Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: ChristopherBarrett on April 16, 2012, 08:44:30 am
-
Several announcements hit RedUser in the wee hours. This one in particular has me a little anxious...
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77169-Dragon (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77169-Dragon)
(http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1334611910.jpg)
-
;D
Have you seen the reactions-posts in the Forum ?
I thought I was in a 70's hippy camp on acids. "could you pass me my dose? pleaaaase"
Or a congregation of sisters in extasy arround the figure of the sensor.
The dragon logo looks like a 80' low-end heavy metal band from Detroit record's cover.
I wonder if all this, that I loved at first, is not turning into a sort of happy sect. I perceive a wipeout. (I'm sort of kidding here but not totally)
Where is the Detox Team GM van?
-
mmm...
Do you remember this wonderfull place you wanted to go on hollidays with your wife some years ago?
Or this hybrid electric car you planned to buy to help saving planet earth atmosphere?
Or this talented young actor you wanted to hire for 6.000?
Or the roof of your holliday home that had to be repaired after the latest storm?
Or those wonderfull skiing resorts in the Alps that are waiting for you to ride?
Dont let yourself fall into the Dragon's claws. Resist !
-
2k, 4k, 6k, I guess 8,10,12k is coming. We'll all talk about this until our heads spin and this so mirrors the medium format dslr conversation that went on for a decade in still photography.
Red is the medium format camera of the motion world, Sony, Canon, JVC all at 4k are the dslr equivalents.
Just like in medium format, RED has some more work to do in stability, usability, speed, etc., before they'll be as easy to use as their lower costs 4k competition, but that's the way this industry goes.
I do know this . . . if you going to even think about cutting in 4k to 6k, you'd better start looking at those HP peecees with a trillion drives, a million gigs of ram and video cards that could power HBO coast to coast.
Today, we shot lifestyle, tomorrow dialog. For today I used the Sony 2k fs100, looks great, autofocus, shoots fast, throws backgrounds medium soft . . . works. Shot about the same amount with the Scarlet at 4k, looks good, throws backgrounds medium soft, allows us to do some more adjustments in post that the Sony (not a lot but some) and takes more care and is more difficult to use as you have to manual focus, you have to deal with the fact the Scarlet doesn't let you play back and sound sample in camera (you can sound sample while shooting, not just playback) and of course the focus is critical to get it right, especially if your hand holding.
Like medium format stills the Scarlet, R1 and Epic are much better with some solid support, where the sony is an easier camera to hand hold, but hey, that's the price you pay for a raw file 4k camera. Now 6k, ok RED one upped them all.
I don't blame RED, hell I respect the heck out of them and like their product, though like the original Canon 1ds I like the R1 better than the Scarlet, I'm sure would like it even better than the Epic, but that's just me.
Anyway, we've seen this story before and though 99.9% of everything shot with a 6k camera is going to play on the web, there still will be a large market for it . . . I guess.
Time will tell, but if I was Sony and Canon, I'd be on Adobe's doorstep, cash in hand asking them to come out with a lightroom style color grading suite that actually worked fast and accurate.
If I was in the equipment making business, I think I'd find a way to make 800 watt hmi's by the thousands for thousands less.
IMO
BC
-
2k, 4k, 6k, I guess 8,10,12k is coming. We'll all talk about this until our heads spin and this so mirrors the medium format dslr conversation that went on for a decade in still photography.
Red is the medium format camera of the motion world, Sony, Canon, JVC all at 4k are the dslr equivalents.
Absolutly. And it's just the beginning and we won't be safe of the same nonsence format-reso-versus conversations we had in stills.
We'll see thousands of people shooting plumpy models on malls coralls in 6, 7, 10K motion cameras and fences and garden shots in ultra high res are going to flowrish the vimeo lists.
I do know this . . . if you going to even think about cutting in 4k to 6k, you'd better start looking at those HP peecees with a trillion drives, a million gigs of ram and video cards that could power HBO coast to coast.
It's a wise advice.
Anyway, we've seen this story before and though 99.9% of everything shot with a 6k camera is going to play on the web, there still will be a large market for it . . . I guess.
