Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: PetterStahre on October 28, 2011, 06:14:16 am
-
Have you guys seen this photo&thread:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65362-Peter-Lik... (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65362-Peter-Lik...)
Shot with RED Epic, stitched, 800 ISO, no anti-noise filter, no HDRx-functionality applied, just graded.
To my eyes ... STUNNING!
What do you think? Yes, lowres, but still ... there is some serious image quality in that "camcorder" :)
Look at the tonal range.
They even compared it to a Phase One 80 MP back with Mamiya lenses, read for yourself what they thought. (Biased from REDs point of view, yes, but again ... what an image!)
Quote of the day from Jim Jannard (RED founder): "Peter's quote on EPIC is X-rated.".
Food for thoughts.
// Petter
-
Stunning...
Red is the future IMO.
-
...just graded...
What does that mean in this context?
-
What does that mean in this context?
The Epic has a HDR capability, somewhat similar to what we are used in stills when we combine 3 or more images to make an HDR output. Well, the Epic is capable of that, doubling the recorded footage at a different shutter speed. On the paper, it means that the 13-14 ish points DR is boosted dramatically. (like a turbo in a car engine).
So the image you see is not using this function and therefore representative of the based DR this camera is capable of. They just did a color correction but not alterated the dr, nor noise etc... In short, this is almost a picture right-out-the-box.
-
Thanks Fred, I got the HDR part (or non-HDR). I was primarily interested in the word "graded" though.
-
I guess graded means image processing to get the "Peter Lik look", increasing saturation, doing some tone mapping. It is indeed a stunning picture, but you cannot really judge the EPIC's performance from that reduced size and processed picture. "No noise reduction" it says, but reducing the size of a picture will exactly do that, reduce noise since it is averaged into the remaining pixels.
As far as I understand from reading in the referred thread it is shoot with a model having a 30x15mm sensor with 5120x2700 resolution, stitched from a number of horizontal shots (probably three with large overlaps to be able to stitch without getting seams where stuff moves). The final image is probably 7800x2700 pixels. An IQ180 can do that in one shot with appropriate focal length, but would require longer shutter speed since IQ180 is not really a high ISO tool.
The suggested 10 feet print size would yield 65 ppi. Ok for a large viewing distance I guess :-).
-
From a post in the provided link (bold an italics mine) : "...so this shot is stitched and graded just like a movie would be."
Since i have zero experience with movies, and thus have no idea what "grading" does there, I guess I am trying to figure out what "grading" does for a still shot.
-
From a post in the provided link (bold an italics mine) : "...so this shot is stitched and graded just like a movie would be."
Since i have zero experience with movies, and thus have no idea what "grading" does there, I guess I am trying to figure out what "grading" does for a still shot.
Slododan: grading = color correction = correction de couleur just different ways to express a same idea.
a photographer "color correct", a videographer "color grade" or grade.
So "just graded", it means that they have done a color correction to bring to life this image but nothing more.
-
Fred,
I posted this question on Chris Barrett's thread regarding dynamic range but my question hasn't been noticed, maybe you'll know- how does the HDR Epic operate? I mean.. how can you capture the same frame with two different speeds simultaneously (it's motion so I assume it has to be done in exact same moment). It's kind of, well, impossible? :) Or does an HDR frame of the EPIC simply consists of a two neighbouring on time axis frames ?
-
Fred,
I posted this question on Chris Barrett's thread regarding dynamic range but my question hasn't been noticed, maybe you'll know- how does the HDR Epic operate? I mean.. how can you capture the same frame with two different speeds simultaneously (it's motion so I assume it has to be done in exact same moment). It's kind of, well, impossible? :) Or does an HDR frame of the EPIC simply consists of a two neighbouring on time axis frames ?
My understanding is that it automatically duplicates, so you end with 2 versions of the same footage with a different exposure and you combine them in post. The Arri Alexa does that directly in-camera with no merging needed. The Epic does both HDR in camera (irreversible), but when it comes to HDRx it is more drastic but in post. So you have the megabytes-gigabytes doubled.
Red claims 18 stops!
But for this image, they used a function not yet (but next week !!) available in RedCine X called: Alchemy, wich is supposed to be a sex bomb. We'll know more next week. They go at the speed of light, this is #4 of RCX in very short time.
The Epic is the most exciting device in 20 years of digital, IMHO.
-
My understanding was the same- that it's just a software thing, merging for instance -1N, N +1N frames from exactly the same exposure but implemented to be done in real time rather than in post pro... but to be honest I don't understand what's the benefit- you can do it in post pro with much better control of HDR settings.
-
Actually the deal with Epic HDRx is as follows... when the option is enabled, the camera shoots two simultaneous data streams (two video tracks), one at your normal intended exposure and another at a higher shutter speed (operator selectable between 1 - 6 stops of hilight protection). These two tracks are then blended later in software (with many options available) to increase dynamic range. In something like DeVinci Resolve you can combine them using a luminance mask, which is very close to my current Stills HDR process.
The image mentioned by the OP is claimed to use no HDR. The Epic does have substantial base dynamic range and their software allows you to pull more detail out of the files than Capture 1 Pro does, actually. Jannard does say that the image was produced using Lik's standard workflow techniques. That big secret is pretty obvious to me....
Shoot a late afternoon shot.
Shoot a night shot.
Drop the night shot on top of the afternoon shot with a blend mode of "lighten".
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it's that process that yields the surreal feel of this image. Otherwise you would never have such intensity in the man made electric light fixtures at the time of day that the sky was shot.
My own personal gut response to this image is "yeah, whatever."
-
My understanding was the same- that it's just a software thing, merging for instance -1N, N +1N frames from exactly the same exposure but implemented to be done in real time rather than in post pro... but to be honest I don't understand what's the benefit- you can do it in post pro with much better control of HDR settings.
Well, take the problem from a still point of view. We can make a single raw of one image and create 2 diff versions from our raw dev and then merge into hdr. But it is not really the same as if you have actually shooted 3 real different pictures.
-
Sorry, all I see here is a cheap HDR look that doesn't seem particularly hard to achieve with just about any recent sensor.
But why on earth would anyone want to achieve that look?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually the deal with HDRx is as follows... when the option is enabled, the camera shoots two simultaneous data streams (two video tracks), one at your normal intended exposure and another at a higher shutter speed (operator selectable between 1 - 6 stops of hilight protection). These two tracks are then blended later in software (with many options available) to increase dynamic range. In something like DeVinci Resolve you can combine them using a luminance mask, which is very close to my current Stills HDR process.
The image mentioned by the OP is claimed to use no HDR. The Epic does have substantial base dynamic range and their software allows you to pull more detail out of the files than Capture 1 Pro does, actually. Jannard does say that the image was produced using Lik's standard workflow techniques. That big secret is pretty obvious to me....
Shoot a late afternoon shot.
Shoot a night shot.
Drop the night shot on top of the afternoon shot with a blend mode of "lighten".
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it's that process that yields the surreal feel of this image. Otherwise you would never have such intensity in the man made electric light fixtures at the time of day that the sky was shot.
My own personal gut response to this image is "yeah, whatever."
Are you sure if this is actually not the kitsch real scenery of Las Vegas ? ::)
I checked today in RCX if I missed the Alchemy function and no, it's not there yet in the #4...but next week we'll know finally what this magic tool is.
ps: you could combine them with a luminance mask in Edius, Nuke and Avid too.
-
Jim did say that "Alchemy" was used to produce this image. As for my thoughts on the process... look at the top of the Bellagio... how bright it is. Look at the parking lot lights. Hell, those lights wouldn't even be on, car headlights would never appear so bright while the sky is still so bright. That sky had to have been shot about a half hour before dusk.
-
Actually the deal with Epic HDRx is as follows... when the option is enabled, the camera shoots two simultaneous data streams (two video tracks), one at your normal intended exposure and another at a higher shutter speed (operator selectable between 1 - 6 stops of hilight protection). These two tracks are then blended later in software (with many options available) to increase dynamic range. In something like DeVinci Resolve you can combine them using a luminance mask, which is very close to my current Stills HDR process.
Holy...
And why exactly does the video world have this but we don't have it with stills, except some compacts? We all knew that Canon and Nikon aren't doing anything but incremental updates. Do we really need RED (and perhaps Ricoh and Fuji and Sony and Panasonic) to put some (more) fire under them before they start innovating?
-
Jim did say that "Alchemy" was used to produce this image. As for my thoughts on the process... look at the top of the Bellagio... how bright it is. Look at the parking lot lights. Hell, those lights wouldn't even be on, car headlights would never appear so bright while the sky is still so bright. That sky had to have been shot about a half hour before dusk.
My bet is that the key seems to be this Alchemy stuff. According to Jim, Alchemy will become a central control of the processing. It could be that this is actually a single pic shooted way later than 1/2 h before dusk, maybe even at night. I can be wrong but I smell a surprise. According to the way he presents it, it seems that it will be really powerfull and key component of RCX. Let's wait and see.
(I think it's a night shot)
Any Graham spy report here?
-
Sorry, all I see here is a cheap HDR look that doesn't seem particularly hard to achieve with just about any recent sensor.
But why on earth would anyone want to achieve that look?
Because the general public likes that :). Peter Lik is rather successful commercially. I like his photography too, although he is a bit over the top at times.
-
Actually the deal with Epic HDRx is as follows... when the option is enabled, the camera shoots two simultaneous data streams (two video tracks), one at your normal intended exposure and another at a higher shutter speed (operator selectable between 1 - 6 stops of hilight protection).
