Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Red as of 2007  (Read 188031 times)

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Red as of 2007
« Reply #100 on: April 22, 2008, 01:16:25 AM »

My JVC HD cam can do shutter speed of up to 1/4000 even though it only can shoot standard 1080i 30FPS interlaced. I'm sure RED can do the same thing...

Robin Balas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • http://
Red as of 2007
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2008, 05:32:05 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 06:12:12 PM by Robin Balas »
Logged
[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2008, 08:19:43 AM »

Quote
I apoligize for my wrong assumptions.
But why do we have to use the slow shutter speeds like the motion picture guys are doing?
You don't, but real convergence is when you shoot once, get stills and moving image and that's the problem. Fast shutter speeds on film don't look nice. It is used occasionally for the interesting effect it produces but for general shooting, you would not use it. Otherwise they would have used high shutter speeds years back and got rid of stills photographers on set.
But as acceptable quality thresholds for images seem to be constantly dropping, frame grabs will soon be seen as OK and photojournalists will be told to use video.

For an example of high shutter speeds being used in film. The opening battle scene in Saving Private Ryan was shot with a high shutter speed and that's what causes the slightly strobe like flicker, which adds to the telling of that story, but is not good otherwise. Technique is [or should be] subservient to the telling of the story.



Quote
I know very little of the work flow of the motion or even short film industry. I don't plan to learn it either because it is not suitable for my work as it seems very inflexible and ridiculously expensive for no other reason than it has always been that way.
You make a judgement as daft as that, after admitting you know nothing about the subject. It's expensive because telling stories is much, much more complicated/time consuming than stills or wedding videos, plus you need more people and as people cost money. Then you need more time and even more people to prep and do post. Duh!
Don't you think some serious pruning would have gone on if they could make it cheaper? Movie peeps want to make money and if they can cut costs they will, so if money is being spent, there's normally a very good reason. I've worked on low budget shoots and even then there's a lot of people on set and needed there, not all getting paid admittedly.
If you want to read an entertaining story about the ultimate in overspending on film, read Stephen Bach's 'Final Cut". This is how a entire studio was brought down by a single film/director.


Quote
Personally I believe it is easier for photographers knowing stills RAW shooting for years of commercial work to both measuring light with respect to sensor performance and color correcting a bayer raw file quickly and well than the motion film guys - read the posts on red forum and you will see they complicate simple issues enormously and struggle with the new way of thinking. Just like the stills photo industry did + 7 years back with the first LEAF/Sinar backs with idiotic work flows and people new to digital capture.
Most of the issues/difficulties with lighting a film set will be altered very little by RAW capture, as it's how you artistically light your subject that is time consuming and it's always much easier/cheaper to do as much as possible in front of camera, rather the lazy relying on post to fix the problem. Also did it not occur to you, that the filmmakers who aren't struggling with RAW are simply shooting and not complaining on forums
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2008, 09:00:53 AM »

Quote
Robin,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for as JJJ is coming from the traditional view and your looking at this as a new medium or way to capture motion in video and stills.
That's an insulting and very patronising attitude and made worse by the fact, you obviously didn't bother reading the relevants posts properly before saying something so dumb. Besides I'm anything but a traditionalist. Something better comes along and I'll be first in line, well actually second, as I've had too much first generation crap over the years.
Robin was actually apologising for making an incorrect assumption regarding RAW capture.
Try reading posts more carefully before responding. You said this above which may explain things
Quote
There is a lot of territory to cover here and if I go off track, it's because I write this stuff at light speed then get back to work.
Most of the cretinous nonsense online is there simply because people do not take time to read carefully before responding. Which is sooooo more important with written communication.


My view on hybridisation is all too often it does a good job of several tasks, but very rarely as good a job as a more specialised tool/person/workflow. But if good, is good enough and excellence is not required, then there's no problem.
Hybrid bicylcles are not very good off on on road when compared to more specialised products, but are moderately capable of both. For some people that is the ideal, for others, a watse of time. The RED is a bit different as it's very good at filming.
I've actually tried shooting film and stills, some years back and the main problem is they simply got in the way of each other, mentally and physically. Having a hybrid camera wouldn't make that much difference   If however, you have time/opportunity to reset scene and shoot both repeatedly, it's a little more practical.

Quote
For what it's worth even shooting flash does not gaurantee a complete freeze
http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg
And how much more blurred would it be at 1/50th?    
And studio flashes on high power are not always short enough in duration to freeze fast movement. Besides that looks like fill in flash as there is both blur and sharper areas, which reduces overall sharpness.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2008, 09:15:13 AM »

Quote
Can someone elaborate on how the RED and/or other HD cams do thier shutter speed

Its it always the FPS

120 FPS is the Max of the Red right

So that would create the same freeze as shooting at roughly 125/th of a second
The shutter rotates with an angle of opening that decreases with increased shutter speed, similar to the smaller slit of a horizontal focal plane shutter curtain at higher speeds. FPS are sort of independent as you can change the shutter angle/shutter speed whilst still shooting at 25fps. If you change the FPS, then that either becomes slow motion [higher FPS] or sped up [lower fps]. Over and under cranking to describe this comes from the early days when cameras were hand cranked. Under cranking is a cheap and nasty way of trying to make car chases look more exciting - usually it looks sped up. Stop motion  Animation is the ultimate in undercranking.  