Time will tell, but if I was Sony and Canon, I'd be on Adobe's doorstep, cash in hand asking them to come out with a lightroom style color grading suite that actually worked fast and accurate.
Totally agree. Adobe is gona be the major player IMO.
So we're back for another round in the same saga as the one we already experienced in still.
-
This actually sounds like a good fit to the coming generation of 4K cinema projectors: 6K with RED's Bayer CFA is about what is needed to make the most of those 4K projectors, which deliver all three primary colors at all 4096x2160 pixels.
Likewise, for resolution this is about on par with the Sony F65 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/show/highend/includes/F65_Camera_CameraPDF.pdf), which has 20 million total pixels vs about 18 million for the RED Dragon), with 10 million green pixels laid out on a rectangular grid to roughly match the 4096x2160 output, and then half as many of each of red and blue, arranged diagonally (like in the old Fujifilm SuperCCD.) Details at Sony's site here (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-highend/resource.solutions.bbsccms-assets-show-highend-F65.shtml#/f65t1_1)
But that Sony F65 costs about $65,000! (http://www.eoshd.com/content/3921/sony-cinealta-f65-8k-priced-to-compete-with-arri-alexa-and-red-epic)
-
I couldn't really care less about 6K for the moment- but as others have said, if you're genuinely aiming at 4K output with a Bayer sensor, oversampling is your best buddy.
15 stops of dynamic range? That I'll be interested in seeing, and that seems worth making a noise about. Even if it comes purely through HDR, at least RED have an ecosystem to do that.
RED fanboys are scary cultists. RED User is going to be a Woodstock of "you da man!" posts for a week or two. But you've got to admire the company for offering this as a sensor upgrade to customers with existing cameras. $6k may not be cheap, but it is a lot cheaper than a new Epic. And it makes Panasonic's $250 firmware upgrade to allow my AF100 to record 1080/50p (as opposed to 1080/25p overcranked to 2x producing, oh 50 fps but WITHOUT THE SOUND) seem a bit insulting, really.
You do need a kick-arse computer to handle this, no doubt, but it's no worse in terms of data rate than a day's shoot with a Hasselblad MFDB at full chat…
Cheers, Hywel.
-
And the answer to what we project all this 4K video on: apart from Sony 4K projectors in cinemas and its $30,000 4K projector home use, RED has now announced a 4K home projector for $10,000, plus one for cinemas: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?77171-REDray-Projector
At $10,000, this does start to become a likely upgrade for many upscale suburban man-caves.
-
Exactly, Hywel.... I mean the extra res is cool, but it's the DR that has me pretty psyched. I mean, the DR or my Epic and R1 are already damn good, but it's nice to have some padding.
-
I'm all for new stuff, if it makes the photo prettier . . . and I know prettier is a broad term, but with digital video I refuse to get caught up in fanboyism, or the bigger is better, gotta upgrade every NAB, or Announcekina just because somebody wants to sell you something new.
Having three RED products and if the new sensor was out today (today in RED terms can mean 2014 or in a week, depending on who you talk to ), dropping 18k and putting equipment out of commission doesn't overwhelm me.
I'm not saying were not going there, though it took the broadcast industry 20 years just to go to 720 and 1080 high def, so I'm not holding my breath until Bruce Willis calls and say he's gotta be shot in 6k for 25 million. Then I guess I call and beg RED to go onto list 3, phase 4, slot 96.
All of us here are independent production companies, whether we are one man bands or have 10 people and 18k isn't an earth shattering number, but 18 k will let you go shoot something of 30 seconds or some that's pretty tremendous of you know the right talent to put in the room.
I'm a little more stoked by the Sony just because it's an 8grand camera, has inboard ND's and the ossibility of autofocs with new e-mount lenses. I'm less stoked that it's $8,000 and would like for it to be about the same as the 2k version, because if I'm going to drop any more money on this stuff it's going to be in content, because that's where I make "my" money . . . in content. 6k sensors don't mean squat if the content sucks.
Now I do like the fact that RED at least allows an upgrade, though something really different is going to have to happen before they can pry my R-1's from our hands, because those cameras shoot pretty. A lot prettier in my opinion than the Scarlet, and the Scarlet is still a work in progress.