Thanks for the explanation Chris...but it raises more questions. So, to shoot two simultaneous data streams, it must have two separate sensors fed by the same optics via a beam-splitter, or something??
Ray
-
nothing that complicated.. I'm pretty sure it alternates frames... if you typically shoot a 180 deg shutter, then the sensor is off half of the time between each frame, which allows the Epic to use that "down time" to capture a quicker exposure between the normal frames which is recorded to a separate track. The only downside is it requires twice the storage. Oddly, every time I've turned HDRx on, I haven't ended up using the hilight protection track. I always seem to have enough DR out of the Epic with the straight exposure.
-
It's a nice image, but the fanboy comments based on a small JPEG are a bit of a joke. You could get the same result with most $1K SLRs after the same 'grading' and tone mapping. Calling it a Phase-beater because they stitched enough images together to beat it is pointless. Any Canikon user could claim the same. It's still not giving you that much resolution in one shot mode (14MP?) That's fantastic for video, obviously. They also don't mention what kind of exposure controls you have. Can you make a 30 second exposure with it? 1/4000th? Can you shoot stills at all or do you have to pull a frame from video? If so, can you shoot stills tethered? I doubt it. Can you even use flash with it? Too many things are missing to make this a serious stills tool. A bit like oohing and aahing over a Canon 5Dii as a video camera - it can pull off some neat tricks but it's fairly limited.
-
I'm not sure if we are there yet (on real converegence), but Red is the closest IMO.
I've always seen C.Barrett very enthousiastic about Red and I trust him on his feelings knowing how demanding his work is and also
the fact that he also actually works in situ with high-end Phase equipment.
So if people like him are enthousistic it should be quite good.
I really think Red's got it right. They will be a huge player.
I know that people tend easily to loose control, but actually on the Red forum, since the Epic I've read many times people saying: "I'll get rid-off my MF gear" stuff like that.
Yes, those can be emotional responses but I think that there is something happening, something that is changing the panorama.
-
If RED makes the same headway with MF landscape and fashion customers as the 5DII made in the pro film and video world, then the MF vendors will be in serious trouble.
Edmund
It's a nice image, but the fanboy comments based on a small JPEG are a bit of a joke. You could get the same result with most $1K SLRs after the same 'grading' and tone mapping. Calling it a Phase-beater because they stitched enough images together to beat it is pointless. Any Canikon user could claim the same. It's still not giving you that much resolution in one shot mode (14MP?) That's fantastic for video, obviously. They also don't mention what kind of exposure controls you have. Can you make a 30 second exposure with it? 1/4000th? Can you shoot stills at all or do you have to pull a frame from video? If so, can you shoot stills tethered? I doubt it. Can you even use flash with it? Too many things are missing to make this a serious stills tool. A bit like oohing and aahing over a Canon 5Dii as a video camera - it can pull off some neat tricks but it's fairly limited.
-
Sorry, all I see here is a cheap HDR look that doesn't seem particularly hard to achieve with just about any recent sensor.
But why on earth would anyone want to achieve that look?
Cheers,
Bernard
i sign this comment from bernard.
its my opinion as well.
i see heavily over-saturated colors and a kind of look i would try to avoid with any camera i use ....
but its interesting how many stunnings and bravos this gets here in the forum :)
and of courses the red is not THE future. at best it will be a part of it, and this most likely in the film world. there will be more and more overlap between the two worlds but i dont think they will merge.
in photography i think there will also appear stunning new things which have much more to do with photographic versatility than with the possibility to compete with real professional video systems. the gap from the way cheaper and smaller competition to this hi end gear will become smaller, till a point where "normal" professional needs will be full-filled by the smaller and cheaper systems for both: pictures and vidos. maybe not in terms of the absolute quality, means 4k or 60 or 80mp images are very nice to archive, but the reality does not play on 4k screens and not on 2 or 3meter prints.
its more and more about displaying images on screens with a max. of 2000 pixels and with video with 1080pixel, if much. dynamic range, hi iso, colors, versatility and good handling are what is needed to work in our times. not a van full of gear. maybe all is different in fashion, but i believe if i would be a fashion shooter, i would be very happy about the increasing isos and the chances which this opens, i wouldnt care about red systems and about everything which makes the set big, expensive and unspontaneous. i would explore the new chances our technic is opening for me, and there is much more to explore than just hybrid video/photo cams of the higher end.
i just bought an oktokopter, to shoot with my canon from rc directed plane. this tool weights complete 5 kilo and seems to delivers such stunning and unseen possibilities ... and i am sure in 2 years i will have the same with 2,5 kilo. i have to learn to fly this drones now, not easy at all! but thats photographic future as well. technic merges and runs very fast forward. no time to stay behind and to invest huge amounts of money in systems which , maybe , will be obsolete in 3 or 4 years. i am not convinced that this will not happen with the praised red ( in photographer hands ).
maybe all this big systems are dinosaurs. its not such important if 8x10" has better resolution than a 80mp back. its about possibilities you loose if you use this big and complicate systems.
i dont see the red here as an exception.
all this might be different in studio work and - of course in the hand of movie makers.
lets see where 35mm cameras will be in 2 or 3 years. they are very close to fulfill nearly all professional needs, if there someone will ad some raw or semi raw for footage i cent see much future for red in photographers hands. at least not in mine ....
-
i signe this comment from bernard.
its my opinion as well.
i see heavily oversaturated colors and a kind of look i would try to avoid with any camera i use ....
but its interesting how many stunnings and bravos this gets here in the forum :)
Rainer, it's not this image itself. This pic is horror. It's that it comes from a video camera with no other tricks than grading.
It's not this little jpeg that is the cool thing, it's to see the convergence getting step by step a reality. IMO.
-
This is the point people are missing.
It's not about whether you personally like the colors or tone of this image, because though I know this look is in post processing, in my world I believe the RED file is the most film like file of any digital camera I own.
This IS about if your shooting this or any other scene and when panning across I can promise you the AD, client, client's client, someone will say, wow that's great . . . can we make a still image from it?
If you say sure, no problem, they smile. If you say uh, well not really, they don't smile.
So the answer is sure, no problem.
Doesn't mean it will replace still cameras, but it does mean it's a wonderful addition to the work your producing.
IMO
BC
-
i am not sure if the red is closer to hi end hi-res imaging than a canon is to hi end video.
maybe both are here very similar coming from different ends. so both worlds will merge that you can do either videos accompanied by hi res images with systems as the red, or images accompanied by video, which also will be good enough for most customers, with systems as canon or sony or nikon. soon both will be good enough for any or nearly any client, so its up to us to choose which way we will go.
-
pardon me, but "m'eh"
-
To me the Holy Grail of convergence would be a camera that could produce a still file with the quality of my Pentax 645D and professsional video with the quality of a Red Epic.
Judging by the results of the Panasonic GH2 video hacks, Panasonic is close to this right now, technology wise.
See http://vimeo.com/30751603
IMO Pentax could have Panasonic build them a killer 654D CMOS sensor for the next version of the 645D and scoop the world. Picture a $15,000 camera that could do it all.
The problem is why would they do this and kill their own high end video products.
That's why they crippled the GH2 rather than make it a RED killer. ;)
-
To me the Holy Grail of convergence would be a camera that could produce a still file with the quality of my Pentax 645D and professsional video with the quality of a Red Epic.
Judging by the results of the Panasonic GH2 video hacks, Panasonic is close to this right now, technology wise.
See http://vimeo.com/30751603
IMO Pentax could have Panasonic build them a killer 654D CMOS sensor for the next version of the 645D and scoop the world. Picture a $15,000 camera that could do it all.
The problem is why would they do this and kill their own high end video products.
That's why they crippled the GH2 rather than make it a RED killer. ;)
The GH2 is a great video camera, and a very decent 16MP still (in fact very much the same as the old 1D 17MP you remember?...ups, it was such a long time ago...)
-
i sign this comment from bernard.
its my opinion as well.
i see heavily over-saturated colors and a kind of look i would try to avoid with any camera i use ....
but its interesting how many stunnings and bravos this gets here in the forum :)
and of courses the red is not THE future. at best it will be a part of it, and this most likely in the film world. there will be more and more overlap between the two worlds but i dont think they will merge.
in photography i think there will also appear stunning new things which have much more to do with photographic versatility than with the possibility to compete with real professional video systems. the gap from the way cheaper and smaller competition to this hi end gear will become smaller, till a point where "normal" professional needs will be full-filled by the smaller and cheaper systems for both: pictures and vidos. maybe not in terms of the absolute quality, means 4k or 60 or 80mp images are very nice to archive, but the reality does not play on 4k screens and not on 2 or 3meter prints.
its more and more about displaying images on screens with a max. of 2000 pixels and with video with 1080pixel, if much. dynamic range, hi iso, colors, versatility and good handling are what is needed to work in our times. not a van full of gear. maybe all is different in fashion, but i believe if i would be a fashion shooter, i would be very happy about the increasing isos and the chances which this opens, i wouldnt care about red systems and about everything which makes the set big, expensive and unspontaneous. i would explore the new chances our technic is opening for me, and there is much more to explore than just hybrid video/photo cams of the higher end.
i just bought an oktokopter, to shoot with my canon from rc directed plane. this tool weights complete 5 kilo and seems to delivers such stunning and unseen possibilities ... and i am sure in 2 years i will have the same with 2,5 kilo. i have to learn to fly this drones now, not easy at all! but thats photographic future as well. technic merges and runs very fast forward. no time to stay behind and to invest huge amounts of money in systems which , maybe , will be obsolete in 3 or 4 years. i am not convinced that this will not happen with the praised red ( in photographer hands ).
maybe all this big systems are dinosaurs. its not such important if 8x10" has better resolution than a 80mp back. its about possibilities you loose if you use this big and complicate systems.
i dont see the red here as an exception.
all this might be different in studio work and - of course in the hand of movie makers.
lets see where 35mm cameras will be in 2 or 3 years. they are very close to fulfill nearly all professional needs, if there someone will ad some raw or semi raw for footage i cent see much future for red in photographers hands. at least not in mine ....
