answers are as they pertain to our films, our shooting conditions, our preferred editing workflows, and our final destination media for our customers. Should be a fun and interesting shoot!
Cheers, Hywel.
I was teasing you Hymel, glad you understood it with humor.
But seriously and again.
I understand what you are saying about the fact that the editor respond to the thoughts and allows a more lively and organic editing. Yes and triple yes!
Now, FC, FC...7, or X, red blue or yellow.
I don't like Premiere either.
But if you had an Avid, all you just wrote in your lines would have be solved and you wouldn't worry abut it.
I'm really going to start an anti-FC campaign ! It's incredible. Everybody's working with FCP and then you have tons of issues but the worst part is that it is almost impossible to make FCP users admit that they are much better NLEs that would solve a lot of your problems and speed-up the workflow. It became integrism. If Apple did it, it's god sent.
How can fcp users talk all the time about intuitiveness and usability when it's 3 time more tedious to do anything in FCP compared to any modern NLE, then the new FCPx appears like super-intuitive...no doubt it is, but it is also so much more intuitive because FCP7 is actually an outdated NLE. From there, everything looks like gold.
But it's simply impossible to make FCP users recognise it, and at the minimum criticsm they put the Apple Joker: it's Apple, it's good anyway.
I give-up. I wish I where a known, famous editor and you would beleive me at least a little.
Is there on this forum an Avid user that also know FCP to help me and see if I'm saying stupidities or am I saying something right somewhere?
Please...any Avid user?
-
Fred : Im going to start that FCP thread if that is OK ?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59763.0
-
Morgan,
I like you and know you've shared a lot. That I admire and I can understand your business model.
I guess it's me, but I'd ask your client's if they can wait 30 minutes or an hour for you to drop your files into a computer and process out any format they wish, with the backup of 4k?
But that's me and I can understand when they might want a more immediate file, but transcoding mg2 or h264 files takes time and the original footage still has to be backed up.
IMO
BC
-
I may just be ignorant to the speed of the 'Rocket'
If it really is 1/2 hour thats great, my old clunker computer can be bogged down for the night by 5d files so I am working on the (mis) assumption that doing the same with a fie myabe 10X larger would really gum up the works
maybe thats wrong beacuse the rocket does the lifting - I am very happy to be wrong !
Even DL a few 16gb CFs to the a camera person lappy at the end of the Day (H264) can make for a late evening - we dont have a DIT, but might do a couple of cards at lunch !
S
-
Morgan,
I think I understand your needs.
I am also NLE agnostic. But I encourage you to have a deep look in Premiere Pro or Avid's lands.
IMO, Avid would be a great tool for your needs, fast deliveries, personal 4K, whatever.
It is not an intuitive NLE to learn at first, no, but then, it's the most powerfull, stable and reliable.
If you decide to go that route, feel free to ask me publicaly or in my mail, questions about the workflow, I'd answer as far as my current knowledge
allows me.
There are a few Avid editors here, all long time pro editors and they generally answer if you directly post an Avid question. They have been quite usefull and helped me more than once.
My favorite NLE is Edius, it's actually recognized as the faster of this industry. But it's windows only. Being american, Edius is curiously not that muched used in the US, but in Germany for ex it is vastly used by pros, specially in the documentary area for its speed-efficiency. The Edius editing capabilities are impressive and it's intuitive and it's a 4K editor. But the most complete (but the most complex) is Avid.
-
If you really want a pro rezz 422 file out of camera ready to cut, with no transcoding, then Arriflex has it.
If you want a raw file, then it's basically just the RED.
The Alexa shoots RAW - the Arri RAW is closer to the still camera RAW 'idea' than Red's version. In fact, I consider the Alexa the most Leica-like of video cameras - beautiful form factor, simple and fast workflow, and the best PL lenses.
The only negative is Alexa's dependence on Prores - which was really lazy of them - they should have build their own transport stream.
-
Apple's usually are; Adobe's never are. This is why I much prefer Aperture to Lightroom and FCP X to Premiere Pro. It isn't just familiarity- I learned to edit on Premiere back on the PC almost a decade ago, switched to FCP 6 about three years ago, and FCP X earlier this year. I just find myself banging heads with Adobe's UI design and workflow decisions over and over again.
Funny, my experience is the exact opposite! As long as FCP uses their crappy MOV wrapper and sticks to its own expensive hardware, I will stay away.
The most 'intuitive' NLE I have seen bar none is Sony Vegas Pro. But I agree with you that editing in FCP-X is a much better experience than FCS, and subsequently PPro or Avid.
For complicated workflows that involve many machines, nothing beats PPro or an Avid - basically one HAS to go PC when dealing with multiple OSs and incompatible software and hardware. Throw a mac into the mix and see how things go haywire - no wonder most vfx houses try to avoid it. Even outside the video industry, businesses run on PCs, the biggest websites run on Pcs - anything that has to deal with complexity must run on PCs. The Mac actually introduced itself as a personal computer, but today, it has taken over IBM's place. Funny how things work out.
But if you must...
-
The Alexa shoots RAW - the Arri RAW is closer to the still camera RAW 'idea' than Red's version. In fact, I consider the Alexa the most Leica-like of video cameras - beautiful form factor, simple and fast workflow, and the best PL lenses.
The only negative is Alexa's dependence on Prores - which was really lazy of them - they should have build their own transport stream.
Then that's the camera for you. Will you buy or rent, because I think the raw module for the arri is the price of a RED.
From crew and people I work with in L.A., everyone that has worked with the Arri has been traditional DP's that are use the the Arri form factor, but as I said before,everyone works differently.
IMO
BC
-
That I know here, 99% of the Arri maniacs adicted rarely use ArriRaw because of what James said. It is much more expensive.
As the Prores 444 output is "user friendly" and maintains quality in grading, most of the guys do not feel the necesity to shoot in Raw. The module is extremely expensive IMO.
Arri generaly is expensive and not really suitable for most of us, only in rental houses.
In the high-end no prob, but I doubt many indy guys are owning an Alexa and shoot Arriraw. Here the "doctor factor" of MF doesn't work. You'd need to be a millionaire.
-
I would love to use the Alexa for everything, but, I too am in the same boat as you guys. Money matters.
However, I'm confused on whether we are comparing apples to oranges, or apples to the price of oranges. Maybe it's just me.
-
I would love to use the Alexa for everything, but, I too am in the same boat as you guys. Money matters.
However, I'm confused on whether we are comparing apples to oranges, or apples to the price of oranges. Maybe it's just me.
This is just another internet thing where the only only point that matters is would you buy it and use it?
RED seems to enjoy throwing a grenade in the room and then everyone reacts, but if the Scarlet comes out semi bug free, comes out semi on time at 14 grand in the cinema world is almost free.
DP's that like film cameras seem to like the Arri because the one's I know say they get a better look onset than with the RED, though most DP's are not that heavily involved in the post production process. In final output, depending on who you talk to it's a different matter, but I don't really care as even if the Arri wasn't 70 thousand, and only twenty two thousand, for a 13.5 lb. camera that shoots 2k footage I'm not interested.
In fact I'm happy with my Red Ones MXs and only ordered a Scarlet for the size and the upgrade path to the dragon sensor, that and the fact we generally run two and three cameras on set.
I do know that as a small creative house that owns it's own equipment, the REDs have made a world of difference in what we can shoot and what we offer a client.
That's really all I care about.
BC
-
DP's that like film cameras seem to like the Arri because the one's I know say they get a better look onset than with the RED, though most DP's are not that heavily involved in the post production process. In final output, depending on who you talk to it's a different matter, but I don't really care as even if the Arri wasn't 70 thousand, and only twenty two thousand, for a 13.5 lb. camera that shoots 2k footage I'm not interested.
The Alexa is in a different market, it's purely professional. It's 1080p with massive oversampling (that's why RED is not actual 4k or 5k - it has to be oversampled the same way) and unreached actual dynamic range and noise handling, it's the only camera recording actual, uncompressed Raw if necessary and it has the build quality for professional use - the camera electronics are entirely sealed, the heat management much more elaborate. The ARRI is not in the same market as Scarlet or the C300 - that's like comparing megapixels of the 5D2 and 1ds3 - it happens but it completely misses the point.
-
I don't get the cost of space, if the cost of space has never been so low and will keep going to decrease. Computer performances are growing while costs are getting lower. What can be costly today will be the norm tomorrow. Computer engineering goes faster than gear. So 4-5 or more ks won't be any issue tomorrow at each time lower costs.
If only that were always true. I was just about to upgrade all my 2Gb drive pairs to 3Gb and prices have more than doubled here in U during last few weeks. :(
The flooding in Thailand has been blamed for this, yet all the back stock has skyrocketed as well. I remember an earthquake, flood or fire been blamed for the annual December price rises of memory that used to occur a few years back [may still do]. Nothing to do with Christmas approaching.
Same sort of thing that happens with petrol, within hours of barrel prices going up, price per litre at the pumps rises. Yet there's a delay of months before pump price follows any downward price change.
First time I can ever recall HD storage going up in price like this.
HDs prices go up - article (http://www.financemanila.net/2011/11/effect-of-thailand-floods-hard-disk-price-rises-over-180-so-far-cameras-also-predicted-to-rise/)
.
-
Im sure everyone here appreciates raw
Now, to get good colour on set - without raw - means careful metering - monitoring - you will have seen film crews lugging black tents around, full size 30inch screens in huge flight cases, breeze blocks to stop the the tents blowing away, people to carry the breeze blocks, people to make lunch for the people who carry the breeze blocks
Its one aspect that makes making movies so horrible, and there is a set of luddites who want it to stay like that
So IMO it does affect crew size
Film making tends to need a lot of people to do the many jobs on set. Shooting RAW or not would have make no difference to no. of people on any of the sets I've been on. And having 30" monitors on set would be great even if shooting RAW. ;) Which still needs careful metering or good monitors.