We we're shooting yesterday and I was running one long lifestyle take for about 10 minutes in Milan and the fans kicked in full blast. Luckily the sound was for scratch and secondary use, (this section will be mostly voice over). Also for some reason my scarlet won't play sound on camera playback (which can scare the crap out of you and takes time to listen to it on the computer, for safety. I wonder how hot a 6k sensor will get or if RED has that figured out, or if RED has the Scarlet figured out, or if . . .
IMO
BC
Disclaimer. I'm over three weeks into a 4 country gig, Milan until Thursday, then off to London and none of us have had more than 5 hours sleep a night (that's being generous). Film making makes still photography production look like part time work due to the hours, so I'm a bit on the grumpy side.
Regardless, of everything we shot, the images I love are the ones that look good and blow the story away, the one's that don't regardless of rez., may be technically correct, but unless your careful you;ll put people to sleep.
Content blows technique away and someday photographers, dp's directors are going to realize the camera is number 6 on the list of making interesting content.
Content really is king, not pixels, dr or promises.
Disclaimer 2 - I have only owned three digital cameras that worked as promised out of the box. My R-1's which had been on the market for nearly two years so all the kinks were worked out, my original canon 1ds which I still think was the defining still camera and my Phase One p30+ back, later the p21+ back. They were all plug and play and took me about 30 minutes to learn them. On the other hand I've spend days reading, testing leaning the Scarlet and I'll admit I still don't have a handle on that camera, not where I trust it and myself 100%.
-
The wipeout I perceive, but I can be wrong, is in the mentality.
I think that Red's apportation within this industry is exemplary.
But I can't help feeling that this now is derivating into, not only a strong fanboyism, but JJ sounds like a monarch.
It reminds me those politicians who are successfull; the second time they are re-elected power rises in their mind and they end acting like small despotic dictators.
It's known that in the Red forum, some users have been banned, and among serious Red clients and fans, just because they dared critisize the brand. The Bloom case is just
the tip of an iceberg that doesn't seems very healphy to me.
In the owner's post I read this: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude".
What does that means? it's not clear to me if what they call "bad attitude" is being rude, unpolite, or if constructive criticisms are also not allowed.
This, I don't like. Canon or Sony or Pana service the pros, the buyer, regardless of whatever attitude involved. But it seems that entering Red is in the end like entering a Sicilian familly.
You're in, as soon as you praise the godfather. But if you don't, they'd kick you out of the circle.
There are many ways to do that. A slow service could be one. Banning is another.
I'm not saying that my words here are truth, but just a perception shared also by others, included long time Red owners.
We should not forget that this is in big part a familly business model. This is not Sony. And familly business have their advantages and weaknesses.
They've been the first, they've been really good and they deserve the success. But the mentality involved behind is not for me at all the more I see it.
Now the industry is moving its ass and we'll have much more to choose from in Raw and high-res.
-
What does that means? it's not clear to me if what they call "bad attitude" is being rude, unpolite, or if constructive criticisms are also not allowed.
Fred,
You have to go into the Red pre de-tox room and memorize this saying "you da man, you da man, ou da man."
Then you have to learn some phrases like, "I can't wait to get 16 stops of dr for my utube video" and "6000 pixels . . . wow . . . I can't wait until the housing market improves and I can buy one of those 6k projectors for my man cave". $6,000 to upgrade my camera, I can't wait and I hope I get on top of Phase 3, Section 12 of the Phase A, Red preferred buyers list". Lastly you must memorize your RED REP's phone number, though that will only go to voice mail.
Now please repeat the above until you can recite it in your sleep, or we can always have the Van pick you up.
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/ted_team_van.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
;D ;D
I just saw that before going to bed while closing the workstation. I was dead after a full day shooting a music band's video and literally falled asleep on the sofa.
I saw the detox Van and it made me laugh again.
You made my night.
Cheers.
-
;D ;D
I just saw that before going to bed while closing the workstation. I was dead after a full day shooting a music band's video and literally falled asleep on the sofa.
I saw the detox Van and it made me laugh again.
You made my night.
Cheers.