Rainer, the argumentation you developped is good IMO, and I join your views in many of them.
It is true that DSLR's, still camera industry, have been able to produce video capabilities usable professionaly, and so far, video manufacturers haven't been able to produce stills usable professionaly, except Red.
So obviously, still manufacturers have their word to say and they will (and they are).
But when talking about video, it seems to me that a crucial factor is missed so far by the competition: Raw Video.
Canon is fine, but the other day we had a motion with 3 Canons, 2 5D2 and 1 60 or 600D don't remember, one of those recent entry-level. Anyway. Despite all the cares we took on set, there are not 2 cameras that shoot with the same wb and there are always differences that have to be treated in post. With Raw that would be much easier to fix.
Then, those are cameras designed 50 or more (I don't remember I wasn't born) years ago. Their usability in video remain very poor unless you zacuto. This design is obsolete IMO. The Red Epic is more advanced in that aspect, it's a box like a MF better implemented in its design for convergence than a proper film still camera designed when our cosmic dust started to collapse into itself, where they just added a sensor and some video capabilities.
As I edit R3D, I can see the huge differences with the canons. Not when conditions are fine, but when conditions are not ideal. And generally, conditions are not ideal.
Then, Red Cine X is a great software. Really. It's like Capture One. If they implement in the future a proper timeline with serious editing capabilities and a bunch of advanced functions that are missing, I would not even need any other software than this one. I wish all video softwares where built that way. It's a breeze in use.
Think that you got a footage and you can, for free, at least do a rough cut and send it to the client, extract stills...Does Canon or Sony, with their new video capabilities offer a free simplify Vegas, so we can start to work ? Red does.
Then, DR is amazing, the look is filmic, the resolution is impressive and when downsampled it's visible.
Maybe I'll exagerate, but I think that Jim is a sort of Steve Jobs in this industry. They think different, they have great team, they design really well, and they are currently the only one who are doing Raw video at this prices. Red of course will not be the only player, I don't beleive that, but I do think they will be a major player, a reference. I can be wrong of course.
-
i am not sure if the red is closer to hi end hi-res imaging than a canon is to hi end video.
maybe both are here very similar coming from different ends. so both worlds will merge that you can do either videos accompanied by hi res images with systems as the red, or images accompanied by video, which also will be good enough for most customers, with systems as canon or sony or nikon. soon both will be good enough for any or nearly any client, so its up to us to choose which way we will go.
SHIFT-key broken?
-
My ass no HDR, this shot looks just as fake as any other HDR shot out there.
-
As I edit R3D, I can see the huge differences with the canons. Not when conditions are fine, but when conditions are not ideal. And generally, conditions are not ideal.
Then, Red Cine X is a great software. Really. It's like Capture One. If they implement in the future a proper timeline with serious editing capabilities and a bunch of advanced functions that are missing, I would not even need any other software than this one. I wish all video softwares where built that way. It's a breeze in use.
Think that you got a footage and you can, for free, at least do a rough cut and send it to the client, extract stills...Does Canon or Sony, with their new video capabilities offer a free simplify Vegas, so we can start to work ? Red does.
Then, DR is amazing, the look is filmic, the resolution is impressive and when downsampled it's visible.
Maybe I'll exagerate, but I think that Jim is a sort of Steve Jobs in this industry. They think different, they have great team, they design really well, and they are currently the only one who are doing Raw video at this prices. Red of course will not be the only player, I don't beleive that, but I do think they will be a major player, a reference. I can be wrong of course.
i think in many aspects you are right, and certainly there are productions where the amount of stuff you are using does not really matter, so even if costs are to be taken care of ( and this is more important now than ever before in photography ) the equipment can be rented, as long as there is manpower to use it and its sw.
but there are many applications where other things matter: who wants to carry around a red with all its accessories on fast changing locations, for landscape shots, for architecture or for aereals. all this can be done, but if it does not have to be done its much better. at least i prefer that.
one of the biggest advantages of digital was for me that my gear went from 50 - 70 kilo to 15 including carbon tripoid,- of course without light, but i am european and so luckily from a tradition where we learned to shoot interiors usually without big lamps or flash stuff :).
and all this is not only about to be more comfortable, its also - and this is even more important - about spontaneity during the shot, this can change a production more than any 5% or 10% more quality will do, which often or most will only be seen by the photographer itself, but rarely by the client.
lets see if it takes another one, two or three years till compressed raw will also be available in panasonic, canon, sony, nikon photo-cams. i am nearly sure that there will not be a long wait for it ... maybe not in 4k, but in 1080 or 2k.
i dont have any fun to think in traveling with a red by plane, and ... i know, everything can be rented, but i know too that in practice it may even be difficult to get a spare battery for your digital back if you have bad luck and/or catch the wrong moment- even in big cities in the US . .. and i dont want to depend on my main gear on much rented equipment, i need it too often and i want to know it quite good, therefor i want to own it if i use it frequently.
its great at this moment that i can take my artek with 6 lenses and my canon with 6 lenses in my hand luggage to wherever in the world i want to go. ... and its no fun to think in a red system and to fly around quite often,- and thats what i have to do. for me as architecture photographer all this red stuff is too big and too clumsy, even not thinking in the money it costs if completed, beside the other stuff i need in any case too, which is my canon system and my artek/leaf gear.
well i am this days just enthusiastic about micro equipment ... and how small the things get this days, offering possibilities i used to use so huge machines .. as helicopters, cherry pickers or truck based cranes of all type.
look at this video ( i just found them in the net, they arent made by me ) and imagine the possibilities, what could be done with this little machine and how the things might change if the technic gets smaller, and it will get smaller .....
http://www.mikrokopter.de/ucwiki/VideoAbspielen?id=227
http://www.mikrokopter.de/ucwiki/VideoAbspielen?id=220
-
i think in many aspects you are right, and certainly there are productions where the amount of stuff you are using does not really matter, so even if costs are to be taken care of ( and this is more important now than ever before in photography ) the equipment can be rented, as long as there is manpower to use it and its sw.
but there are many applications where other things matter: who wants to carry around a red with all its accessories on fast changing locations, for landscape shots, for architecture or for aereals. all this can be done, but if it does not have to be done its much better. at least i prefer that.
one of the biggest advantages of digital was for me that my gear went from 50 - 70 kilo to 15 including carbon tripoid,- of course without light, but i am european and so luckily from a tradition where we learned to shoot interiors usually without big lamps or flash stuff :).
and all this is not only about to be more comfortable, its also - and this is even more important - about spontaneity during the shot, this can change a production more than any 5% or 10% more quality will do, which often or most will only be seen by the photographer itself, but rarely by the client.
lets see if it takes another one, two or three years till compressed raw will also be available in panasonic, canon, sony, nikon photo-cams. i am nearly sure that there will not be a long wait for it ... maybe not in 4k, but in 1080 or 2k.
i dont have any fun to think in traveling with a red by plane, and ... i know, everything can be rented, but i know too that in practice it may even be difficult to get a spare battery for your digital back if you have bad luck and/or catch the wrong moment- even in big cities in the US . .. and i dont want to depend on my main gear on much rented equipment, i need it too often and i want to know it quite good, therefor i want to own it if i use it frequently.
its great at this moment that i can take my artek with 6 lenses and my canon with 6 lenses in my hand luggage to wherever in the world i want to go. ... and its no fun to think in a red system and to fly around quite often,- and thats what i have to do. for me as architecture photographer all this red stuff is too big and too clumsy, even not thinking in the money it costs if completed, beside the other stuff i need in any case too, which is my canon system and my artek/leaf gear.
well i am this days just enthusiastic about micro equipment ... and how small the things get this days, offering possibilities i used to use so huge machines .. as helicopters, cherry pickers or truck based cranes of all type.
look at this video ( i just found them in the net, they arent made by me ) and imagine the possibilities, what could be done with this little machine and how the things might change if the technic gets smaller, and it will get smaller .....
http://www.mikrokopter.de/ucwiki/VideoAbspielen?id=227
http://www.mikrokopter.de/ucwiki/VideoAbspielen?id=220
Great links.
Again, I'm very much in your line. I'm also very enthusiastic about micro gear and the progress made those years are amazing. And yeah, there are incredible footage that can be acheive with small cameras now.
But precisely talking about that, when I saw the specs of the new 1D MK X, I felt disapointed. For ex, one of the claim I'm doing for some time is to get rid-off the matte-box slavery and external ND filters, precisely because in one case you loose the agility and compactness, and in the other you add what I call a gadget easy to loose, break and forget. If you think about it, it would not have cost Canon miracles to integrate electronically, but no, they didn't. I realised that in fact they still think stills and after looking carefully at the specs, to my desperation I realised that the only think they did was incrementing the video bit-rate and a few more goodies while the design continues to oblige us in the end to robocop the camera wich become a big heavy gear, not really that much smaller than the Epic.