Quote
Heres a whacko Idea - Red shoots raw so there is some exposure latitude

One could have it rolling and still 'fire photos' using a PW or suchlike popping the flash at the appropriate moment

Giving sharp stills and moving image too

The actuall fram with the pop could be edidted out of the video cut if required

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is/was a camcorder which when shooting video you could also do a [higher res] still capture whilst filming. A P+S camcorder is all I remember.

Separate exposures would be the problem with what you suggest, even with RAW as for that one frame/1/25th of a second, you'd have to change apertureand/or shutter speed and then back again. This is as you surely would be shooting the optimum exposure for RAW.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Robin Balas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • http://
Red as of 2007
« Reply #105 on: April 22, 2008, 10:41:05 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 06:11:46 PM by Robin Balas »
Logged
[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]

Robin Balas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • http://
Red as of 2007
« Reply #106 on: April 22, 2008, 10:43:49 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 06:11:24 PM by Robin Balas »
Logged
[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Red as of 2007
« Reply #107 on: April 22, 2008, 08:48:51 PM »

I just purchased this for a project this week.

http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com...frontpage_1.jpg

Obviously it's no Red but with camera and adapter it's only about 2 grand and gives the focus throw of something between super 16 and 35mm cinema.

I've messed around with all the adapters for various projects, PS Technique, RedRock, and the Letus so far is the easiest to use and seems the easiest to set up.

Using the camera lcd as a ground glass, just walking around you can hand hold and manually focus quite easily, even with the lenses set at F 1.4

It's a nice in between system.

JR
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 02:10:05 PM by James R Russell »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #108 on: April 29, 2008, 07:16:47 PM »

Quote
I think I am done with this thread as I obviously fail to express myself clear enough for you to understand - based on your answers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually you don't appear to be reading the replies fully in context with prior posts or even reading them correctly at all. And then you're taking taking them the wrong way. So no point in responding to your misunderstanding and further incorrect assumptions in detail.
I try and politely explain why 'motion pictures' are made the way they are, as you questioned why they do certain things and also questioned their workflow Then when I explain why things are done a certain way, you have a go at me. I certainly wasn't suggesting that's how you should do it, there is a difference. Quite a big one. Simply put,  they do it their way for good reason, you don't certainly don't need to do it like that if doing stills.  
I'm really losing patience with people not taking time to read posts more carefully before responding. Which is so important with written communication.

Quote
Really? I though I apologized for wrongly asuming something about Your expertise with RAW.
Christ on a bike, talk about splitting hairs on a bald man! It was an incorrect assumption on your part [based on no information] about my knowledge of RAW capture.  Which with James then assumming incorrectly about things I do or do not think, makes me suggest that you should both avoid mind reading tricks to make money as you're obviously really crap at it.




And if you don't want to be called up on daft statements, how about this utter nonsense
Quote
A 6x6 neg frame is crap at big enlargements
Probably why Hasselbald fim cameras were never used for advertising then.
That's sarcasm BTW, in case I was being too subtle and obscure.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #109 on: April 29, 2008, 07:28:38 PM »

Quote
I just purchased this for a project this week.

http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com...frontpage_1.jpg

Obviously it's no Red but with camera and adapter it's only about 2 grand and gives the focus throw of something between super 16 and 35mm cinema.

I've messed around with all the adapters for various projects, PS Technique, RedRock, and the Letus so far is the easiest to use and seems the easiest to set up.

Using the camera lcd as a ground glass, just walking around you can hand hold and manually focus quite easily, even with the lenses set at F 1.4

It's a nice in between system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I  think things like this [and the RedRock etc] are a great way of improvingt the look of DV/HDV cameras, I've seen some excellent things done with this kind of system.
Though if you are filming a full 35mm image off ground glass, then surely you have the equivalent of stills 35mm, rather than the smaller movie 35mm.  
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Red as of 2007
« Reply #110 on: May 01, 2008, 05:36:11 PM »

Quote
I  think things like this [and the RedRock etc] are a great way of improvingt the look of DV/HDV cameras, I've seen some excellent things done with this kind of system.
Though if you are filming a full 35mm image off ground glass, then surely you have the equivalent of stills 35mm, rather than the smaller movie 35mm. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Letus "frame" size is around 46x30, still 35mm full frame is 36x24 and academy cinema frame is  24mm x 18mm.

this doesn't tell the whole story though as many video cameras, the hv20 included has a shifted sensor that does not line up directly to the adapter, so you end up cropping into the moving ground glass frame of the adapter, normally tighter than 36x24 but larger than academy film frame.