Fred,
All kidding aside.
Get your hands on an R-1. Seriously, it's ready for prime time. It may use a lot of RED only pieces like LCD's, connectors and those mini xlr inputs, but it is a solid production camera. Get a good set of sticks and no you don't have to buy a $15,000 Cartoni just get a carbon fiber tripod with a good head, maybe a quick release shoulder mount like from Zacuto or a few of the other makers, learn the camera, cause it's only gonna take a day to get use to it, put some Nikon still glass on it, (I recommend zeiss) get a battery belt clip to keep the weight down and you'll have a camera that you can shoot about anything in the world on.
Sure it doesn't have REDMOTE, or no thought about a $6,000 6k upgrade, or a glossy shine in your face touch screen (you'll be glad it doesn't), but mine are serious machines that run and run and run.
I think it's the best thought out piece of military grade equipment you can own and the files are to die for.
If it only would allow some kid of berger mount so you could use is lenses, and . . . choke, cough, hide your face in shame, autofocus, it would be absolutely perfect.
The Epic I know nothing about, because even though I ordered it, $50,000 plus the fact that it was brand new put me off. The Scarlet, I bought, but is definitely a work in progress and need firmware upgrades or something to get to the point that it's a real production tool, that I'm not sure if it will get there or not.
Today I shot it the R-1 on sticks and hand held, backlit, light fill, in about every situation possible and the files just blow me away. Sure you;; need real ND filters and have to learn to lift an 8lb camera without trashing your back, but this is the camera that earned RED it's reputation and if I was them would have continued on with it,'s development, while maybe introducing the Scarlet or Epic
So yes, the RED user forum is a fanboy based theme and that's their decision, though I believe the more open and honest conversation a manufacturer provides, the better the product, the better the more useful the conversation.
To me the R-1 is kind of like my Contax and 30mp backs. It's not state of the art, but it's tested and solid and exceeds anything I'm required to use.
It's also a camera that like the days of film, transcends newer developments and is a camera you can use until you wear it out.
IMO
BC
-
2k, 4k, 6k, I guess 8,10,12k is coming.
Just out of curiosity I made some fast calculations about how much resolution we actually need for cinema viewing. If we think that the screen needs not to be wider than what we can comfortably see without turning our heads (and to read the subtitles without straining our necks), taking in consideration the angular resolution of the human eye (1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m), the maximum resolution needed seems to be 4K, regardless of the screen size.
Bigger resolution would be needed only for "virtual windows" etc.
-
Just out of curiosity I made some fast calculations about how much resolution we actually need for cinema viewing. If we think that the screen needs not to be wider than what we can comfortably see without turning our heads (and to read the subtitles without straining our necks), taking in consideration the angular resolution of the human eye (1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m), the maximum resolution needed seems to be 4K, regardless of the screen size.
Bigger resolution would be needed only for "virtual windows" etc.
Not sure what you mean by "virtual window", but I think that movie directors would spend screen size and resolution differently if there were no limits.
E.g. 360 degree spherical coverage could still be beneficial for some artistic goals, even if only a segment could be used for subtitles. And then you would probably need more than 4000 pixels horizontally to guarantee sharpness all over. Not sure if that requirement makes sense, though.
Philips have been using rgb leds behind their tv sets to "extend" the environment of the video content to the wall/ceiling surfaces behind, above and to the sides of the image. This may or may not enhance the feeling of "being there". Humans have a 100x180 degrees FOV even without moving their head.
-h
-
Not sure what you mean by "virtual window", but I think that movie directors would spend screen size and resolution differently if there were no limits.
"virtual window", my own invention: a huge high resolution wall/window which is not meant for cinema etc., but visual ambience, meybe in 3D. In the far future...
If we think about the present cinema aesthetic the angular screen dimensions I used in my calculation (about 50 degrees horizontal) seem to be quite ideal, but of course there are "immersion" cinemas like IMAX already, but would we really prefer that format for all movies and TV? I strongly doubt it, but I could be proved wrong in 100 years time.
-
...of course there are "immersion" cinemas like IMAX already, but would we really prefer that format for all movies and TV? I strongly doubt it, but I could be proved wrong in 100 years time.