And that's the sad part. Because I do beleive like you that there is a great future in smaller cameras. In fact, I honestly prefer keeping the GH2 and boosting it with this Hack than getting a 1D MK X at 7000euros that won't give more stellar footage anyway and still is as big with all the circus as a Red.
-
seems like the gh2 hack is amazing.
reg. canon it looks like the things changed, they were leading the 35mm developments several years, but it looks like it will be now the time of the sony/nikon camp.
i am disappointed too by the 1dx, although i never liked the 1* lineup,- but the 5d line for its size.
lets wait what will bring the 5dmk3.
i doubt that canon really realized what ball they brought in the game with the 5dmk2 video capacity. but now the ghost is out of the bottle, it wont go in again. the gh2 will not be the end.
the things run fast and its not all about video.
its not long time ago that canon brought out their new 17 and 24tse lenses. these are a little revolution too, for my field of photography. there are no better lens in the market than these in terms of geometric distortion combined with their quality. simply amazing optics. they are the reason why one can photograph now architecture without feeling to stand in the second row, using 35mm.
the sensors are second important, its all about the available lenses. i myself work with my mf gear and i like the quality and the resolution and the workflow (!!!) it delivers. but the 35mm camera department is so fast catching up territory on all faces, one year this manufacture next year that one.
-
Holy...
And why exactly does the video world have this but we don't have it with stills, except some compacts? We all knew that Canon and Nikon aren't doing anything but incremental updates. Do we really need RED (and perhaps Ricoh and Fuji and Sony and Panasonic) to put some (more) fire under them before they start innovating?
I believe this is easy with a rolling shutter but not so easy with a physical shutter, but then rolling shutters are not so suitable for stills photography. (Don't believe the hype.)
-
Sorry, all I see here is a cheap HDR look that doesn't seem particularly hard to achieve with just about any recent sensor.
But why on earth would anyone want to achieve that look?
Cheers,
Bernard
Very easy: Lik makes $$zagillions$$, so proof is there are lots who like it...
-
I believe this is easy with a rolling shutter but not so easy with a physical shutter, but then rolling shutters are not so suitable for stills photography. (Don't believe the hype.)
I'd imagine a universal shutter would also make it feasible, although I'm no techie. Panasonic has been rumored to come up with an MFT camera with a universal shutter in the near future...
-
The print looks good from a viewing distance of 5 feet +. Just don't get closer if you're a critic like me. That said, RED DR is quite remarkable.
-
Very easy: Lik makes $$zagillions$$, so proof is there are lots who like it...
Maybe this is what we should be learning about :)
Edmund
-
nothing that complicated.. I'm pretty sure it alternates frames... if you typically shoot a 180 deg shutter, then the sensor is off half of the time between each frame, which allows the Epic to use that "down time" to capture a quicker exposure between the normal frames which is recorded to a separate track. The only downside is it requires twice the storage. Oddly, every time I've turned HDRx on, I haven't ended up using the hilight protection track. I always seem to have enough DR out of the Epic with the straight exposure.
Chris, thanks for the further explanation. It was the use of "simultaneous" that threw me. What you describe with the RED is not simultaneous; it is temporally interlaced. The cadence may be really, really high, but nevertheless the frames are captured one after the other, not simultaneously.
Ray
-
Chris, thanks for the further explanation. It was the use of "simultaneous" that threw me. What you describe with the RED is not simultaneous; it is temporally interlaced. The cadence may be really, really high, but nevertheless the frames are captured one after the other, not simultaneously.
So it's shooting 2x the designated frame rate, exposing each other frame at "normal" level, and the other at +1 to +6 stops as set by the user?
-
Huh, it bothered me as well, it had to be 'interlaced' in some way. I wonder what are the results of HDR blending of a really fast-paced footage, for instance let's say you record a car pursuit or simply shoot from the car (as in the video demonstration of HDR by Red), is the displacement between blended frames an issue.
-
Huh, it bothered me as well, it had to be 'interlaced' in some way. I wonder what are the results of HDR blending of a really fast-paced footage, for instance let's say you record a car pursuit or simply shoot from the car (as in the video demonstration of HDR by Red), is the displacement between blended frames an issue.
They created frames to get to incredible frame rates in The Matrix without artifacts, and that's now a standard feature in medium- and high-end TVs and movie projectors which do it live. I'd imagine it should be possible with few artifacts in post when rendering doesn't have to be real-time.
Twixtor is one software, and the slow-mo effect is overdone in music videos - here's a fun effect with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=f-ductU-iA8&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_301124&v=oj-EMtLIdPk), though.
-
Very easy: Lik makes $$zagillions$$, so proof is there are lots who like it...
That is why RED used Lik to produce that images.
-
Perhaps someone here who's also a member on the REDUSER forum can post a few questions and try to get some straightforward answers from those who created that image;
1. What method was used for capturing that panoramic image? Was the camera turned on a tripod or perhaps this was some kind of a flat-stitch?
2. How many images were stitched? What is the size (in pixels) of the stitched EPIC image?
3. Were these images shot as stills or where they pulled from a sweep/ pan video?
4. If they were pulled from a sweep/ pan video, how long did it take to find, select, edit, process and stitch them?
5. Was the IQ180 used in a similar (or close to similar) way?
6. How many frames were used for the stitched IQ180 image?
7. Was the IQ180 used in Sensor+ mode?
8. How long did it take to select, edit and process/ stitch the IQ180 image?
9. What was the image size (in pixels) of the stitched IQ180 image
10 What lenses were used on the 2 cameras, respectively and at what aperture/ shutter speed?
The only thing that will get me really excited (not about that specific image) is if such an image could be created in the same way the little Sony P&S do their sweep+pan shots, but I think we will all appreciate it if some of the questions above can be answered
Yair
-
Perhaps someone here who's also a member on the REDUSER forum can post a few questions and try to get some straightforward answers from those who created that image;
1. What method was used for capturing that panoramic image? Was the camera turned on a tripod or perhaps this was some kind of a flat-stitch?
2. How many images were stitched? What is the size (in pixels) of the stitched EPIC image?
3. Were these images shot as stills or where they pulled from a sweep/ pan video?
4. If they were pulled from a sweep/ pan video, how long did it take to find, select, edit, process and stitch them?
5. Was the IQ180 used in a similar (or close to similar) way?
6. How many frames were used for the stitched IQ180 image?
7. Was the IQ180 used in Sensor+ mode?
8. How long did it take to select, edit and process/ stitch the IQ180 image?
9. What was the image size (in pixels) of the stitched IQ180 image
10 What lenses were used on the 2 cameras, respectively and at what aperture/ shutter speed?
The only thing that will get me really excited (not about that specific image) is if such an image could be created in the same way the little Sony P&S do their sweep+pan shots, but I think we will all appreciate it if some of the questions above can be answered
Yair
;D I knew it !
As you have a more dicrete signature than usual, I always forgot and read you post thinkink...hey, it sounds like a Phase dealer.
(saying it with respect and kindness)
Then I saw: Leaf
Seriously: they said that one of the key of this image is a PP capacity called: Alchemy, that will be released those days in RCX. We'll know more.
-
;D I knew it !
As you have a more dicrete signature than usual, I always forgot and read you post thinkink...hey, it sounds like a Phase dealer.
(saying it with respect and kindness)
Then I saw: Leaf
Seriously: they said that one of the key of this image is a PP capacity called: Alchemy, that will be released those days in RCX. We'll know more.
Actually I've only set up the signature a couple of days ago:-)
Perhaps that mysterious Alchemy thing is some sort of automatic stitching from frame grabs? If not and if it took 3 hrs to shoot, select, adjust, process and stitch 6 frames to come up with a 12,000 pixel image then we can all go back to making pumpkin heads for tomorrow....
-
Actually I've only set up the signature a couple of days ago:-)
Perhaps that mysterious Alchemy thing is some sort of automatic stitching from frame grabs? If not and if it took 3 hrs to shoot, select, adjust, process and stitch 6 frames to come up with a 12,000 pixel image then we can all go back to making pumpkin heads for tomorrow....
But I knew your link with Leaf because MR presented you in the video when they released the big backs.
I also have a huge doubt (in fact I'm sure) that this is not going to compete with a 80 MP back. Jim exagerates evidently and he sells the buzz obviously.
The crazy thing IMO, is that it's a video camera, and that can acheive a print output not ridiculous compared to the highest still cameras. That in itself is a great accomplishement. The print quality "better" as they claim
as a 80 MP Phase back, I don't buy that either.
But it also means that it can acheive without doubt a still quality that will be enough in many commercial applications.
I hope you guys that are into the brands, are pushing the MF deciders to seriously think about convergence. I don't know if it's in the agendas but hope they won't be conservative in the future.
-
But it also means that it can acheive without doubt a still quality that will be enough in many commercial applications.
Not if it takes 3 hrs to produce....and not if the same image (more or less) can be produce at a fraction of the time (and a fraction of the cost) on a D7000 or a 5DMkII...