Of course the high def prosumer cameras capture a frame proportion of 16x9 so that even complicates matters.

Overall though the Letus is the best of all the adpaters I have owned or rented, including the P+S technique which is way more expensive.

The look with an hv20 is good.  Highlights can be fragile, but focus is very easy, even handheld.

JR
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #111 on: May 02, 2008, 02:46:49 AM »

Quote
The Letus "frame" size is around 46x30,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what lenses project a circle that big? Your normal Canon or Nikon's circle is nowhere near that size. Or is it scaled up though the optics of the device, if so,it's the size of the 'frame' at front of the Letus before it goes through device that is the real frame size.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Red as of 2007
« Reply #112 on: May 02, 2008, 10:11:17 AM »

Quote
So what lenses project a circle that big? Your normal Canon or Nikon's circle is nowhere near that size. Or is it scaled up though the optics of the device, if so,it's the size of the 'frame' at front of the Letus before it goes through device that is the real frame size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The "real" frame size is whatever the video camera shoots, what goes on in front of the video camera lens, is just stuff in front of the video camera lens.

With the Letus, (and with all the adapters), you just zoom or manually move in until the junk around the frame deisappears and then you lock it down and shoot.

The redrock is not that precise, the letus is very precise and better built.

As far as the look it produces, since I use Nikon lenses, I would say once zoomed in it's somewhere between a ff nikon 35mm camera and a Nikon D2x, which is good.  I didn't compare them becuase I saw no point as it is just going to do whatever it's going to do.

Anyway I would guess a 35mm (in still terms) is somewhere a little less than a 40mm, though the framing is different since it's 16x9 capture.


JR
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:12:34 AM by James R Russell »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #113 on: May 02, 2008, 06:51:06 PM »

Quote
The "real" frame size is whatever the video camera shoots, what goes on in front of the video camera lens, is just stuff in front of the video camera lens.

Hmn, skipped science class in school did we?    The  'just stuff' you mention tends to be quite important.
Now, as you say this..
Quote
As far as the look it produces, since I use Nikon lenses, I would say once zoomed in it's somewhere between a ff nikon 35mm camera and a Nikon D2x, which is good.
 that definitely confirms the frame size produced by the imaging lens [the important bit] on front of device is probably slightly smaller than FF35mm and certainly nowhere near 46x30 as that would give a look more like a horizontally cropped H3D.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Robin Balas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • http://
Red as of 2007
« Reply #114 on: May 05, 2008, 07:01:06 AM »

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 06:10:37 PM by Robin Balas »
Logged
[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]

tetsuo77

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Red as of 2007
« Reply #115 on: May 05, 2008, 10:59:22 AM »

Quote
For some stills pros the real alternative to DSLRs and MFDBs will be the Red Epic announced at the same time as the Scarlet.

It weighs 6lbs, has a 5 K chip (about 20MP) and can shoot raw stills and video at 100 FPS, and with interchangeable lenses. Priced like a medium format back though.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Lens prices are much, much higher than medium format, though. Pixel definition is worse, as well, and the required software is not really cheap.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #116 on: May 05, 2008, 03:41:31 PM »

Quote
Do you really talk like that when meeting people face to face? If so I hope I don't meet you in real life. It could be the cultural differences though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why would I query people's reading skills in a conversation? And if someone failed to follow a conversation in real life as badly as you do when communicating online, I would assume they were a complete eedjit or simply didn't bother to listen before responding. Which come to think of it, sadly does happen far more than it should. But not as much as online thankfully.
I have close to zero patience with people who are too lazy to read carefully online before responding. And it is usually laziness, not stupidity in this forum, that leads to conflict.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Red as of 2007
« Reply #117 on: May 07, 2008, 10:41:08 AM »

Good morning:

Received a link to the following:

http://download334.mediafire.com/gfmxjjojt.../SDredvs.35.mov

from my son this morning - warning, it's a 39MB download.  The audio doesn't seem to work, but it's a comparison between the RED camera and 35mm film.  More than that I can't tell you.  Here's Chris' comment:

"interesting that film has over 5 stops and the red has under three.
also on a 64:1 lens the red has HUGE depth of field, everything is in focus!!"

Mike.

P.S.  I wasn't sure whether to post this on this thread or the one on 'Convergence', so I'll add it to both...
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Red as of 2007
« Reply #118 on: May 07, 2008, 11:05:14 AM »

AFAIK, this is where it comes from: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=30766

And I just wasn't that impressed with the roughness of how it was conducted. From my experience, if you're going to do any kind of scientific test on cameras, you have to take immense care and attention to detail. It's just not something simple to throw together and to expect consistent results. I'm forever re-testing to ensure consistency.

Graeme
Logged
www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9436
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Red as of 2007
« Reply #119 on: June 22, 2008, 07:04:05 AM »

The red site now mentions early 2009 for the release of the scarlet.

It is just me or was it supposed to be released earlier than that?

Regards,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up