Regular tvs/cinemas are a subset of IMAX screens (smaller). If all cinemas offered IMAX-type screens, some content could concievably still be limited to a subset of the screen similar to a regular screen.
The way I see it, larger screens (with a resolution to suit) would only increase the possibilities for those making content. Of course, price and practicallity are drawbacks.
My personal experience from friends and familys tv habits is that they have increased tv size as the price per area have made it economical to go from 32"->42"->50". It seems that they are satisfied with this larger image, even for news and other "background" watching. I don't see any signs of this trend slowing down.
-h
-
;D
The dragon logo looks like a 80' low-end heavy metal band from Detroit record's cover.
I thought of the early 90's PC game "Heretic".
-
If we think that the screen needs not to be wider than what we can comfortably see without turning our heads (and to read the subtitles without straining our necks), taking in consideration the angular resolution of the human eye (1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m), the maximum resolution needed seems to be 4K, regardless of the screen size.
That sounds reasonable ... and is about what Sony says in its propaganda in the opposite direction, arguing for the need to upgrade from 2K to 4K cinema projectors:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf
Sony measures viewing distance as a multiple of picture height [PH], and concludes the 2K fails at less than 2.3-3.16 PH, so that 4K is good to about 1.15-1.58PH. (Using an aspect ratio of 1.8). But your idea of measuring in ratio of viewing distance to picture width [PW] makes more sense, as far as imagining how much head turning is needed to see the whole scene, and then 2K is good to about 1.3-1.7PW and 4K is good down to 0.7-0.8PH.
That is: 4K is fine until you are so close that the screen is wider than your viewing distance by a factor of about 1.25-1.4. That is far closer that typical "normal viewing distance" for stills, and even allowing for the great amount of head movement in watching a wide-scree movie, this seems closer than most people would _want_ to be sitting, though Sony describes a hypothetical stadium seating cinema in which the front row seats are even closer: 0.86PH, or 0.47PW.
-
Early reports are that the R1 shoots cleaner than the Scarlet.
My Epic shoots cleaner than my R1. Less noise in the shadows, better color fidelity. More DR. The R1 just came back from RED with a new OLPF and a clean bill of health. It's still a friggin awesome camera. The SSD module made it way more convenient to shoot and I can't wait to get it down to Louisiana for our next short.
When I'm not shooting I spend a lot of time thinking about gear... so that when I AM shooting I never have to think about gear. Get shit that works and go work.
Yada yada etc
-
Early reports are that the R1 shoots cleaner than the Scarlet.
My Epic shoots cleaner than my R1. Less noise in the shadows, better color fidelity. More DR. The R1 just came back from RED with a new OLPF and a clean bill of health. It's still a friggin awesome camera. The SSD module made it way more convenient to shoot and I can't wait to get it down to Louisiana for our next short.
When I'm not shooting I spend a lot of time thinking about gear... so that when I AM shooting I never have to think about gear. Get shit that works and go work.
Yada yada etc
I dig your enthusiasm for photography and moving forward.
I also think a lot of good things about RED, but sometimes get kind of put off on the secret club/fan boy thing that goes on.
I'm sure you've done this . . . read a RED manual on a camera. The scarlet is the first manual I've read front to back and regardless of what I read the camera does different things than what's buried in the PDF.
I also am a little turned off by the pixel race. Got very bored with it for still photography, even more so with motion, given the fact that 90% of everyone will edit in 2k, given the fact that probably 99.999999999999% of all video will end up on the web for viewing.
Yesterday, we had an issue with one of our R-1's. No matter what we set the camera at, the monitor would not reflect changes of wb, or iso, or tint.
What looked pretty good at iso 1000, in reality was a stop over, so it required us puling the SSD, looking at the computer, then adjust, then back to the computer.
Last night I tried to find the answer on RED user net, which sent my head spinning, so once again, back to the manual and running tests. It's still kind of goofy and makes me worry about the camera as I have one more country to finish up on before I can get the camera into service.
We can switch to the Scarlet which I find shoots smoother than the R-1 buy not as pretty and we can't find a way to play through a quick scene on camera and hear the sound. It's there so once again, back to the computer to be sure.