-
i am pretty sure it will not stitch the raw files, in case the stitching is done automatically ,- as the sony doesnt do it either. it would be a great feature if the raws would be stitched together !! but if the outcome will be a jpeg its more or less worthless for most serious purposes.
and i insist: sure its great that the red puts out usefull stand images with print quality, but i dont see them closer to the hiend or medium end still cameras than i see the video output from these to the video files of the "real" video cams as the red. this video files from canon and its brothers/ sisters are usuable in certain commercial purposes as well. the gap between this two worlds is getting closer, but its still there from both sides and i.nm.o. it will also be there for some years. and i dont care what will be in 4 years ..... thats an eternity in our fast times and so much can change ....
-
Just for fun... here is a project I shot last year. One image is form the Arca / P65+ the other is from my Red One. These are from my blog, so they're not huge but it's fun to compare. The Red Workflow is very similar to Capture 1 Pro and it doesn't take any more effort to get an exceptional still out of it. Personally, I love all my
toys....ahem... TOOLS!
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/A018_C018.jpg)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Panduit_005.jpg)
I didn't happen to color these to match, I hadn't planned on making a comparison... and am quite pleased with both.
CB
-
Very easy: Lik makes $$zagillions$$, so proof is there are lots who like it...
Oh yes... but if making money were the measure of all things I would be working as a trader or selling missiles to developing countries. :)
Since this is a RED ad, I would have expected them to come up with something that potential RED customers - like people at LL - would find impressive technically and aesthetically. I may not be representative, but it fails on both accounts for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yair,
With all due respect are you thinking like an image creator's client, or like a photographer or a camera rep?
All are a different thought process, but in imagery for commerce the only real final decision maker is the client, or the client's, client's, client's boss.
Because if your thinking like a client on a production that is shot in both stills and motion, here's the process.
They first select their favorite stills and corresponding motion clips for the creative brief.
Then we go into post production, editing and retouching on stills, editing and coloring and effects for motion.
Somewhere in this process someone scrubs through a quicktime movie, stops it and sends a screen shot. In our case usually 2 dozen screen shots and says "this would make a great still, can you make a still image of it?".
My answer with the RED is yes and though some of the images are technically spectacular, some are more challenged, the client is happy, actually over the moon happy because they had more selection.
(I'd show them but due to extended deadlines, most of the large projects we've shot this year are still under embargo).
Now do I think this image shown by Mr. Lik is better than a phase back? I don't know, don't really care, but I am positive that this and the many dozens of still images we have produced from our REDs have been accepted and used.
I'm not subscribing to the one camera fits all mentality because that doesn't happen in any medium, but I am absolutely positive the more you can give a client the better your business is.
I think you know this.
I've shown this image before, and it's from a motion session, shot on the RED, using an old Nikon 17mm zoom resting on a jacket.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/RED_PARIS_MUSICIAN.jpg)
Shooting reverses, sound, tight, wide, the total session ran about an hour.
Is the image perfect . . .? . . . no not in technical terms that this section of the forum holds in high esteem, but is it useable and sale-able, yes, as it's run as a double page print ad.
Now to be honest, I don't know why I even mention this, because it doesn't put a penny in my pocket. With Red I pay list, as with most of my equipment and whether another "still" photographer ever shoots any camera that fires more than 2 frames a second means nothing to me, but that doesn't mean that to some extent, still and motion imagery has converged.
And Yair, you also know that working 6 hours in post, on any still image of importance, is not unheard of, in fact in today's world it's almost a standard.
Rainier, yes you can pull stills from a 5d2, but the difference in a motion capture to still from a 5d2, vs a 5d2 still capture is quite different.
http://ishotit.com/dsmc1.jpg
The Red file I posted above in it's large form is close to the 5d2 still image. Not exact but very close.
IMO
BC
-
For some filmmakers (especially when a small size is crucial) this is a valid tool, for a photographer the Epic is a 2kg heavy 15MP APS-C (well, odd ratio, a little bit wider) mirrorless camera with a compression before debayering - some kind in-between JPG and RAW.
The sensor is current CMOS standard, it offers low-noise even at 800ASA and the dynamic range is quite high (I've never seen proper independent tests that go far beyond 11 stops, which is quite good
The HDRx is nothing but a software-function with two separate exposures with the known issues for moving objects.
The ALEXA is a different beast with large photosites and patented dual-gain sensor with over 14 stops of actual dynamic range - which is unheard of. But it's not a photographers tool, either. It's large and heavy (because it's build to work reliable under tough film-set conditions) and has about 6MP on it's sensor. ARRI would never market it as a photographers tool or IQ180-alternative, that's just stupid and therefore they don't even try it.
-
I (think) I understand everything you say james but the claim behind the RED Vegas panorama is hardly backed up and if I could make the same (or perhaps better) image with another tool and do it faster and easier, for me as the image maker and for the client and the client's boss as those who pay me then I think I would pick that other tool
If such an image takes 6 hours to create (maybe less, maybe more, we'll never know...) and another camera takes 30 minutes then for me the choice is quite clear, especially if the client's requirement was, let's say, a 10' 360dpi print (which is not unheard of these days)
BUT if the RED hardware+software can make this kind of seamless panos straight out of the footage and spit out a decent size file in some sort of RAW or high res, high bit-depth format then that would be a big step forward for many applications...
-
I think that this mysterious "Alchemy" that we'll know soon about, has nothing to do with stiching because it's a slider.
IMO, this image is actually a night shot, then using Alchemy you recuperate color information without degrade. Something like that. I'm speculating of course but what else could it be as a slider?
And if this is indeed a night-shot, Red engineers have done a bomb.
Back to this thread, I think that a lot are not seeing the all picture honestly and take things outside the contexts.
Again, this has nothing to do with this pic in itself, if it switched or not and how many hours it took to deliver the printing, or if this image is horror or not.
It has to do, that it comes from a single device, basically a high performance video camera, that has the size of a MF camera, on wich you can mount many glasses, that shoot raw-video with high dynamic range on par with MF, if not better, and capable of deliver exploitable still imagery, and with some trickings, do big enlargements too.
All that, in a price package somewhere reasonable if you think about the fact that we are talking about high-end video gear.
And a free developper that everybody can download on Mac or Win that allows to do some rough-cut and generate stills, do a prim grade, very much like a capture one software.
Also, R3D files are generational-friendly: every enhancement done in the new generation are compatible with older ones, in short, no new fancy codecs that nothing reads. (and that is something the competion is not able to understand at the moment.)
-
Yair, Old Branch,
Should we congratulate you on being promoted up the tree?
Do you manage the Mamiya/Leaf product packages in Japan too?
Edmund
BTW: Old french child's quiz:
Q- How does an elephant climb down from a tree?
A- It holds on for a leaf and waits for autumn.
Follow-up
Q and why are crocodiles so flat? ...
-
Q and why are crocodiles so flat? ...
A: They were in the desert at 3pm when the elephants were practicing parachute jumping :D
PS got a crocodile joke I have to send you...
-
And if the Elephants did crocodiles aerial photography from their parachutes, they used an Epic or a Leaf ?
-
As to these cameras being more cumbersome, unwieldily than your average Pro rig...
Yeah, I dunno about that... extremely modular. Setup here for lightweight Stills shooting and mounted for a vertical.
-
To answer a few things:
HDRx mode - in camera we capture two co-joined frames with two different shutter speeds. So although there is a temporal difference between the two exposures it's small enough to be of little practical consequence.
HDRx was not needed for the Vegas shot - the cameras native DR was enough to make it work. The visual look is obviously the choice of Peter Lik, so the key thing to take from this as such looks are not everyone's cup of tea, is that the RED camera allowed Peter to get the look he wanted.
Graeme
-
What I see from Red users on this site is inspiring, but I have concerns. Today, innovative photographers are making the investment to incorporate motion into their business models. They are trying to do more with less (equipment, staff, skills and money) to respond to market demand for medium quality motion and motion+still capabitlity. The investment, while less than a few years ago, remains high so the hope is that their new niche is protected. Sort of like photography used to be before digital, or like motion post production was just a few years ago. Professions with an entry barrier. By the way, I know what a photographer or a videographer is, but what do you call a photographer/videographer who supplies motion + still, both at the pro level? A mophot? Photvid? Maybe just an imager.
You see where I am going with this. Early adopters are taking advantage of the very same technical developments that will soon become accessible to a broad user base. At that point, motion becomes a widespread training program for college courses, an easy addition for local studios, something that amateurs can do almost as well as the pros - or in some cases better. Sure, pros with SOA equipment and skills will continue to get the major corporate clients, just as they do today. With luck, the more business-savvy imagers of today will evolve into tomorrow's leaders and retain revenue protection. However, clients don't change. The vast majority couldn't afford SOA services even if they did care about them. In the new age cheap motion will be for and by everyone, just as still photography is today. I wonder where that will leave imagers. Will they rise to the top of a new profession that builds on skills arising from photography, or will the videographers take this niche?
Reading this, I realize I have too much time on my hands.
Peter
-
but what do you call a photographer/videographer who supplies motion + still, both at the pro level? A mophot? Photvid? Maybe just an imager.
I like image maker.
This is not new: http://www.eugeniorecuenco.com/
This guy has been doing both for ages at the highest ww level.
why barriers? labels? limitations?
-
snip......
You see where I am going with this. Early adopters are taking advantage of the very same technical developments that will soon become accessible to a broad user base. At that point, motion becomes a widespread training program for college courses, ........snip
I think your reading this somewhat front to back.
It's not just that motion cameras with larger frames are more accessible, or easier to use than large engs or film cameras, it's just that the market for commercial images has added (or some say moved) into electronic distribution which means an advertiser or publisher can decide to move an image or not, have it talk or be silent, have a sound score or foley sound, or do a multi media combination that has everything.