I am shortly apprearing in a video on the FS100 - shot on the FS100, now my office has nice nat light and a few practicals around, the FS100 is web clean at 800ISO - there is loads of light to shoot with no lights - but no - the crew arrived and NDd my practicals, pulled out a bunch of kino and dedo and carried on exactly like they were filming me with a 100 ISO film camera (while I, the subject, got nervous and ended up having little time to tell my story - most of the time had been spend 'lighting' my office) - to me missing they were missing the point of clean ISO, I see the same blinkers happening with raw...
Your office may have enough light, but it may not have provide the look they were going for.
I shot on location the other day. Plenty of light to shoot without lights, but we used lighting to create a different look and also rather importantly a consistent look, which would not have been possible over several hours of filming with fading natural light.
Would you have made the same sort of comment if David Hobby (http://strobist.blogspot.com/) turned up to do some stills of you and whipped out a bunch of speedlights? ;D I'm not saying there are no luddites around, but there may be a good alternative reason for how they lit you or as you thought they may simply have been idiots.
-
Huh?
DP's have been shooting raw for 5 decades, it's called negative film, telecine and years ago analog grading, today electronic color grading.
There may have been a few guys walking around with color meters and crews blocking off practicals with dubos and cutters, to allow the set lights to control the look, but in the end, the negative, the telecine, the digitization and grading in post was the equivalent of todays raw file, except it had extra post production steps.
With RED raw digital we don't light any different than we do with any file, film or baked in digital, I just don't worry about things like matching multiple cameras exactly in color and tone, because we can do it in cine-x so easily.
But raw, naw . . . that's been around forever.
IMO
BC
Eh!? Film is not certainly not equivalent to RAW files, film is just like shooting JPEG as it has a [controllable] baked in look, both of which you can further grade after the fact.
I learnt on film, yet would rather shoot RAW files any day. I'd be interested to see how you'd get a nice colour grade out of a B+W film stock. Or were able to use any ISO you wanted at any time with film without a lot of faffing.
And negative/cine film and grading/timing has been around a lot longer than 5 decades. Unless I imagined all those films made before 1960.... :P
-
-Film making tends to need a lot of people to do the many jobs on set.
-Your office may have enough light, but it may not have provide the look they were going for.
-Would you have made the same sort of comment if David Hobbyturned up to do some stills of you and whipped out a bunch of speedlights?
I do understand all of this. Sure there is a place for 'high' production values and also creating looks, and also creating consistency that is not reliant on natural, changing light.
Also with higher ISO cameras there is space to throw away a lot of 'baggage' if you want to
Personally I have greatly enjoyed reducing my lighting package for most assignments - I have shot stills with 25ISO digiback and motion with EX1/Letus adapter, both very light hungry tools
With those I basically needed 3-5 elly heads, or 3k of arri to get an image to register !
I much prefer shooting stills on my D3 and motion on my 5d2/FS100 - light sensitive tools - that may create great images with nothing, or the odd bounce board
I think there are a huge amount of shooters who have not fully considered what light sensitive tools can bring to thier production if they want.
There are also highly regarded shooters (Newton? Deakins?) who often shoot fantastic work with very simple lighting.. and great subjects
S
-
Had a fun day shooting with a RED ONE on Friday. A few camera tests, and three very quick spots to try using the thing in something approximating our usual shooting conditions. (Shot one in pure natural light, one with LED panels and one with Arri Tungsten hot lights). Shot some comparison footage with my AF100 as well.
I'm still playing around with the footage and seeing what's what in the grading. But I'm absolutely convinced that RAW-like workflow is the way I want to go. It seems so versatile and rich and laded with potential compared with having to bake in the look at shooting time. For my shoots, where typically there is just me, or just me and one other person as crew, it is wonderful putting off decisions to the "do/undo/play with it" stage. Capturing maximal information from the sensor and deciding on the subtleties later, in a nice quiet unpressurised environment on a 30" monitor, is just the way I'd like to work.
Skin tones are lovely and hold very well through colour temperature choices. Obviously, there's more detail in the image. It is 4K, but the usual oversampling loveliness happens even if you downscale to ProRes 1080p after the grade (which is the workflow I'm going to try first, as I'm actually delivering web video). It just seems much easier to (say) correct a slight tint on a neutral background without buggering up skin with the RED footage than the AF100.
As you'd expect, of course, being as the camera is 5x the price and the data rate from the RED is insanely more than AVCHD! Nice to see that it all works, and in some ways a fascinating demonstration of just how amazing the quality of AVCHD is given that you've thrown away 99% of the information!
A lot of the "forum moans" I've seen about the RED proved not to be an issue for me (eg slow start-up times). I found shooting on 16 GB CF cards a bit unfriendly without either many more cards (I had 4, and filled them several times over which meant for nervous mid-shoot backing up and reformatting); SSD is clearly the only way to go. I also found the weight and bulk of the camera quite an issue, never having used anything heavier than a Hasselblad H3D or a rigged up AF100. Just adjusting the tripod height proved a bit of a struggle as a one man operation.
I'm VERY tempted by a Scarlet, but not sure I can really afford it right now... but I'm absolutely sure the next time I have a dedicated week-long location video shoot I will hire a RED. I think an external recorder would help the AF100, especially when grading, but is an expensive add-on given that the "real" way forward is to stop messing about and buy a raw-like camera...
So maybe I'll keep the AF100 as is, flog off some kit I haven't used in ages (my poor HVX200s have had no love at all this year) then do the sums to see if hiring or buying makes more sense for 2012.
Morgan, if you haven't had a play with one, I strongly suggest booking yourself a RED One MX to play with for a day or two!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
I love the RED One MX. Even more than the Epic in form factor.
It's bigger and obviously heavier, but stripped own with a belt battery you can get it to a little under 8 lbs, depending on lens.
For the start up times, a minute and a half start up seems like an eternity, though you can find third party hot swap v clip mounts that gives you 4 minutes to swap out a battery without shut down.
There is also new firmware for the RED One that gives you a higher frame rate at 3k and some other improvements, so RED keeps working on the camera.
The only thing I want for my REDs is the EFV bomb, which has been backordered before Madonna's first facelift.
I was splaying around with one at the RED studio (old RenMar studios, and prior to that Warner's) and that EVF is bloody amazing. You forget in two seconds that it is an electronic viewfinder, it's that sharp and easy to focus.
The SSD's are worth it, as the cf cards fill up fast . . . too fast and though you don't want to know this, if your gonna process out a lot of footage buy a Red Rocket first thing and save yourself two lifestimes in post.
Also I've finally decided on which PL's and going with RED's versions. They're faster than the Zeiss mini primes and the one's we've tested were dead sharp (the primes, not the zoom) and the price is right.
Anyway, glad you like the MX, but now that you've been bitten you'll have a hard time gong back.
IMO
BC
-
;) ;) :) :)
Just put a deposit down on a Scarlet and a box of SSDs.
Smaller form factor is good for me, getting started with EOS lenses is great for me (have a case full of them doing not very much since I went Hasselblad for stills and AF100 for video). Expansion to PL is there for the future. It should all work with my existing 15 mm light rods, existing tripods, etc..
I'm sure you are right that RED Rocket will be needed seeing how long the transcode times are for my first day's shoot. But there are enough days when my MacPro isn't doing anything overnight that I will get started with just software transcode and add a Rocket as soon funds allow.
Exciting stuff... just couldn't get over how much more natural skin tones are and how well it copes with funky things in the grade without skin tones falling apart.
In the meantime- time to flog off some older disused kit to help pay for it, and enjoy the shoots to come on AF100 knowing that RAW is coming way before too long!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/
www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68587-The-Case-of-Philip-Bloom
-
Hey, the Epic is still in its beta phase...all that is very normal.
And brand forums are generally integrists, the Red is no exception.
-
www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?68587-The-Case-of-Philip-Bloom
It seems like everything worked out for Mr. Bloom, but I can understand his frustrations.
I've been either lucky or wise (probably lucky) with my two RED One's, but have gone down this road with expensive medium format still cameras and the difference is the medium format company did not make any public apology and actually never recognized the issues in public, so for Mr. Jannard to apologize may not make Mr. Bloom's experience better, but at least it shows an effort to recognize issues.
I really like our RED's but am not a fanboy as we pay retail and if something better comes along I'd change in a heartbeat, though I can see why RED didn't understand not having a backup on set.
I'd never do a project with one camera, because all cameras can have issues, especially something as new and complicated as a 5k motion camera.
A few weeks ago we blew out two Canon still cameras, one a shutter, the other a circuit board and because I had two backup Canons, two Nikons and Two Contax with digital backs we didn't miss a beat, but as frustrating as a camera going down can be, nobody but the crew knew of any issues and nothing was put in jeopardy.
When the EPIC was introduced we placed our order but pulled back and bought a second RED One MX. I thought it made more sense to go with something that was tested and in wide production. We have placed our order for a Scarlet, though this is a much less expensive camera and quite honestly will not be our main cameras, so though it is new, if something goes sideways, we're covered.
New digital cameras can be a savior or a nightmare. Bern, as you know I was one of the first photographers to identify the overshooting and file damage of the Canon 1ds Mark II still cameras and as you know, reporting that and getting a resolve would make a Tom Clancy novel look like non-fiction, so in my view, no company wants a negative public report and few are quick to acknowledge it, some can be downright nasty, though once again, I've never seen a public apology from any camera company.
I rarely read the RED forums as they are full of fanboyism (is that a word?) and I'm not that brand centric to enjoy it or learn from it. Given that, I do appreciate that the owner of the company does address issues straight on.
One thing I know is when I buy, especially in the high end digital range, not to listen to buyer's remorse. You pay your money, you take your chances and if doesn't work either fix it or. . . move on.
In Mr. Bloom's case he seemed to get it fixed, but still moved on.