So during a day like yesterday, we do think about the camera.
Now these cameras have been to 4 countries on this gig and carried in and out of trucks a gazilion times in the last few weeks, so they've taken a beating, though the Sony fs100 we've treated it like an old shoe and today no issues.
This could all be an anomaly, but yes today as we head to the airport I am thinking about the cameras.
IMO
BC
-
The problem I see is, as it's been pointed several times, the coincidence with our still digital short history. It seems that the pixel race has been launched, it seems that DR button has been pressed etc...
In short, it will be more or less the same BS. Point of no return. We're there in the deep shit again.
What happened within the MF still industry is that they focussed on those easily sailable arguments (pixel-DR), putting artificialy price to the stratosphere (= speculation) and almost nothing has been done on
usability and design. They are paying a high price for that actually.
To give an example, one of those suposdly "high-end" backs cost the same amount of money as a Sony F35, wich is a hyper advanced 14 stops DR pro video camera and much more advanced than any Red. It gives an idea of the grade of nonsense and robery MF manufacturers are doing commerce with.
I'm afraid this is what will also happen in motion. Same drawing, same story-board, same nonsense.
Then, it's gona be hilarious (or not !...) when clients are going to ask 4K, without even knowing why but just because they've heard that everybody's in 4K on-the-cheap. It's going to be 4K just for the buzz. No rationality. 4K for 4K. Then 5, then 6...
What about broadcast standart then? Are we already in the situation that the HD standart is now to relegate to the dump and they are re-thinking it ? or can we hope this is going to be "stable" for some more years?
Coot talks about the web as a lowres output. But I'm afraid this 4K mantra is also going on the web inevitably. With the progress of connections, Youtube already has 4k capabilities. So yeah, we're about to experience another round of fences and garden shots, my cat my dog and my bird in 4K with all the pixel peeping megalopsychopathology involved. Times are closed indeed when we'll have the equivalent of this DxO stuff here and all the pseudo-engineers crowd of the forums will post graphics and comparatives of all kinds as a scientific approach of the motion imagery.
It's going to be the wild west even much more than now. Every manufacturer will go out with its format that nothing will read. I doubt a lot on the Raw DNG for motion. It's going to be a complete mess and we'll have to ugrade computers, cameras and softwares every 2 years to keep the race. It's an enormous lucrative business, maybe more than stills and will be under pressure and forced to spend way much more in equipment and derivated.
Not only the current pros are pushing from the top towards us but all the wanabee facebook crowd with 5D4s and Boris color is going to push from the bottom and we'll be sratched.
The New stars aren't going to be the Avedons but the bloomedons. Guys testing gear for the wanabees, doing networking and using their own image as a brand with a myriad of gear sponsors that flash like a Las Vegas avenue at night.
There was a time I thought that motion imagery was going the healphy way. Now I think it is the same circus as the still world became.
Beleive me guys, the more we stay away from all that BS, the best for the business and peace of mind it will be.
-
Fred, that's pretty much how I see it. Went down the sheep track, following the MFDB hype, which is actually BS (I said so on this site and got panned for it) and came out the other side knowing that for me, all I care about is content. Luckily, so far, that's all my clients care about.
Now I'm back doing video, I'm resisting the BS and getting the minimum that gets the job done and gives the clients what they want. It's vital that my gear works when I turn up at a gig. Once something lets me down, it's out the door. No second chance. And that's one of the attractions of gear at the lower end, the Sonys and Canons. They just work. You don't have to wade through manuals and forums looking for reasons why the thing failed and workarounds to try to get the thing to do what you paid for it to do. You just push the record button and go. Ironically, that's almost priceless.
I guess one of the (few) good things about the latest economic mess is that this endless chasing of "better" gear has been slowed right down.
-
What about broadcast standart then? Are we already in the situation that the HD standart is now to relegate to the dump and they are re-thinking it ? or can we hope this is going to be "stable" for some more years?
I am sure that broadcast will evolve (in ways that necessitate the purchase of new gear and more expensive subscriptions), but I am not so sure that >1080p is happening in the close future. I think that 3D, framerate, color depth, DR etc is more likely to eat the increasing complexity/bandwidth budget.