In regards to doing more with less equipment and less talent, well the talent part I'll object to, the equipment and resource part is partly a reflection of digital, but mostly a reflection of the economy. Still or motion, everyone shoots more sessions in a day and this drive for return is not limited to the creative arts, because every client I know that doesn't work nights and weekends, calls me at some point asking if I've heard of any job leads.
Sure they're are exceptions to every rule and there will always be a Michael Bay with a 4 year time frame and a 400 million dollar budget, but I and most people are not Michael Bay and the cameras really never changed that. Most of Hollywood is not Michael Bay either as episodic Television and movies are shot with less crew, faster turnaround, less over the top resources.
You stick your nose in a sound stage today and you don't see 35 people standing around, they're all working and usually multi tasking.
What is important is client's awareness.
Once client's realized that they could get 12 still sessions instead of 2 per day, or 16 instead of 4, then that's what they asked for and that becomes the standard. Once they begin to realize they can get motion imagery, then that's the standard and now that they can get a useable still image from a motion camera, that's another request.
Yair mentions he'd rather see a still image shot with a still camera. Same here, but if your shooting sound, may setups, multiple cameras and even has a still photographer on set, sometimes the stills get pushed back. There is only so many hours in the day, so much time on set, so much money in the budget and then that's where a decent still capture comes in.
But Yair, this is where you medium format boys come in. How about a 30mpx movie camera that goes to 1000 iso and shoots motion and still the same time?
That way you don't have to think about this image from RED and really, no offense meant to anyone, but professional still cameras are still relying on the same 10 year old base platforms, off the shelf sensors and usually some warmed over lenses.
I mean it took Phase how long to finally get a camera lcd that you could tell the gender of a subject and only the Pentax has the horsepower to produce an in camera jpeg.
That's after 10 years of asking.
In regards to everyone and their pet having a camera that shoots motion and stills, they already do . . . the i phone . . . and though the camera doesn't dictate creativity, what you do with it does.
The things is still imagery is the same but different than motion imagery. You can work a still with a reasonable amount of budget and with the right retouching it will be more than good. With motion you can do the same, but I promise you it costs a lot more money and regardless of how much faster computer systems become, it's still a very slow process.
IMO
BC
-
.... , no offense meant to anyone, but professional still cameras are still relying on the same 10 year old base platforms, off the shelf sensors and usually some warmed over lenses. ....
What ?
James, if one day you get tired of images, wich I hope you won't, you can always make a successful reconvertion in diplomacy. This part is very very politicaly correct.
Another zero could almost fit in the words bolbed...
All they did was replaced the film by a sensor and a bunch of enhancements priced as a car. And since there, all they did was to put steroids in those digital films and almost nothing in body design, usability and compatibility -(and the only one that did it like Contax have sunk ironicaly)- and absolutly nothing in convergence; and to be fair with MF, that's also vastly the case for DSLRs except their steps in motion and still they think like 50 years (at least) ago for the most part, Canon included.
We buy them because there was nothing else to buy, and they know it.
If there is an industry that made huge amount of money with 80 years based designs is indeed the image industry and specially the photographic industry in the production area, and the video industry in the post-production.
IMO, that is why Red, or those new little cameras like the GH2 and NEX are so refreshing because the current panorama is more than dusty. IMHO.
-
Fred, thank you for the link. What fantastic work! I do prefer the stills to the motion but that is just my taste. Do you have other links you can recommend to show "image makers" operating at such high levels?
BC, I did not mean to imply anything about talent, just about skills. My interest is in photography as a profession, as opposed to equipment, and my limited exposure to motion has been in entertainment, where the end user is the viewing public. I believe you are suggesting that electronic media will expose more of that client base to creative types who do not follow the traditional production route - which needs massive configurations of physical and intellectual resources. That is exactly the point I am interested in. If technology allows small houses to create competitive mass entertainment, if talent can become the primary requirement, we could be looking at a new golden age of cinema/motion/ err.. whatever it is. It isn't impossible - it happens today - but it is very rare. Or highly specialized (porn, some documentaries).
There are dangers. Look at post-production, for example, where so many of the smaller houses are going through the same type of professional erosion that photographers went through a decade ago. Will that erosion spread to other specialties - particularly direction and cinematography? Will the image maker skill set evolve into a new profession that involves people trained in photography, or will the need be met from the motion end? Will technology and changing public expectations so reduce the entry barrier that we will be swamped with motion productions and producers? Don't know, but we are in interesting times.
-
Fred, thank you for the link. What fantastic work! I do prefer the stills to the motion but that is just my taste. Do you have other links you can recommend to show "image makers" operating at such high levels?
BC, I did not mean to imply anything about talent, just about skills. My interest is in photography as a profession, as opposed to equipment, and my limited exposure to motion has been in entertainment, where the end user is the viewing public. I believe you are suggesting that electronic media will expose more of that client base to creative types who do not follow the traditional production route - which needs massive configurations of physical and intellectual resources. That is exactly the point I am interested in. If technology allows small houses to create competitive mass entertainment, if talent can become the primary requirement, we could be looking at a new golden age of cinema/motion/ err.. whatever it is. It isn't impossible - it happens today - but it is very rare. Or highly specialized (porn, some documentaries).
There are dangers. Look at post-production, for example, where so many of the smaller houses are going through the same type of professional erosion that photographers went through a decade ago. Will that erosion spread to other specialties - particularly direction and cinematography? Will the image maker skill set evolve into a new profession that involves people trained in photography, or will the need be met from the motion end? Will technology and changing public expectations so reduce the entry barrier that we will be swamped with motion productions and producers? Don't know, but we are in interesting times.
I think the keyword BC mentionned is "multitask".
The new techs-creators are multitask - multilenguages.
And for that we need the appropriate tools and PP workflows that we don't have really yet but equipments that are still smelling the old way (it's good to have some bases, history; it's bad to be stucked on them).
Yes, I think a golden age is comming, indeed.
About Recuenco, a truth photographer-cineast that is really good at both at this level, there are very few. A couple of people in video-art. The list is short. I follow James Russell in this forum and like both his stills-videos and sure that he will grow and succeed in motion even much more than with stills. C.Barrett when not busy buying new exciting toys...sorry, gear, (ups...) have a lot to say in motion too. Just in this forum there are some people that will be great "image-makers" because whatever they touch, it works.
-
only the Pentax has the horsepower to produce an in camera jpeg.
Small correction - the Sinar eSprit65LV offered in-camera DNG, JPEG, and RAW.
-
Small correction - the Sinar eSprit65LV offered in-camera DNG, JPEG, and RAW.
Don't forget the Leica S2, DNG and Jpeg. Not sure why you'd need it but it's there.
-
and only the Pentax has the horsepower to produce an in camera jpeg.
That's after 10 years of asking.
And yet one more! The Kodak MFDBs were producing in-camera Jpegs & Tiffs from the Raws 9 years ago. (Why do people keep forgetting how innovative they were...)
Ray
-
And yet one more! The Kodak MFDBs were producing in-camera Jpegs & Tiffs from the Raws 9 years ago. (Why do people keep forgetting how innovative they were...)
Ray
With all due respect, I was commenting on popular cameras and backs still in use by professionals.
The only two Esprit camera/backs I've seen didn't work. One at Javitz that wasn't ready due to firmware, one at Samy's that wasn't charged. Maybe they sell Sinar's in Europe, but I've seen virtually none in the U.S. and don't know any rental house that considered them.
Yes, Leica makes a jpeg and has a nice screen, (though if you consider this medium format this is still 10 years later than what was asked by photographers and I don't know many professionals using S-2's..
Now the Kodak proback is interesting. I used it early on, didn't buy it because it would moire wardrobe like crazy, would overheat and shut down and had a somewhat limited lcd, in comparison to Kodak's dcs 760 which was a camera that was an inch away from being a better 1ds.
Anyway, nothing Kodak did then or since then has made any sense so I assume there was something going on behind the scenes we don't know about. Could have been bad business deals, could have been Kodak didn't own any camera platforms. Somebody knows, but I don't.
Regardless of all of this your still talking about decades old camera platforms. The HY6 has a lot of lineage from the 6008 and still needs more autofocus lenses, the Mamiya is still a Mamiya and the Hasselblad though improved still is based on a design from the film days.
IMO
BC
-
Because if your thinking like a client on a production that is shot in both stills and motion, here's the process.
They first select their favorite stills and corresponding motion clips for the creative brief.
Then we go into post production, editing and retouching on stills, editing and coloring and effects for motion.
Somewhere in this process someone scrubs through a quicktime movie, stops it and sends a screen shot. In our case usually 2 dozen screen shots and says "this would make a great still, can you make a still image of it?".
My answer with the RED is yes and though some of the images are technically spectacular, some are more challenged, the client is happy, actually over the moon happy because they had more selection.
IMO
BC
how you describe your workflow sounds really convincing james, no question that the usage of the red has a lot of sense in your business and that the red made, or will make, somehow a revolution in your busines.
once more i realize how different is our work, although it takes the same name "photography".
and it looks like that the equipment for the different jobs in the wide land of prof. photography gets even more specialized and different than it was anytime before.
-
So I got to see the actual print today. It's 10ft long and rather stunning. I don't think the small JPEG does it justice at all.