IMO
BC
-
Coot,
Honestly, I understand mister Bloom and I would have done the same, to move on. But in french we have an expression that says : "chercher le bâton pour se faire battre" wich means more or less: to look for the stick to be beaten".
Those people have built and build their reputation in networking, doing testings of all kinds etc...and therefore they are just in the public front-line war and as we know how harsh can be internet and people's reactions, it's not really a surprise considering the fanboyism (I love this Coot expression and will adopt it if it's not copyrighted) in any brand. I remember the bombing MR has received with the Pentax K7, or yourself with the Leica M. A person like Philip Bloom is marketing himself everywhere everyday through internet, associating his name to brands, writting articles of all kinds and testing and testing equipments etc...
The same situation would happened to a professional filmaker with less internet presence and it would have been solved (or not) in-house but with discretion and elegance.
It will give to mister Bloom probably more experience and more awareness of what his personal business model implies in term of possible consequences.
Of course, I would never criticize the fact that someone can not afford 2 cameras for shooting business. He couldn't secure his set, but let's face it then, the whim was maybe too big, and when someone is in the motion world public frontline, educating people, it's also truth that it's very counter-productive to expose one-self on active pros bombings when it could perfectly happen with this "beta". Although as you pointed, the brand forums are always extremists. I never participate in any brand forum for that reason.
Things do not happen just by default, I think. Good for him it's solved.
-
;D
And now he features on the Arri website! http://www.arri.de/camera/digital_cameras
-
Owner of the 1st Scarlet X review/impressions
http://tonacitran.com/red-scarlet-x-first-review-impressions/
-
;D
And now he features on the Arri website! http://www.arri.de/camera/digital_cameras
This isn't directed towards any one person, but when you read the bio, "Influential digital filmmaker, blogger and educator ", then in my view as an off the street buyer . . . all validity goes out the window.
It's almost impossible to remain objective once, PR, favors, whatever changes hands. I know, I've done it with camera companies and to this day regret every instance, because in my experience all anyone wanted was sound bytes and quotes that can play on a website or mailer.
I am sure there are exceptions to every rule and some people can remain objective, some companies can report fairly, but since digital came into the image making world, experts of all types came flying out of the woodwork. A day never goes by where I don't receive multiple emails of expert opinions of why I should be buying something.
Just like computers and hard drives, every camera will break at some point. Especially under heavy production, that's why we have back ups, that's why wherever we travel from Thailand to Chicago, we have accounts for rentals already in place, just in case that awful moment happens.
I've heard good and bad stories about the RED One's, Epics and limited stories on the Scarlet, good stories on the Alexa, but unless someone is shooting where money and their reputation is on the line and actually buy, not borrow a camera, then they are the only people I want to hear from.
I've owned a lot of digital cameras and only two have had zero software/hardware issues. My original Canon 1ds (which I still keep to this day) and my two RED One's. Does this mean anything to anyone else? . . . nope. But it does to me because there is a lot of difference between shooting when you want to, vs. shooting when you have to.
IMO
BC
-
You know what really amazes me knowdays?
It's this fashion that some people ended to be famous worldwide doing networking.
The pattern is almost always the same. Just take a close look at this person's top banner website. It's based on his own image, with studdied lightning and kitch imagery exactly like a rock musician. Instead of the strat, the Red or the Alexa and many many brand sponsors dispached everywhere to make it looks serious. I don't really remember his films, but I can't forget his face, his smile, his voice. They build their business arrownd their own visual image filming themselves not only on set but into the shower, dinning, in the bar with their friends, soon it will be in the toilets if it keeps going like that. Politicians, rockstars, dictators...they use the same ingredients. And it works as never for the masses, as Andy predicted so well.
As so many people are now preocupated and anxious with testings of all kinds, the only thing they have to do is doing testing to get a ww audience. They post their timelapse essays, or a new lens testing as peices of art and people eat them as it.
And the most amazing is that they end to have real power. The "I like that it's good" put the sales up in a question of hours...
Those guys generate more traffic in their websites than any serious great film director.
Of course, everything is planned in such a way that people can post comments in their websites so they got the whaos and greats and bravos (the ego loves that), they are of course linked to facebook, twitter and all possible existing social networks and exhibate themselves with brands and equipments in wich they become in some ways ambassadors. They end to get a world wide recognition or at least everybody knows who they are. Amazing internet!
But I'm asking, where is the real substance behind those mascarades? All that looks so artificial, ego centered and superficial in many ways.
-
Fred, have you been watching the Francesco's Mediterranean Voyage programme on BBC HD via satellite? It's several legs of a Med cruise from Venice and around the Cyclades - so far - and the point is this: I have taken to putting a chair about a metre from the screen and watching like that, the definition on the HD screen is so amazingly detailed, so much more impressive than anything ever looks on my LaCie monitor. The depth of field is also incredible; I assume they must be using very small apertures - do you know anything aout the filming of this series, if it's digital or film?
This question is, of course, also wide open to anyone else who may have answers!
Watching the show is a visual eduction.
Rob C
-
Fred, have you been watching the Francesco's Mediterranean Voyage programme on BBC HD via satellite? It's several legs of a Med cruise from Venice and around the Cyclades - so far - and the point is this: I have taken to putting a chair about a metre from the screen and watching like that, the definition on the HD screen is so amazingly detailed, so much more impressive than anything ever looks on my LaCie monitor. The depth of field is also incredible; I assume they must be using very small apertures - do you know anything aout the filming of this series, if it's digital or film?
This question is, of course, also wide open to anyone else who may have answers!
Watching the show is a visual eduction.
Rob C
I'm sorry Rob, I won't be very usefull on that: I almost never watch tv, not kidding. Hope you got feedback.
Hey Rob, the new Nikons have good HD capabilities. The D7000. Isn't it a good way to be motivated again and start to learn motion with your Nikon? (I know I know...what to shoot in the island then...)
-
I'm sorry Rob, I won't be very usefull on that: I almost never watch tv, not kidding. Hope you got feedback.
Hey Rob, the new Nikons have good HD capabilities. The D7000. Isn't it a good way to be motivated again and start to learn motion with your Nikon? (I know I know...what to shoot in the island then...)
Hell no!
I'm having problems with my eyes right now. I can't hold focus for very long. Working today, I could focus for about five seconds, at which time the eye would go out of focus, only to return to normal if I looked away from the viewfinder for a moment at something very much nearer to me. Then, back to the finder for another five seconds and all over again with the pantomime. I can see a day come when either I just give up, do a perfect swallow dive off a 1200ft cliff into the beautiful blue ocean or buy a set of af lenses. Not much choice, then, as you can see.
I don't have any interest in motion, nor money to spend - I'd rather have an M9 if I did have, but anyway, I'm too exhausted in the head to learn anything new.
I sympathise about not watching tv; in general it sucks bigtime. I check out the schedules on the internet in the mornings and make a list of maybe two or three programmes that I might watch. If I'm lucky.
My usual lunchtime bar is closed for vacaciones and I can't watch my current heartthrob doing her cookery show: Mariló Montero - have you seen her? Classic beauty, dark, tall, and the rest. No bimbo, but very sophisticated-looking... no wonder I sometimes get indigestion.
Rob C
-
" Owner of the 1st Scarlet X review/impressions
http://tonacitran.com/red-scarlet-x-first-review-impressions/
"
man those clips look like they were shot on color negative film ....... so nice. I am definitely tired of that canon / cmos look that I have been shooting the last 5 years or so ( stills and video ). this looks so different.
-
There should be a new name for RED. Call it REDCULT.
If you want to buy a Scarlet and didn't go to the "Event", then you'll be pushed way down the line.
We ordered on Nov. 4 and in typical RED style we keep moving down the list as people that we're hundred of orders and weeks behind us have already received their Scarlet because they went to the "Event".
We are buying some lenses today and asked our RED "account person" whose only reply is "I can't comment on that".
I think you could ask RED if they made cameras and they would respond, "I can't comment on that".
You know, I just wanted to buy a camera not go on some list and watch our name slide down.
These guys run silly ass business model.
I think Phillip Bloom might be right.
IMO
BC
yeah I emailed them asking " if I order a scarlet today approximately when would I get it, 3 months, 6 months?" they couldnt answer the question.
If the file didnt look so damn good I would just move on and buy a c300. I stated in another post how the scarlet footage looks like it was shot on color negative film ( portra 160 NC to be exact )
-
yeah I emailed them asking " if I order a scarlet today approximately when would I get it, 3 months, 6 months?" they couldnt answer the question.
Guess how long it will take to score a Bomb EVF to go with a Scarlet.
-
yeah I emailed them asking " if I order a scarlet today approximately when would I get it, 3 months, 6 months?" they couldnt answer the question
Just like me. " ... you pays your money ... and you waits in line ..."
-
Guess how long it will take to score a Bomb EVF to go with a Scarlet.
If you want one bad enough there are always 1 or 2 for sale in the classifieds over at Red User. I think I saw one today as a matter of fact for $2,900.00.
-
If you want one bad enough there are always 1 or 2 for sale in the classifieds over at Red User. I think I saw one today as a matter of fact for $2,900.00.
Haven't made up my mind yet, & likely won't invest until I can hit the "Buy Now" button, but your information greatly eases part of the decision.
Thanks,'
B
-
Bern,
If you wait for a RED Buy Now button to not have the word's "back ordered", then you'll be 106 years old.
But, if you'll buy 4 RED Tshirts, do three videos of you opening your first RED box, attend 6 REDUCATION (called assimilate) classes, teach 4 of them, blog about it 7 days a week, then you'll be able to buy a RED bomb for a 2.4% discount in a week.
Don't think that just writing a deposit check will do it, in fact don't even try to use a check or a credit card, because if you want to buy a new camera in a day or two, you will have to go in with $22,500 in cash while they go into the back room and count it out (true story).
IMO
BC
-
...you will have to go in with $22,500 in cash while they go into the back room and count it out (true story).