Graeme
-
how you describe your workflow sounds really convincing james, no question that the usage of the red has a lot of sense in your business and that the red made, or will make, somehow a revolution in your busines.
once more i realize how different is our work, although it takes the same name "photography".
and it looks like that the equipment for the different jobs in the wide land of prof. photography gets even more specialized and different than it was anytime before.
Rainer,
In a business sense, I doubt if our needs are that much different.
I guess it comes down to if you offer something clients use it, if you don't they obviously don't ask.
Right now, all clients large and small have a voracious appetite for content. Motion, still, combination, for every type of use.
We all see TV commercials and web spots that look like they're shot with cell phones, other's that look like they have a Ridley Scott budget, but at the end of the day, everyone is asking for imagery from every project we do.
It's funny, two days ago when I was writing my reply, I had an email from a client's design group that was doing displays for a large function. They wanted to know if the RED stills from a recent project would enlarge properly.
"Properly" covers a lot of territory, so this week we made a web gallery linked to medium and large jpegs from RED, 5d2 and 1ds3 images from this last project.
Except for the shape of the format, even I can't tell the difference and I shot most of it. It doesn't mean a 5d2 or a larger still camera won't reproduce well or better than a RED motion still, but most of the detail in the image had more to do with focus, exposure, lighting, cropping, shutter speed, etc. than the actual pixel count or camera.
The next day the multi media agency from this client e-mailed asking from footage from the same project.
Now I'm not advocating everyone buy a RED, but I do know that with web, social media, large format displays and every medium, that requires a "non media buy" clients are creative ways get their message out and the need for imagery from every project, in every format is strong.
Whether the economy improves or not, you'll soon see all forms of digital project from led panels to projectors and once again, the media needs will change or better put the mediums we will be required to shoot with will have to offer multiple types of content.
To relay an interesting story, about 5 years ago I requested the digital tech from the shoot to backup and hold the project as an extra offsite safety net. One Saturday I got a rush call from the client that had to have 5 images immediately and I was on the road, my retouchers were out and I couldn't get to our on line servers to collect the raws so I called the tech and asked him to pull the images. He never backed them up and once I questioned him to why he said, "nobody ever asks me for an image after a project" . I rephrased my question again and asked if they NEVER asked him for an image but never asked him twice.
He said twice, which meant since he didn't offer it, nobody asked again. It also meant he wasn't someone I hired often.
Not to hijack this thread and go off topic, one thing that is interesting is talk of camera size. We hired a stedicam operator for next weeks project and he say she loves the RED ONE because it's so small. Now I think the RED one is huge, the arri monstrous and he thinks that anything under a Panaflex is a small camera, so a lot of this is relative.
In a prefect world I would love to see every image in every scenario captured on every type of camera at once (so would most clients) but since medium format doesn't do high iso very well, smaller still cameras don't do the best motion, it is difficult to find a one camera fits all solution or the time and budget to recreate every situation multiple times.
IMO
BC
-
Rainer,
In a business sense, I doubt if our needs are that much different.
I guess it comes down to if you offer something clients use it, if you don't they obviously don't ask.
Right now, all clients large and small have a voracious appetite for content. Motion, still, combination, for every type of use.
IMO
BC
i guess you are right. i also started some time ago to shoot videos, to make time lapses and searched viewing angles from architecture. i simply didn't offered it because i didn't felt at the point where it seemed to me to make sense,- of course i speak here only for me and my way to see and to offer architecture.
but i am aware that video is in the photo market and i am aware also that it will become more and more important. so i am still at the beginning of a learning curve here.
what i write about here ref. about the red and this for my needs only, - so i can't see sense for me to buy or to use a red at this moment. last year i spoke with a rental company to rent one for accompanying a big project i shoot at this moment with video.
i came to so much limitations at that time that i didn't went on this route ( in the first place the size of the sensor didn't give enough shift lenses to go wide enough, second i use very often working platforms on trucks - it looked to me too complicate to do that with the red and the mf equipment together ) .
it reminds me to the time of mf in 2005 when the schneider 24xl came out. this was the first moment i saw its possible to use mf digital for my shooting, although several people did it already and of course in fashion or advertisement and studio several years it was more and more common to go digital. i didn't liked it before the 24xl for being too limited.
so i see that some people already work with the reds ( talk about photographers here ) but i don't see how this camera can add something useful for my style of shooting and working.
but i am sure the moment will come for me where i will start to make videos as well and where i will offer them to clients.
first time now i can see this with this upcoming photo drone which i will use in a few days first time. with this i start to have an imagination what to do,- and thats not a bad start....
but again for this a red is a bit too huge,- and once more i am just in the beginning.
i am not discussing here with you or anyone if the red is a great tool. i am sure it is,- just not for me, just not at this moment.
and its very interesting to read here your reflections and experiences, thanks for sharing this.
it is important to get aware where the train is moving, staying behind is not the right position in our times.
-
In my, still limited, experience, as I manipulate Red files that aren't shooted by me, and can compare DSLR and EVIL footage shooted by me,
I'm seeing the differences clearly in the workflow and why Red is so interesting.
Stricktly talking about commercial, I think that the tendency is reversing priorities. Not a long time ago, we needed top stills and some extras "good-enough" movies. But now the tendency is that they ask for better and better videos with "good enough" stills.
We shouldn't forget this: do you remember not a long time ago when we where all shooting with the 17MP 1D ? And it was still a time of printing and printing. Nobody complained. You get a 16 MP GH2 now (or any other Canon 600 bucks entry-level) and I bet anyone if it would be possible in a blind test to say wich is wich in a double-page magazine print.
I say that because the output of the GH2 is almost identical in quality to the "old" 1D...it makes think...
If we had good enough print quality (I'm still talking about commercial here...) with 17MP, if zillion of editorials and sport, press etc...have been successfully published with this camera with zero complains, and since then, the tech has evolved so much that a smaller 16 MP sensor feature potentially the same quality...you follow me?
Back to the Red, the advantages is that you can extract good enough still quality, and even very good still quality, that it takes Raw and Raw video allows much more mistakes and room in pp. Then, the workflow is stable. For ex, tomorrow Canon or Pana will release new cameras with new AVCHD codec that nothing will read...and we'll be again chasing plug-ins and all the pathetic circus. Red no: R3D is R3D, whatever the generation is.
The DR of those cameras is impressive and they do not clip the highlights like dslrs. Details stand still.
The only downside IMO is the size (and the cost of the complete system) and with the Epic, much less of a buden.
Now, if DSLRs are coming with Raw video, if they allow exploitable image sequences and not so limited like now, that will be another story and maybe Red will not be the today's grail. But still, we'll have 2K to extract from video, Red has 4-5K.
But then, you can say that someone shoots with A camera motion, and other with B stills of the same. But in practise it doesn't work so well. That's why IMO, convergence is really the key of the future systems.
One camera for both. One software for both (there we are still very far). Red is probably the closest to date, at least his owner thinks that way. But there will be more and more systems and choices for sure.
-
It would seem RED is heading in the right direction with this camera. But I still don't see the hype, even from a videographer's point of view. (Granted I only worked as a videographer for about a year) Yes RAW video is a major plus, but more for professional videographers than anyone else. Most of the other formats are more than workable (some more than others of course).
Other camera's have exited me much more, such as the Sony NEXVG20 albeit from more of a video stand point. When I saw that camera I wanted one right away. But with this RED EPIC, I just don't see it. Why not just get a Nikon V1? That can take stills while shooting video. It's image quality isn't too bad either.
When ever a new piece of gear comes on the scene, I have to ask myself, is it necessary? Does it improve upon what is already out there? Or does it simply add to the confusion (so many variations of the same thing)? Bottom line: Why bother with the RED camera?
-
It would seem RED is heading in the right direction with this camera. But I still don't see the hype, even from a videographer's point of view. (Granted I only worked as a videographer for about a year) Yes RAW video is a major plus, but more for professional videographers than anyone else. Most of the other formats are more than workable (some more than others of course).
Other camera's have exited me much more, such as the Sony NEXVG20 albeit from more of a video stand point. When I saw that camera I wanted one right away. But with this RED EPIC, I just don't see it. Why not just get a Nikon V1? That can take stills while shooting video. It's image quality isn't too bad either.
When ever a new piece of gear comes on the scene, I have to ask myself, is it necessary? Does it improve upon what is already out there? Or does it simply add to the confusion (so many variations of the same thing)? Bottom line: Why bother with the RED camera?
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/09/red-epic-5k-and-hdrx/
for example.
Ps: and to add a note, today I filmed a sequence at 2 frames/sec but there was no possibility from the point of view I wanted, to get rid-of some structure I didn't want in the frame, and the use of a different focal was not an option because I needed this exact DOF. With Red, you just crop, end of the story. You can even play creatively with the cropping.
-
Why bother with the RED camera?
For me...
The files are friggin awesome. They are RAW and highly malleable. I can work them as much as I am accustomed to working my MFDB files. This isn't something you can do with most other video formats. The files actually have superior dynamic range to my MFDB files. I can shoot 14 megapixels at 120 frames per second... and as James has stated, any one of those frames is suitable for a print ad. The platform is highly modular. You can slim it down for handheld work or build it up as a full blown Cine rig. With the interchangeable lens mounts you have thousands of lens choices. The workflow with the RAW platform is so similar to my Phase One workflow that I was immediately at home with RedCine-X. It's just plain good shit, man.
As you can tell, I am totally sold on the platform. I don't jump on every new camera. Hell, I shot with the same 4x5 for 15 years. The Epic has me jumping though... jumping up and down like a giddy school girl (and that's a picture you don't necessarily want to see).