Hmmmm...
www.red.com/store/lenses/product/red-pro-prime-set-i
-
Actually, if you wanted a R1 MX, now is the time to buy. It seems the bottom has dropped out of the market for those cameras. Quite a few complete R1 MX packages-w-lots of goodies available in the $13,000.00 - $15,000.00 range. Some with really low hours and never rented. I know I was seriously tempted, but since most of my shooting is more mobile/discreet "one-man-band" type of stuff, I didn't think an R1 would work for me. 13-15K for camera like the R1 is a steal! Hell, my first Beta SP rig set me back nearly $30,000.00! Go figure? That was then .... this is now ....
-
Yeh, I was very tempted by a second-hand RED One, which is why I hired one to try it out.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be too cumbersome and heavy for my one-man-band shoots.
But I fell instantly in love with doing grading in something that felt like a RAW workflow, which is why I've ponied up for a Scarlet. I'm assuming I will get one eventually but have absolutely NO idea when. I agree with bcooter's comments on the RED business model. I recall a phrase "these guys have practically alien technology", and I think that's how they can get away with it. No-one else seems to have a RAW-like cine camera anywhere near to market at RED-like price points. RED are the only ones making the product I want at a price I can afford right now.
The C300 is a missed opportunity, because although the footage I've seen from it is spectacular, I just can't around the on-paper limitations of 8-bit, 50 Mbps codec and basically the same price point as the Scarlet. If it did RAW-like 422/444 at full HD at something more like 400 Mbps, I'd have ordered one.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Isn't the Sony F65 in the Epic ballpark at $65K?
- It is 'true' 4K (only green sites counted), and can scale up to 8K with a future firmware update.
- RAW is 16-bit - with info on all 20MP.
- 14 stops of DR.
- No rolling shutter - the F65 uses a rotary shutter.
- Sony can (potentially) deliver worldwide service, support and repair. The same holds true for Scarlet vs the F3.
-
Yes. If I had the money I'd go for the F65.
-
Isn't the Sony F65 in the Epic ballpark at $65K?
- It is 'true' 4K (only green sites counted), and can scale up to 8K with a future firmware update.
- RAW is 16-bit - with info on all 20MP.
- 14 stops of DR.
- No rolling shutter - the F65 uses a rotary shutter.
- Sony can (potentially) deliver worldwide service, support and repair. The same holds true for Scarlet vs the F3.
yes that is the price for an f65.
IMO it is a no brainer.
Normally Sony cameras work out of the box and can be had with all that has to go along.
-
Billy, for your work Red is overkill. For stills it's just an APS-C sensor.
(http://www.herfree.com/avatar.php)
-
http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/05/review-of-the-red-scarlet-x/
-
We just received our Scarlet today . . . well everything but the handle and the rear module, though it works and we've only had a few hours with it, I find it really amazing.
Now take this with a grain of salt as we're shot nothing of importance with it or put it through hard use, but overall, I'm amazed.
The autofocus is not perfect but very good and offers a lot of options. You can go continuous, manual, or pick a spot on the lcd.
The lcd is a work of art and if any medium format camera had this they would sell off the shelves.
You can focus with it without zooming and to zoom you do the ipod two finger stretch and it zooms in, do it again and it zooms out.
The screen (since we don't have the rear module) is where all the controls are and it's fairly intuitive, but once again really amazing in look and function.
The camera is military grade (at least it feels that way) and the size is almost perfect.
To each his own, but if I shot a lot of documentary work, (I don't) this to me is the perfect camera due to weight, the Canon lenses, the cost etc.
It may have some downsides but in a few hours we haven't had time to find them.
We went to 2000 iso and without really crunching the file, but so far it looks good.
Mr Bloom seems to think it's Epic cheap, but except for the lack of full frame high speed frame rate, it does everything I could ask and if I need real slow mo, 120 fps doesn't cut it anyway.
I don't know Mr. Bloom but i think he's been working too man plastic cameras.
Anyway, Love the camera and hope it works as well as we anticipate.
Red can be maddening, deliver late and could qualify for a cult, but when they do deliver they really break new territory.
IMO
BC
-
I turn the problem up side down, strech it left to right,
making numbers,
evaluated the post workflow with files of almost any camera available except the Phantom,
looking on the lens and accessories lands,
and the only conclusion I'm falling on to in any possible equation is: the Red system. There is nothing else that suits my needs-style so well to date.
Ps: I dunot understand either the Bloom's complain about high speed because with 120, not so much can be done anyway and better to rent a specialized camera for slow-mo.
Then about available light I don't find the R3D particularly weack on that aspect. Oh well...
-
Also,
I think there are really serious thinking heads in the Red crowd.
Because just take a CaNikon production of what they call fashionably "multimedia". So I go to Nikon website, see the camera, and a Mic Rhode type. Point.
So all the rest has to be thrid-partied, e-bayed or amazoned, crossing fingers that the overall mecano would suit more or less the multimedia requierements with a bit of gaffer tape.
I go to Red website and what I see is not only Raw cameras but a complete system absolutly spot-on. The cages are amazing, exactly the perfect design for the camera in question,
pro cables have the right conectors, the right lengh.
I don't even need any more to look for another Pelican that will fit more or less but a dedicated case for each camera. The LCD is integrated, the bomb evf is a sexual bomb. They sell all you need to shoot seriously with the minimum of volume (for ex those third-party cages are generally too big and in fact you can not mount many accessories on them).
And as Coot said, all that, accessories included, doesn't seems a plastic gadgetery at all but serious equipment made to last long under any condition.
Yes, at Red there are people who really think, and for what I'm seeing, they are not idiots.
And the most amazing of all is that no competition manufacturers seems to be answering to it, they just turn arround the problem with no ideas.
-
120 fps is pretty useful, & wish my cameras went there. One common example are those silky/flowy hair commercials.
But I certainly wouldn't pay the price difference between a Scarlet and an Epic just to get there. 48 fps is my most common slomo frame rate anyways, as it's easy to retime to 24fps when needed, so 48fps at 3k would be very usable.
James,
Congrats on your new tool. Sure you'll drive it like you stole it.
Here'a an excerpt from an ASC's article about the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
“I like the picture the Red gives me, the way it feels,” says Fincher. “Ultimately, that’s what people are talking about when they say they prefer one format over another. When people speak fondly of the anamorphic lenses from the 1970s, they’re talking about the feeling they get from that certain kind of image. I like the Red One MX a lot — in fact, I wish we hadn’t switched to the Epic at the end of our shoot. There’s nothing wrong with the Epic, but I sort of like the graininess of the MX [image]. It’s an aesthetic choice, not a technical one.”
From Fincher’s perspective, perhaps the biggest advantage of the Red is its size. “Because it’s small, I feel like the filmmaking process itself becomes sort of intimate,” he says. “Filmmaking is a small circus — that’s the nature of the beast — but I prefer to keep it as intimate as possible. When the mechanics become too consuming, it’s too easy to get distracted from the real reason we’re there: to capture the actors’ performances. When the gear gets too big, I feel like there’s a wall between my cast and me, and it’s hard to get around it to talk to them. I really prefer to have that relationship, that connection, be immediate. How we shoot, where we shoot and what we shoot with all play a role in finessing that relationship.”
http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/January2012/GirlwiththeDragonTattoo/page1.php
Best,
B
-
We just received our Scarlet today . . .
I think Mr bloom has found the 2k mode 'soft' or something
I don't know if you have tried it
I don't know why he is not a litte more excited
If I were going over 10 big ones Id be wanting Raw .. and 60 at 2k and 120 at close to 1k whacks the 1080 C300/F3 anyway
Can you do a nice focus pull with the canon lenses and no FF using the screen ????
Best
SMM
-
Fred,
I'm not saying other cameras are not innovative or good, because we've come from handicams and 100 lb. engs, to finally film killing magic.
I just think RED with all their quirks has hit a sweet spot in the market like nobody else has addressed.
Sure with RAW there is another step to go through, same with raw stills, but it offers more back in safety and a few more options.
The Scarlet is the camera I don't understand as it's essentially an Epic with a few less features and 1/4 the price.
Bern,
As far as FPS, I'd like 120 fps with the full frame, (though I've never used our RED one's past 29.97) but heck I'd also like 1000 fps.
Still for the price if it turns out to be reliable it's well worth it.
I'm always fascinated by brand loyalty though. Traditional film guys scream Arri, it seems like the Indie guys has the hots for the Canon 300 and all of that is fine and it's their business what they use.
The Arri I understand more than the Canon because at least the Arri is more familiar territory for traditional film crossover.
The Canon confuses us, because you must pick one mount and stick with it, and why didn't Canon offer autofocus. Canon lenses on the RED will autofocus.
Canon started with a clean sheet so I would have thought the 300 would have been a RED/Arri/5d2/5d3/Nikon Killer but in ways it's more 16mm camera than full fledge production camera.
At least that's how I would position it.
All the RED's are not perfect, but very useable is a lot of situations and for a hand held camera it's going to be a gas.
What I look forward to is shooting 5k 12fps sequences as for some personal and commercial work, I love the cut frame look.
Anyway, I'll know more about the camera very soon and if it works out we'll probably order one more for backup.
Morgan, I don't know about 2k or 1k. I don't know if we'll ever use it though for you when we test it out I'll try it to see.
As far as Mr. Bloom, he has a different business model than we do and I'm not being a critic, but I think his experience with the Epic kind of turned him off on RED, but reading between the lines, it appears that some of his Epic experience was a little buyers remorse, though once again I do not know Mr. Bloom.
IMO
BC
-
Remorse..
My five minutes spent with an Epic had me hooked
As you say military build my FS100 and I guess the C300 are not in the same build class also 1080 'muzzo vision'
(although the F65 and Alexa have that too I guess - have you seen the burnt alexa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owgcWuQkGT8)
S
-
Bern,
About 120 for hair commercials, mmm. It depends. I've been trying with a videographer in testings and it looks good in a way but it still looks "cheap". It just depends on the budget, but I wasn't fully convinced. Of course, the more we can get from a camera, the best and more versatile, but I don't consider the lack of high-speed of the Epic a big downside because high speed is not 120.
I think that to do really good slow-mo properly we need a dedicated camera. 120 is great to have but still limited and compromise.
I'm sort of learning that it's better not to buy something in between because it adds a "certain" capability if it's not really there either. But each person has reasons for a choice.
So in the end if I got a serious slow-mo stuff, I better rent that trying to deal with 120 wich really isn't the grail.
James,
Of course there are others than Red that are incredibly inovative. I'm actually following a little brand with a lot of interest (no motion).
But Red has understood something very important IMO, I ignored they had such an integrated system at that point and I think that
they will dominate a market that's not just a niche. They are on the path to dominate the motion scene of the next decades from the middle to high-end.
I'm seeing editorials shooted on Red, still frames and the output is gorgeous. I simply prefer it than the MF traditional stills. They look more like the film age fashion shots, not digital at all. The Red stills are brilliant too. They vibrate and remind me the Peter Lindberg apogée. So even if the res is "not" there, the look is impressively good.
I'm very surprise to see so little accurate responses from the competition.
I'm seeing a tsunamy James, and it's like the competion is looking at that huge wave with the open mouth waiting to be hitted...
oh and a little morning anecdote: I had my coffee with an established photographer here, from the old school, starting to do motion like a lot. Very experienced and not a brand nor gear addict. I talked to him about this 36MP Nikon at 3000 euros, he would say: mm mm. Then he said: the only thing I'd buy now is a Red camera. The real thrill of now is Red.
I'm sure he'll get his Epic very soon.
I'm not at all Red hypnotyzed- But I just really think that they got it damn right, at the right time.
-
About 120 for hair commercials, mmm. It depends. I've been trying with a videographer in testings and it looks good in a way but it still looks "cheap". It just depends on the budget, but I wasn't fully convinced.
Every hair commercial I've worked on was shot on film at 150 fps, or less.
www.arri.com/camera/film_cameras/35_mm_film/arriflex_435_xtreme.html
-
But it doesn't mean that I would personaly follow that path if I had to do a hair commercial. Actually I would not, and respect totally and admire the talent involved. It's just a matter of personal vision.
We have now impressive digital tools to expand the visual range. It's not because what was done or is still done today in a way is the only reasonable one.
Cheers.
-
Still waiting on my Scarlet, jealous of BCooter (as usual ;) )
I think if you come from a stills background, especially a medium format stills background, the "oh thank god for that!" feeling you get when you open up Red Cine and see RAW image processing tools so you can finally get your hands on the actual colour information will sell you on it right away. I've never really understood why most manufacturers are going from a perfectly decent RGB source to a mangled YCbCr signal, then trying to unwind that in post to colour correct and grade.
4K I don't really need but it doesn't hurt to have. RAW-like sensor information though, that's the killer feature. Slowmo is OK, we generally only use 50 fps at the moment anyway so 48 fps in 3K and 60 fps in 2K will do. If we need higher frame rates we'll hire for a day.
I wish RED could get a bit more businesslike with delivery times and ESPECIALLY delivery estimates. Dropping 15K UK pounds on a camera system one has a right to expect a delivery estimate. And REDUser is a scary, scary place.
But my experiments with a RED One definitely showed a Scarlet as the way to go, and I'm itching to get my hands on mine. I couldn't have afforded an Epic anyway so that's not a competitor, and a RED One would have done fine buy I found it too heavy and cumbersome for my grip gear, and I want to stick to lightweight shooting as the last think we need is an excuse to keep the camera static.
I think the most reassuring bit in Philip Bloom's review is:
"This is what the Scarlet does EXCEPTIONALLY well…The 4K recording is just amazing. The detail in the image plus the amazing latitude is a thing of beauty. The Red code RAW codec is robust and working with it in RED Cine Pro X makes working with ANYTHING else seem like a compromise."
Since I'm buying mine to get exactly those features, I'm very much looking forward to getting it. I think it'll be a very good complement to my Hasselblad H3D-31.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
A little devil's advocate...
I'm still confused why the C300 gets so little respect. Many seasoned DPs are very excited about using it, & I'm holding off judgement until I can fully test. Having held it I'm glad it's an all-in-one plastic shrouded camera that shoots a broadcast ready codec while running endlessly on small batteries, & cheap media. It will be a dream to support in the field, & likely require less than half the cases of a RED.
There's much more to color science than RAW, & I know many a Producer who doesn't want the workflow hassles on most projects. Just look at the number of gigs that are shot on ArriRAW vs ProRes on the Alexa.
While this forum is very pro RED, Hollywood isn't. I hope the Epic/Scarlet change this dynamic, but my guess is that in the long term Canon will eventually dominate the market that RED plays in.
With that said I am still considering the Scarlet.
And the Canon.
Best,
Bern
-
A little devil's advocate...
I'm still confused why the C300 gets so little respect. Many seasoned DPs are very excited about using it, & I'm holding off judgement until I can fully test. Having held it I'm glad it's an all-in-one plastic shrouded camera that shoots a broadcast ready codec, runs on small batteries, & cheap media. It will be a dream to support in the field, & likely require less than half the cases of a RED.
There's much more to color science than RAW, & I know many a Producer who doesn't want the workflow hassles on most projects. Just look at the number of gigs that are shot on ArriRAW vs ProRes on the Alexa.
While this forum is very pro RED, Hollywood isn't. I hope the Epic/Scarlet change this dynamic, but my guess is that in the long term Canon will eventually dominate the market that RED plays in.
With that said I am still considering the Scarlet.
And the Canon.
Best,
Bern
Bern,
This there where I loose the story. In what the Raw workflow is perceived as hostile or hassle by many people? I really don't get this point.
-
Bern,
This there where I loose the story. In what the Raw workflow is perceived as hostile or hassle by many people? I really don't get this point.
For an industry that can burn money like an oil spill, Hollywood producers can be damn cheap and are always looking for that magic bullet that will save them costs.
I think the compelling reason for the Canon is lower light, less cable, less generators, etc. etc, but then again we all know how Hollywood producers negotiate under and over the line talent.
So bottom line, they're cheap and want to protect their high margins and unfortunately not a lot of editors have a handle or want to know about RED workflow, or converting raw to a useable editorial codec.
Commercial clients see it different as they want more use out of their production and a somewhat future proof file.
Actually, there are no rules on workflow as every studio, production house and editorial director has their own thoughts on this.
My point on the Canon is it's a false economy. Burning out a RED file flat in RED color and red gamma 2 takes about the same amount of time as downloading an SSD card.
Grading it allows you to make sure you have that extra security of moving the file, or cropping the file when you need to.
Canon blew it by offering just one lens mount per body. To me, more than raw, more than file size that's a deal killer.
I'm not selling RED, heck I hope everyone uses the Canon, it makes it better for me, but I would never judge from a Hollywood producer because they get caught up in catch phrases without a lot of investigation.
IMO
BC
-
Given the money I think most producers would opt for RAW, but everything boils down to money.
Post is very expensive, & how many RedRockets will be required for multiple multicam shoots that each need to be turned around quickly? The small company I work with has about 15 editors, & seems to be adding more every week, most of who are working on Mac Minis. Imagine the workflow issues that RAW would add alone.
As I've said many times I wish the best for RED, & hope the Scarlet/Epic gets them around the bend. But understand the R1 was an very unreliable camera for years, & left a foul taste in the mouths of MANY a professional, myself included.
Now imagine a small all-in-one camera that shoots broadcast ready, laptop editable, footage on commodity memory cards with no need for a DIT.
I want to love the Scarlet, but not sure my clients will pay to play.
-
Canon blew it by offering just one lens mount per body. To me, more than raw, more than file size that's a deal killer.
As a multimedia artist who runs his own ship the RED seems perfect for your needs. I can't imagine you with a C300 unless it was just for low light.
-
Bern,
I understand your points totally.
However, I'd like to introduce an idea.
This imagery world and specially the still-design is vastly Mac. Mac has even managed to make a big part of this industry work on a non-prpfessional software: FCP.
and currently has managed to impose a non open codec called prores and a more than discutible wrapper called QT.
And that makes the all process completly surreal.
I don't know where yopu are located, in the US maybe, but I can tell you that here, the industry is not FCP, it's Avid and Edius in the broadcast and to some extend Premiere. All the editors I know here fear like baby girl in front of a polar bear when they got a project in FCP, they hate it. None of the high-end studios that are working in demanding tasks like FX are runnin on Mac as their main platform, they run powerfull pc iunits on linux and now more and more on windows7.
We can deny that, but MAC + FCP isn't really the fastest more robust professional solution. In fact it's far from being the case.
Where do I want to go with that?
I don't have the Red rocket, and I've never edited so far huge volume of Red files, no. But as the system is the same, you can actually compare the workflow and it's stability. And the R3D workflow on Avid is faster than any of the other workflow I've experienced so far. The edius 4k workflow is very good. No crash, no slow down.
I run on PC since years, sort of abandonned Mac. I got Avid and Edius. But both Avid and Edius are professional softwares made and thought for having a fast reliable workflow, much faster than the FCP capabilities.
Just look at Edius clients for ex.
I'm not adressing this post to you, but I'd just like to break the Mac mystic because if people are measuring the workflow within this system-editor, they are IMO not getting the best.
-
Fred,
I'm in Hollywood. Looks like an Apple Store round these parts.
Best,
Bern
-
The situation here and in France is far from being the case.
Anyway, my point is that if people measure a workflow responsiveness with FCP as a reference point, it's not going to give a truth idea of what really costs a Red workflow in terms of speed.
Where I have a doubt is when I hear those claims about the difficult and heavy workflow that should represents RED, we should experience that also here at one point or another, and we see exactly the opposite: a straightforward process. So I'm not saying you are wrong I am right, but I'm saying something's weired somewhere about the Red workflow being demanding.