-
For me...
The files are friggin awesome. They are RAW and highly malleable. I can work them as much as I am accustomed to working my MFDB files. This isn't something you can do with most other video formats. The files actually have superior dynamic range to my MFDB files. I can shoot 14 megapixels at 120 frames per second... and as James has stated, any one of those frames is suitable for a print ad. The platform is highly modular. You can slim it down for handheld work or build it up as a full blown Cine rig. With the interchangeable lens mounts you have literally thousands of lens choices. The workflow with the RAW platform is so similar to my Phase One workflow that I was immediately at home with RedCine-X. It's just plain good shit, man.
As you can tell, I am totally sold on the platform. I don't jump on every new camera. Hell, I shot with the same 4x5 for 15 years. The Epic has me jumping though... jumping up and down like a giddy school girl (and that's a picture you don't necessarily want to see).
Chris, I'd like to know for how long it can keep-up at 120?
-
until you fill the SSD
;)
-
Whao !! :)
-
These images do look great. The video sample is fantastic. I wonder how this will be when UHD video makes its way to the center stage in a decade or so. As I stated the RAW is a major plus. But as for me, I will wait for the technology to mature a bit before I snatch up one of these. (and wait until my wallet gets fatter)
-
Exactly - until you fill the SSD is right. That's the difference between a camera designed for stills and motion from the ground up.
-
So I got to see the actual print today. It's 10ft long and rather stunning. I don't think the small JPEG does it justice at all.
I have no doubt the quality is stellar but have I missed where the number of stitched files was revealed
Mark
-
Mark, I don't know the details on the stitching, only that both the Epic and Phase versions were stitched. Maybe Jim will talk more about the photo this evening at the Scarlet event.
Graeme
-
" Maybe Jim will talk more about the photo this evening at the Scarlet event."
Something tells me he'll be a little too preoccupied to worry about that
Mark
-
Peter's statement on the photo said 12 images stitched.
Graeme
-
A quick question from someone with no motion experience.
Can a camera such as the Epic,for example, shoot at long exposure times?
i.e. is 1 sec @ f11 possible ?
Mark
-
Peter's statement on the photo said 12 images stitched.
Thanks for that,Graeme
Mark
-
The Canon is out.
Incremental piece of sh*t.
No Raw, no AF.
Canon are trying to avoid the canibalisation of stlll cam by moving image in the studio and have thus designed a bunch of artificial limitations into their product.
Idiots.
RED will kill them.
Edmund
-
What is it about the RED EPIC sensor that gives it superior DR to the MFDBs?
-
The Canon is out.
Incremental piece of sh*t.
No Raw, no AF.
Canon are trying to avoid the canibalisation of stlll cam by moving image in the studio and have thus designed a bunch of artificial limitations into their product.
Idiots.
RED will kill them.
Edmund
+1 !
Red created a new market branch of affordable, pro-level digital cameras, Canon didn't want to compete and created a branch of their own- bullshit cameras not suitable for anyone.
Oh and by the way: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/03/canon-has-a-new-eos-movies-dslr-on-the-way-too
Maybe that's their answer for Red?
-
I totally agree. Could someone enlighten me about what part of the c300 technology makes it worth 20000$? And why the Canon cine lenses cost $47,000 compared to normal ef lenses?? I can understand that they are preparing the platform for 4k but can't see rental production houses investing in this system compared to arri/red ones...
Arnau
The Canon is out.
Incremental piece of sh*t.
No Raw, no AF.
Canon are trying to avoid the canibalisation of stlll cam by moving image in the studio and have thus designed a bunch of artificial limitations into their product.
Idiots.
RED will kill them.
Edmund
-
I totally agree. Could someone enlighten me about what part of the c300 technology makes it worth 20000$?
Maybe Kanon's marketing research went something like this.
Dylan Hotel NY.
Kanon US of A: So Marty . . . can we call you Marty? . . . whadda think we should charge for this camera?. . . is 20k too much
Marty: 20k wow that's some big file size, but 20, 20 . . . oh you mean dollars . . . sure, sure, I mean that's what I pay for Leonardo's toe massages . . . so 20, 20 that's nothing . . . I like 20, 20's good . . . think I'll call my next movie 20 . . . or Kanon . . . or the Kanon 20 . . . no sounds to much like a German boy band, so I'll just stick with 20, 20 I like that, 20, yea, has a good ring to it, 20, sounds good.
Kanon US of A: OK Marty, we'll go with . . .
Marty: Don't interrupt me and don't call me Marty, unless you got 20 million, yea, 20, 20 that's a good number.
Marriot Hotel, Marina Del Rey
Kanon US of A: Vinnie whadda you think about 20 grand?
Vinnie: Uh, you talking to me, I was napping, oh sure . . . what ever you say, but you guys still gonna front my short right, because we're working on the blog right now . . . we're gonna do some cool stuff like a car drives over the camera . . . not it's not going to hurt it, but it will be a cool shot and we won't have to dig a hole in the ground, the crew hates digging holes and sure whatever you guys think I'm good, but I don't have to pay that do I?
Dylan Hotel NY
Marty: How's this for a scene. I walk on stage . . . straight over to Mr. Kanon and say, "welcome to Hollywood". . . huh, huh, pretty catchy right, I just called Larry David, he liked it, though I think he wants to be paid, but that'll be ok, right, right, welcome to hollywood . . . I like that . . . or I could sing . . . happy birthday Mr. President . . . oh yea right . . . that's been done . . .don't call me Marty.
Kanon US of A headquarters
Kanon US of A to Kanon Japan: 20k is good and Marty said double the lens price.
IMHO
BC
-
+1 !
Red created a new market branch of affordable, pro-level digital cameras, Canon didn't want to compete and created a branch of their own- bullshit cameras not suitable for anyone.
Oh and by the way: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/03/canon-has-a-new-eos-movies-dslr-on-the-way-too
Maybe that's their answer for Red?
Its the same with their regular DSLRs. A long time ago they made one with a pellicle mirror. Now that sensors are good enough to handle a loss of 1 stop of light why don't they use it again to have the camera react to the subject directly? They would rather sell a Rube Goldberg device for more money using expensive chips plus software. Why sell a civic when you can sell a hummer?
-
Canon have intentionally chosen an inferior position rather than build on the 5D2 by adding Raw video.
Now Red is Daddy, Canon is Mommy, and entirely consensual bedroom action is in progress ;D
Edmund
-
No matter what the equipment, in the end it's what's in a person's head that counts. I'm sure that Adams or Avedon would have done a wonderful job with a Brownie camera.
I'm more intetested in what the panning technique and post processing were because we can all learn from that. While good equipment is important, this thread seems to be totally gear lust and not about technique.
Does anyone have any info or know where to find it about the various techniques employed here? Thanks
-
No matter what the equipment, in the end it's what's in a person's head that counts. I'm sure that Adams or Avedon would have done a wonderful job with a Brownie camera.
I'm more intetested in what the panning technique and post processing were because we can all learn from that. While good equipment is important, this thread seems to be totally gear lust and not about technique.
Does anyone have any info or know where to find it about the various techniques employed here? Thanks
+1
I've tried registering on the reduser forum 3 weeks ago as I wanted to ask a few questions and to try and get some direct answers about the technique....my registration hasn't been approved by admin yet....oh well...
-
Did you register with your real name or an alias? Also, I think registration is automatic so you need to check your spam-trap folder.
Graeme
-
snip.......I wanted to ask a few questions ..........snip
I don't know how this image was done, but if I was doing it with our RED's I'd just pan it across for motion, probably at 30 fps, 100/th of a sec. minimum as I don't see any strobbing on the RED at those settings.
Then for safety I'd do it again, holding position between pans for sharpness then stitch it together in photoshop (for the still).
To stitch the motion I'd probably go to our effects company.
As far as HDR and the look I don't really know why anyone needs it with the RED as it holds more highlight to shadow than any digital device I've used.
A week ago we were shooting lifestyle advertising on the beach and used about every still camera I own. As the sun was behind us none of the still cameras held as much as the RED. Not even close.
The stills required a lot more artificial fill.
In fact as we pre light a scene, it's easy to set up the RED and use it as a live-view polaroid, except you have to keep it in your head that what the RED sees the still cameras don't so you have to adjust.
Yair, since you represent high end cameras you should probably get your hands on a RED One or an Epic and see for yourself.
IMO
BC
-
I presume Bernard was meaning "why" artistically-speaking. I saw this guy's work in his gallery in Vegas (surely the same one?) and it was mostly crass kitsch, over-the-top stuff like this. Sure, he makes a fortune selling it to Joe public. But mostly, Joe public doesn't see beyond an initial, cheap "wow factor". A great money maker but a mediocre artist, at best.
-
... a mediocre artist, at best.
Would you then care to share who you consider a superior artist (among the contemporary landscape photographers, that is)? Just so that we can see what are the standards you judge against. Just curious.
-
Would you then care to share who you consider a superior artist (among the contemporary landscape photographers, that is)? Just so that we can see what are the standards you judge against. Just curious.
No, but there are tons of them. I won't go into them here as it's way off topic, if I can be bothered I'll do so in a more relevant forum section. Actually, i shouldn't even have put up my first post for that very reason, but I was swayed by a few others having similarly gone off course earlier in the thread! The subject here concerns the technical merits of the Epic and what it means for the future - as far as that's concerned the camera is obviously pretty compelling.