Of course, many great editors have and are working with FCP and therefore Mac, my point wasn't pejorative at all in that sense, but if all Hollywood is on Mac (but I doubt on FCP) then what Cooter pointed before in this thread about how works the production mentality in California makes all sense.
-
... if all Hollywood is on Mac (but I doubt on FCP) then what Cooter pointed before in this thread about how works the production mentality in California makes all sense.
I'd guess there's 100, or more, copies of FCP for every copy of Avid in Hollywood. That culture is not going to change anytime soon, & I certainly expect FCP to be up to speed well before such could happen.
Edius isn't even on the radar here, while Premiere is a blip.
-
About Edius, I knew it isn't present in Hollywood. However it is a really good and powerfull editor and vastly used here in europe by some of the most prestigious broadcasts, very present in asia too.
But Bern, this isn't at all a personal criticsm. Not at all. In fact I thing that you're a great member, for your posts certainly a skilled professional and I like you. I say that because I know that english isn't my native lenguage and often I post things in a very straightforward form that may sound abrut or radical in ideas. It's a shortcut for me, easier to express things in english in a basic form. But I fully understand your points and do not find them specially in contradiction with my experience, because we all have different experiences to share. You may have good reasons to write what you do about the Red workflow and I respect them, and I also have good reasons to see the exact opposite, and we may be right both in fact.
Just that I report what I'm seeing and experience here, so as you do in your case.
Best regards.
-
I'd guess there's 100, or more, copies of FCP for every copy of Avid in Hollywood. That culture is not going to change anytime soon, & I certainly expect FCP to be up to speed well before such could happen.
Edius isn't even on the radar here, while Premiere is a blip.
I have never walked into any creative business enviornment in Russia, Spain, Italy, England, All the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Hong Kong where it wasn't dominated by Macs.
The only exception is Tokyo and that's changing.
Apple will have 146 billion in cash by the end of the year and it's not all from I phones. A lot is, but not all.
P.C.'s are fine, I don't care and am totally agnostic about computers, but if all my client's and suppliers use Apple . . . I use Apple.
Bern's right fcpx will be the next standard whether anybody likes it or not. They'll fix it, probably just enough to get by, but it will be the standard.
Premier is a blip for Apple users, Avid is for hard core production editors that know it inside and out and don't want to change.
Apple may have lost some market share to Avid and Premier, but that's didn't even show up on their balance sheet.
IMO
BC
-
Well, if that's going to be the case: a complete monopoly of Mac + FCP in the motion industry, then I don't like the idea at all. Because I love the Macs, but not in a motion configuration. Not at all.
Then I'll have no other choice to join the hard-core Avid division resistence.
-
So, where does this thing about the Red workflow being complicated, heavy and damn demanding comes from then ?
And James, I'm rarely, very rarely in contradiction with you, but the fact that Mac dominates the creative houses, no boubt with that, it's been like that for zillion years.
Now, on FCP I can't follow you on this prediction. Every editor I've been knowing so far have yes, FCP skills because they have to, but not one that I know edit mainly in FCP and most of them are completly allergic to it and they would give a list of 10 pages A4 to explain the reasons.
The few FCP editors I knew that have been trying Edius workflow in seminars have left FCP the same day and never went back.
Absolutly all the editors I've met so far are working with Media Composer or its broadcast version, some on Mac, others on Pcs workstations and the only reason they would eventually got the FCP is because of Prores monopoly. All broadcast TVs are working here with Avid, included national tv, and local tvs mainly on Edius. FCP is really the name I've heard the less unless in small independant editor houses where yes it is present and a few of independant filmakers I know.
And I know you know perfectly those facts actually but in fact I understand your post and why you say that about FCPx and yes, it may happen, like it or not, good or not. It may just happen.
Maybe California is different, but really, here FCP doesn't have the weight it has in the US.
-
Now, on FCP I can't follow you on this prediction.
Remember the disappointment of the iPad 1.0 release? Pundits stating it looked little more than a bunch of cobbled together iPhones.
Don't underestimate Apple. They do think different, & will likely revolutionize editing. FCPX is just 6 months old, & plenty of editors are already seeing the light.
-
There's much more to color science than RAW, & I know many a Producer who doesn't want the workflow hassles on most projects. Just look at the number of gigs that are shot on ArriRAW vs ProRes on the Alexa.
Sure, there's more to colour science than RAW. But for me, I know I am likely to want to grade my material pretty aggressively (and I have to do it all myself). There's just no getting away from the fact that these broadcast-ready codecs throw away 99%+ of the moving picture information to squeeze it down to a 24/30/50 Mbps signal. You really notice that data loss when it comes time to grade.
I'd definitely rather keep more of the signal than that. So if I do want to tweak the colour science, at least the data is there to let me do it without discovering that the in-camera compression has already thrown all the information away.
For me, it is just like the difference between JPEG and RAW workflow. If you are a photojournalist, JPEG is probably your best buddy. But if you can take your time and want the liberty to massage and fine tune your images in post, the advantages of RAW win out.
The alternative to the Scarlet for me wasn't a C300, it was buying a ProRes recorder to plug into the clean SDI out from my AF100. The main limitation of that is the contrasty tone curve of the camera, and the fact that it will still be 8 bit. Canon Log solves the contrast issue on the C300 but my understanding is that it is still 8 bit, and that matters to me as I like really clean images and I HATE banding and posterisation. The Canon's codec just isn't a good fit to the way I want to work. Hopefully, the Scarlet's will be.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Remember the disappointment of the iPad 1.0 release? Pundits stating it looked little more than a bunch of cobbled together iPhones. Then fast forward to today.
Don't underestimate Apple. They do think different, & will likely revolutionize editing. FCPX is just 6 months old, & plenty of editors are already seeing the light.
It's true. Apple has the capacity to do that. And it will maybe happen.
or...the revolution could come also from RCX if they see it.
-
Canon Log solves the contrast issue on the C300 but my understanding is that it is still 8 bit, and that matters to me as I like really clean images and I HATE banding and posterisation.
How the C300 handles banding, & highlights, are my biggest concerns, & the main reason I'm holding off judgement.
-
All broadcast TVs are working here with Avid, included national tv
Avid used to be the Tape based editing ??
My local beeb has just chucked that out and gone to FCP7 .. about three days before they launched X ! !
S
-
Avid runs all the national broadcast tv for ex and the major cine houses, Grass Valley completly runs Eurosport wich isn't a little client.
for ex: http://www.avid.com/LA/about-avid/customer-stories/RTVE
Recently Grass Valley gained major market-clients worldwide and it seems that they're growing.
All tv productions included movies where tv is partner is edited within Avid systems. And without counting on the incredible number of first class movies all over the world edited in Avid.
I'm not at all against Apple (although it is true I don't like the FCP software), just that this is a vast world.
Remember also that Edius is the Grass Valley editor. It's not a generalist like Sony, Apple or Adobe. It's an editor made by and for professional of motion, just that it's not Apple based so you don't really see it everywhere. You ingest whatever inside it would cut it real time, up to 4k. The editing codecs are awesome. http://www.grassvalley.com/products/edius_6/features
-
Fred,
FYI the same production company just added an Avid station for one of their shows, & will likely add others as the shooting schedule picks up.
And on another note, I wouldn't doubt that Avid, & Premiere, have as many legal licenses as FCP. Seems most just stole Apple's.
Perhaps Apple didn't/doesn't mind, as every editor knows FCP, & needs a workstation, but most would need time to learn Avid, or...
Best,
B
-
Avid runs all the national broadcast tv for ex and the major cine houses, Grass Valley completly runs Eurosport wich isn't a little client.
snip
Fred,
I have no dog in this hunt and I am just as confused with Apple's change to fcpX as anyone
I do know business and I know that Apple won't abandon the communications industry, it's just too important for them to keep up the buzz.
I also know that if they want, they can tear up fdpx and start again in a week and not break a sweat.
IMO
BC
-
... I'm not selling RED, heck I hope everyone uses the Canon, it makes it better for me, ...
Me, too! First off, congrats. on your Scarlet. I am waiting for my camera and side handle. All the other bits n' pieces have materialized.
Secondly, no camera, or camera system, is perfect. There will always be competing factors, pluses and minuses, and cost-benefit analyses that are run. What works for someone or one type of production, may not work for another or for a different production use. For instance, I would think twice about using an Epic or a Scarlet for ENG work. At the end of the day, it is a matter of using whatever tool that will help you to best tell your story, convey your message, sell the product, or whatever. When all is said and done, there is no perfect camera. Red included.
However, the encouraging thing about RED is that they appear to listen to their users and I think they are honestly trying to provide cinematic value for money. Yes, it can get expensive when you add-up the storage and start thinking about things like Red Rocket Cards. But, how many Panasonic, Sony, JVC, and Canon cameras have been retrofitted by the factory when technology advances or a new sensor is available? Not many. Those cameras quickly become obsolete and we are "encouraged" to buy the newest replacement model. RED, on the other hand, seems willing to keep its camera products current by offering technology upgrades, e.g. the MX sensor and the soon-to-be-released Dragon sensor. The same is true of their software. Graeme Nattress, (RED's color science guru ... who also hangs out here), has come up with REDcolor3 and REDgamma3 that will be incorporated into new camera firmware for all cameras and into REDCINE-X Pro. Supposedly it will make a major improvement in the camera monitoring path for color space and gamma, even with old footage. The cost: Free. Jarred Land, RED's President, has recently hinted that RED will offer an outboard module, (presumably for Pro Res and/or DNxHD), which would allow Epics and Scarlets to record to those types of formats. That would allow them to go head-to-head with Arri Alexas for producers who want or need those HD formats for quick editing turn-arounds or their particular production pipelines, while at the same time still maintaining a RAW file work-flow.
So ... use whatever tool that works for you, and/or makes economic sense, and/or makes you money.
-
Red's a funny company.
When they first came out with no dealers, working direct, I thought good, finally we get direct support from the maker.
Then I went through RED's process with is something like the moose clubs secret handshake system.
Now I firmly believe that for RED to really prosper, they need to sell through standard dealers.
Nothing gives you confidence like having that dealer buffer. I know with Samy's where I buy 99.9% of our equipment, I can call Karen and get direct, personal service with the straight information.
With RED, I always feel like I forgot to say the magic word to open the door.
With the Canon 300 we were first in line to buy one and held our place until last week. I like the idea of a Canon, love the idea of high iso, but really wanted more half video cam, half still cam.
I could have lived with a prorezz shooting camera if they had added good autofocus and interchangeable mounts. I could have lived with plastic buttons and 2k if they had given me very high frame rates or something I just couldn't get from any other camera, but they didn't, so I passed.
RED does seem to have a way to get 90% there of hitting the market and the Scarlet shows that RED will announce, then adapt and deliver what the market wants.
I just wish they would deliver faster and forget about the cult experience and the moving waiting list.
I also wish they'd really come out with a true dsmc stills and motion camera. I'd love a 24x36 frame and a little more sharpness of the file. Then we're 90% there to the one camera style format.
Regardless, I really dig the scarlet and can't wait to shoot it in a pressured situation.
IMO
BC
Me, too! First off, congrats. on your Scarlet. I am waiting for my camera and side handle. All the other bits n' pieces have materialized.
Secondly, no camera, or camera system, is perfect. There will always be competing factors, pluses and minuses, and cost-benefit analyses that are run. What works for someone or one type of production, may not work for another or for a different production use. For instance, I would think twice about using an Epic or a Scarlet for ENG work. At the end of the day, it is a matter of using whatever tool that will help you to best tell your story, convey your message, sell the product, or whatever. When all is said and done, there is no perfect camera. Red included.
However, the encouraging thing about RED is that they appear to listen to their users and I think they are honestly trying to provide cinematic value for money. Yes, it can get expensive when you add-up the storage and start thinking about things like Red Rocket Cards. But, how many Panasonic, Sony, JVC, and Canon cameras have been retrofitted by the factory when technology advances or a new sensor is available? Not many. Those cameras quickly become obsolete and we are "encouraged" to buy the newest replacement model. RED, on the other hand, seems willing to keep its camera products current by offering technology upgrades, e.g. the MX sensor and the soon-to-be-released Dragon sensor. The same is true of their software. Graeme Nattress, (RED's color science guru ... who also hangs out here), has come up with REDcolor3 and REDgamma3 that will be incorporated into new camera firmware for all cameras and into REDCINE-X Pro. Supposedly it will make a major improvement in the camera monitoring path for color space and gamma, even with old footage. The cost: Free. Jarred Land, RED's President, has recently hinted that RED will offer an outboard module, (presumably for Pro Res and/or DNxHD), which would allow Epics and Scarlets to record to those types of formats. That would allow them to go head-to-head with Arri Alexas for producers who want or need those HD formats for quick editing turn-arounds or their particular production pipelines, while at the same time still maintaining a RAW file work-flow.
So ... use whatever tool that works for you, and/or makes economic sense, and/or makes you money.
-
About Apple, yes, I really think that they have the power and the brains to change the orthodox game rule. It's the only company I can think of that seems capable to bring another craft way and simplify the post production stage, as they already did that many times in the past. I think that both James and Ben are right on the money on that.
Are they on their way to do it with FCPX ? It could indeed be the case, time will tell.
If Apple really managed to simplify the all story within reliability and "pro-compliant", and the competition is sleeping; they could indeed dominate completly the editing world and dictate their rules. I would personaly applaude if we can work faster, easier, without compromizing the reliability (including file management).
Don't get me wrong on Apple. They are great, inovative and their computers could stand as an art sculpture in a museum.
There are many things to love from this company, others, I really think they sometimes can be as bad as the oscur days of Microsoft's politics.
I see that specialy in motion and the things that really pisses me of are those:
- the QT wrapper is problematic.
- Prores, being a "standart" is not open to other systems and require you own a license to write.
- FCPX is not multiplatform but exclusive.
- FCP line despite the name is not a professional product, never has been and has many well known issues for the people who work with big volume, requiere speed and absolute reliability. It's been successfull only because of the arrogance of Avid, their insane prices and lack of intuitiveness. So for many people years ago FCP has been a better choice with the acceptance of compromises, specially when budget was limited.
Now there is all a generation trained in FCP, that could be operative faster and logically are used to this workflow and efficient with it.
The problem is perceptual, when you hear people saying: the "X" workflow is slow and complicated. I'd always think first, in what system are they editing?
It's almost impossible to critize because immediatly there is this cult thing (that we can also see in Red cameras owners-politics as James pointed, or any other brand with strong personality), so for many people, Apple would be unable to produce something bad, because generally they don't. They actually do from time to time.
But I must admit that it's quite amazing. PCs don't have this cult factor, so when something regular is released on PC, everybody says it's crap. But when something regular is released on Mac, most people say "they might know what they do", "they are visionary so they see something I don't"...each of their products could be regarded as a potential rule-breaker.
Amazing.
Now, are we in a normal world? of course not.
But if Apple brings on the pipeline a new generation editor we most want-need without major issues, tomorrow I'm back on the apple store for sure. They just opened a new one close to home.
Now, what I'd really like, is something that doesn't look like an editor. FCPX is still an editor in the traditional sense. More intuitive, maybe faster etc...but still is the same. RCX no. RCX looks like we're in C1. It lacks many things to be truly usable as an editor, but I don't see the path too complicated-long.
That design would be personaly for me the big revolution I'd like to see.
-
and also, my concern is this and has to do with the previous debate here:
- The still workflow is a stable one and well known. At any levels, if I want to master the post-prod stage, all I have to do is master Photoshop and the raw devs.
I know where to invest the tandem time and money.
C1, Lightroom, Phocus, Raw therapee etc...are just variations of the same design. Once you're trained on one it doesn't cost anything to be operative very fast with whatever.
The procedures are similar and very established for tether, file management etc...
- On the contrary, the motion workflow is a complete mess and very uncertain.
First, about this prores, would we conceive that in still, ouput a Tiff file would mean that we'd have to own a Mac only, or a PC only ? We would get crazy about that, but it is admitted in motion.
Prores can not be compared to a R3D, that will differs like any raw format except DNG. It has to be compared to a tiff format.
Then, I'm a newcomer in motion post prod. What to learn? What's the best for my business? Ok, so in my case I've learned Avid and Edius as a back-up editor. Fine. But I don't feel really confident seeing the moves of this industry.
Will this be stable in the middle term? Maybe I did a good choice, maybe not. If Apple brings a revolutionary editor that becomes a standart and enhance-simplify the workflow, and the competition sleeps, I would have done the wrong choice.
And it means: a complete re-learn of a new workflow. And that isn't like relearn a software like C1...the implications are serious.
To be good at something, we have to use it regularly for some time. In motion, I do have the sensation that it's way more unstable than stills. It looks like this industry is in complete re-formating and nobody really knows what tomorrow will be.
It's not hard to imagine that Raw video will be the norm soon or later and probably 4K will soon be a standart. Then, not even FCPX suits that but more variations of RCX in more powerfull. More re-learn.
I'm confused honestly and got this uncertain feeling that all what I'm learning today is pointless because huge changes are happening and we'll have to re-learn from scratch.
Maybe, my mistake is to try to find a "secure" solution, hassle-free in the middle term because it seems that it's not possible.
-
Those cameras quickly become obsolete and we are "encouraged" to buy the newest replacement model. RED, on the other hand, seems willing to keep its camera products current by offering technology upgrades, e.g. the MX sensor and the soon-to-be-released Dragon sensor.
Will the R1 cameras be upgradable to the Dragon sensor, or was the MX the end of the line?
-
Will the R1 cameras be upgradable to the Dragon sensor, or was the MX the end of the line?
Who knows? . . . though I doubt they'll put the dragon sensor in a Red One.
Red has said (and they tell you very little) that the Red One will continue as it is still viewed as a big production camera and built a strong following, especially outside of the U.S.
I know we'll keep our Red One's because we've had great reliability and though this shouldn't matter, it's the only camera I've ever used where client's take cell phone snaps of.
In the very quick tests we've done with the Scarlet vs. the RED One, the scarlet goes to 2000 iso very smooth where the RED One seems to show noise at anything above 1000.
Some people love the RED One noise, some don't, I personally like it as I think the Scarlet looks too smooth, but this is very early in the process. Since the scarlet goes to 2000 easy I'm not sure why they will have a dragon sensor, but I'll take what I can get.
I usually don't sell cameras, but might sell one of our Ones if the Scarlet is reliable. Time will tell.
IMO
BC
-
I usually don't sell cameras, but might sell one of our Ones if the Scarlet is reliable. Time will tell.
Interesting. Like you the MX footage never left me wanting.
Is this inspired by easier matching, higher ISO, simplified support in the field, superior ergonomics, or another reason(s)?
-
Will the R1 cameras be upgradable to the Dragon sensor, or was the MX the end of the line?
The Gospel according to St. Jim:
""Obsolescence Obsolete... we said it. We believe it. We are delivering it. The RED ONE was advertised as such. But we realized that it could not live up to the ongoing advancements we had envisioned, even though we offered the MX sensor upgrade which is well beyond what any company had ever done for their customers. So we developed EPIC. And we gave our RED ONE customers a way to upgrade to EPIC without any pain. Stage 2 and Stage 3 are our solutions to Obsolescence Obsolete. Choose one if you are a RED ONE owner. They are your choices. Don't think past these choices... anything beyond these are not fair to us." - Jim Jannard on REDUSER @ 03-22-2011, 02:23 AM
But, like most things with RED, everything is subject to change. He also stated recently (in response to the rapid price drop of used RED 1's) that those who sold would be sorry later ... whatever that means?
-
hey,
Jim is a master in communication....
-
I'm not on the same level as James but I understand those reasons,
it's mainly for the same that I'd choose the Scarlet format.
I find that many times a too steady footage, "perfect" movements, is not necessarlly what I'm looking for.
The ideal would be steady enough but vital, organic, dynamic.
The thing is that this format allows also a perfect steady-sliding etc...if required, but the other way with heavier
cameras is much more difficult. So this is a more versatile solution on set really.
The size of a medium format camera is just about ideal imo.
We can decide to work fast... or not, super steady or not. But we can decide, that's why I will give always an advantage to the most lighter gear possible. It gives more freedom and implication in the creative process IMO and don't have to compromised the quality or reliability with devices like the GH2 or any CaNikon as B or C cameras. It all works within the same standart, wich is also a time saver.
Having to operate different cameras from different brands with different codecs and different output qualities, complicates everything drastically.
Also, the way they built the accessories is really spot-on. One thing I really find important is to have the accessories connected the closest possible of the body so it becomes a bloc you can manouver and nothing is sort of "unstable" in action.
With the third-party cages it's always a compromised mecano because they are not made for a specific type of cameras except a few models that are insanely priced.
It's obvious that the people who designed the Red system are cineasts for cineasts and they thought integrated system.
And one thing I particularly like is that they have all, or almost all, the accessories needed to make the circus works properlly on sale in their website. I hate third-partied. Really do and my patience with that is close to the absolute zero. Like with softwares, you buy this or that software and then you have to chase for plug-ins etc...this really puts me on nerves. I can't conceive any equipment that isn't a complete system thought to work perfectly and helps the buyer, instead of complicating everything like we often see. from now on, if I don't have to revenues to access such kind of equipment, I won't buy and wait because in the end a bad purchase today is way worse than a good purchase tomorrow.
My only concern, and haven't found so far a definitive answer, are the mattebox. I don't want to use the screw filters, but I'd like a lighter solution than the traditional mattebox.
I wanted to mount a Bronica compendium but it doesn't fit on the standart 15mm rails. I ignore if there is an alternative design than allows 100x100 filetrs but within a more reduced structure. (the Bron isn't 100x100 but it was ideal)
-
... My only concern, and haven't found so far a definitive answer, are the mattebox. I don't want to use the screw filters, but I'd like a lighter solution than the traditional mattebox.
Matte boxes can be insanely expensive (for what you appear to get). I just bought a near new Vocas 325 on e-bay for $495.00. It is extremely light, appears to be well-made, and can be used as a clip-on and with rods. To give you an idea: While I am waiting for my Scarlet, I attached it just for fun to a CY Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon that was mounted to my 5DII. No vignetting whatsoever and it was light enough to use handheld all day. Another popular choice seems to be the new O'Box from O'Connor.
-
Thanks ftbt.
Also I have problems to find a donut ring that has a flexible hood (see pic) instead of those zillion donuts diameters. (the less gadgetery I have, the better I feel)
If somebody has a link please post.
-
Fred - what this has to do with Scarlet Im not sure but Ill tell you my matte box journey
For some reason I have avoided a traditional matte box - I can't stand the idea of fiddling with those nuns knickers
I got got step up rings to make all my lenses 72mm front thread
I then bought various cheap fixed NDs (the plan to have enough to leave on each lens)
I have now found that too slow and went and bought 2 vary nDs from Tiffen (mainly like for the vid you saw) I keep lenses down to two - 18mm and 35-70
So I can leave on VND on each
I have the bronica box (and made an arm for my rails for it) but you are going to get reflection issues from the back if you have a lens that grows at all and put the filter on the box
My idea for the box was to use the filters on the lens and the box purely for shading -it very nearly works and allow space for my 'kit' lens to zoom unlike a box with a filter in
It is a challenge with my 18mm to get it not to vignette (with the matte in place), probably if I grind a little more of the inside away I can make it possible
I have abandoned that for the moment and am getting good results with the VND on the lenses and a french flag attached to a magic arm to keep light off the lens
S
-
Fred,
I use a Lee compendium for resin grads, but as I understand it the REDs need IR filtration, or possibly a Hot Mirror, when NDs are used. The best of these are combo filters that have ND plus IR, or HotMirror, engineered into one unit.
I've been holding off on upgrading my matte box as my cam has built-in NDs, but last I looked the wide-angle Vocas', & Genus', seemed the most versatile lightweight options.
Best,
Bern
-
Thanks ftbt.Also I have problems to find a donut ring that has a flexible hood (see pic) instead of those zillion donuts diameters. (the less gadgetery I have, the better I feel) If somebody has a link please post.
The picture you have posted appears to be a Zacuto Universal Donut. The Donut is just the stretchy bit. You then need a 105mm Petroff Adapter Donut ring and the whole thing is assembled with velcro. See: http://store.zacuto.com/zwing-away-adapter.html
Another (and possibly better) solution is the Genus Nun's Knickers: See: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660866-REG/Genus_GL_GARD_NK_GARD_NK_Universal_Donut_Nun_s.html
-
Thanks to you all guys, that was very informative.
-
I use this matte box: http://www.chrosziel.com/data/chrosziel/produkte/documents/MB_456_E.pdf
mainly because of the "flexi-insertring" two of those rubber donuts cover all my lenses, it's a quite clever feature :-)
-
I know this goes against all the video, cinema world, but I hate matte boxes. They're big, heavy and nothing screams say your lines slow like a matte box.
I can understand cutting flare, though honestly if I get flare it's because I want it, I do know how to flag a light.
Anway, just one opinion.
BC
-
I don't think any of want a Matte Box
ND is however useful and my experience is that glass in front of the front element is prone to unpleasant flares
I guess if you have the wedge for a bunch of high quality screw on filters then a MB can be avoided
But the maths can add up to buy just one set of filters and an MB
And the time savings avoiding 'screwing around on set' can be considerable
Ive bit the bullet with 2 Tiffen vary NDs - thats $600 which is a % of the value of my FS100 camera
Of course I'm sure that doesn't buy the coffee on one of your productions :)
Also a MB can offer grad on the sky etc - not that you need that with HDR
S
-
I really hate matte box too, but I also really hate to screw filters.
Matte boxes are insanely priced and big, screwing filters put me insanely on nerves.
So...where is the solution ?
Maybe just...nothing.
There was this Cokin P holder, you remember? super light and adpatable on rods (they do that in India) but they aren't standart and the Cokin ND are crap, they magenta cast. (like those latest super high tech from Mars 80MP backs...)
-
I would always use nothing interior
And outdoors Im using vari ND
If I had cine lenses that don't extend - all the same size and everything I would use a MB
On the FS100 - Solidcamera are developing a behind the lens ND
I suppose the same would be possible for Scarlet when used with still lenses (but I guess not PL)
S
-
...
-
Sorry you've lost me
I was laying out that Matte Boxes and one set of filters can be a money saver compared to buying a pile of screw on filters!
Sure Red and Scarlet are 'cheap' - I agree with that
As for not banking on the FS100 for bigger jobs Id agree with that too
:)
S
-
Sorry you've lost me
I was laying out that Matte Boxes and one set of filters can be a money saver compared to buying a pile of screw on filters!
Sure Red and Scarlet are 'cheap' - I agree with that
As for not banking on the FS100 for bigger jobs Id agree with that too
:)
S
In the end I'm not sure I want the mattebox. In fact I'm sure I don't want it after considering all the aspects. I recognized it's super usefull, practical and fast and a must in cine practises but I rather to follow another route.
Probably 2 good zoom lenses that cover the all range with 2 fader ND permanently mounted on them would do the job. I hate to screw (no pun) but I prefer that to weight.
The irony is that I spent my all life with prime mentality and know very little about zooms. I ignore what are the good ones suitable for Red-Canon affordable. Of course, with unlimited budget you go Angénieux and you're secure, it's top, but I don't have the budget for such gear.
What was this IR filtration with ND filters on Red ? Another oscur complication on the chain ?
-
... What was this IR filtration with ND filters on Red ? Another oscur complication on the chain ?
Doesn't really have anything to do with RED. Digital cameras are more sensitive to infrared light than a film camera, and this becomes more noticeable when using ND filters, especially as the density of the filter is increased. An IR filter is supposed to cut off infrared wavelengths but not interfere with visible red wavelengths.
-
Re: IR filters.
You need them when using ND 1.2 and heavier. The ND filters block light but not IR. When the light to IR ratio is too low, you get weird colors without the IR filter.
I shot a scene indoors, day for night with no filters and blackout cloth on the windows. The widows lit up because the IR came through the cloth. Putting on the IR filter turned day back into night!
-
And you will need/want ND filters up to ND 1.8 and even 2.1 when you shoot in the sunlight with iso 800 on the RED camera...
Also, heavy ND filters can have some extreme color cast and exposure inaccuracies. Inspect them and test them carefully before buying or renting. I have learned this the hard way! Same for the IR filter too.
-
I use the Arri MMB-1 which is a nice compromise between weight and usability. It mounts up on 15mm LWS so you don't need a heavy bridge plate on bottom. When I'm swapping out glass, I don't have to worry about moving, cleaning and remounting ND's and Grads... which keeps me from screwing shit up.
I've always been particular about lens flares. On stills, I usually have a compendium hood AND one or two black cards on stands near camera to make sure I'm flagging my lights that are on the edge of frame.
etcetera...
CB
-
Probably 2 good zoom lenses that cover the all range with 2 fader ND permanently mounted on them would do the job. I hate to screw (no pun) but I prefer that to weight.
Yes this is my position Two Vari NDs (Tiffen) and mainly 18mm or 35-70mm nikkors
You still have issues with flare - a kind of wash - different from sexy flare - I think it is the filters - flat at the front
That is why I have a french flag on a magic arm
BTW you (probably) can't have them on permanently - you lose a stop so would want to be 'naked' indoors mostly I guess
S