...With the progress of connections, Youtube already has 4k capabilities. So yeah, we're about to experience another round of fences and garden shots, my cat my dog and my bird in 4K with all the pixel peeping megalopsychopathology involved. Times are closed indeed when we'll have the equivalent of this DxO stuff and all the pseudo-engineers crowd of the forums will post graphics and comparatives of all kinds as a scientific approach of the motion imagery.
...
I don't see the reason for this hostility towards technical angles or amateurs making content.
The general public have shot images and videos of their cats, kids, trains (or whatever interested them) for as long as it has been technically/economically possible, and they will continue to do so as long as it is possible. Seeing a video of a cute cat may be boring in 4k, but it is equally boring in 480i.
People will try to understand the stuff that they are interested in. Some do it using formulas that they may or may not apply with skill. Some do it with practical tests that may or may not be relevant for real-world usage. Some of the most interesting results probably come from those who master both theory and practice to a sufficient level.
-h
-
I don't feel hostility on the technical-engineering sides of the imagery, on the contrary.
I only feel hostility -or been better expressed- tired of, the pseudo technical noise that abunds in internet. Imagery is technical and artistical. The parameters involved are complex in terms of skills, techniques and gear is really important.
But that's the point. I rarely (very rarelly) read really really serious high-end technical discussions made by experienced people. All the noise turns arround one thing: a camera+sensor. point. All the other parameters like lightning techniques, optic, post-production techniques, narrative techniques, the MUAs, the pre-prod etc... are very rarely debated. It's reso reso and reso at the dr sauce. This, I have an indigestion to be honest.
All they do is exhibit curves and graphics taken here or there in some public websites that target the general public as "information", "proofs" of all kind (to proove what, is still a mystery to me), and always those pseudo debates based on pseudo infos end in wars, accusations and Michael having to do the policeman in the end or close threads.
This forum was safe of this plague so far. Not for long.
Now that we have 4K and the race is lauched, you'll see the wars between what isn't 4K and what is. Then graphics posts by the wanabees will fall from the sky to proove that we don't need 4K etc etc...
Then the ones who won't be able to access high-end equipment will try desperatly to demostrate their usefullness bombing threads with sparkling tittles like: "Canon kills RED with the latest 6K"
I'm not against scientists. I'm not against tech.
I'm against pseudo-scientists and tech arguments that come from people with in general little information and little technical skills. That's what I criticize.
-
This actually sounds like a good fit to the coming generation of 4K cinema projectors: 6K with RED's Bayer CFA is about what is needed to make the most of those 4K projectors, which deliver all three primary colors at all 4096x2160 pixels.
Likewise, for resolution this is about on par with the Sony F65 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/show/highend/includes/F65_Camera_CameraPDF.pdf), which has 20 million total pixels vs about 18 million for the RED Dragon), with 10 million green pixels laid out on a rectangular grid to roughly match the 4096x2160 output, and then half as many of each of red and blue, arranged diagonally (like in the old Fujifilm SuperCCD.) Details at Sony's site here (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-highend/resource.solutions.bbsccms-assets-show-highend-F65.shtml#/f65t1_1)
But that Sony F65 costs about $65,000! (http://www.eoshd.com/content/3921/sony-cinealta-f65-8k-priced-to-compete-with-arri-alexa-and-red-epic)
The F65's 20mp is not all used for image, so the comparison number is 17.6mp I think, so there's no resolution advantage there.
Graeme
-
I only feel hostility -or been better expressed- tired of, the pseudo technical noise that abunds in internet.
The internet is noisy. With experience, one learns how to extract the information that one needs.
Imagery is technical and artistical. The parameters involved are complex in terms of skills, techniques and gear is really important.
Agreed
But that's the point. I rarely (very rarelly) read really really serious high-end technical discussions made by experienced people. All the noise turns arround one thing: a camera+sensor. point. All the other parameters like lightning techniques, optic, post-production techniques, narrative techniques, the MUAs, the pre-prod etc... are very rarely debated.
"really, really serious" stuff can be found in research journals. People (with a few exceptions) rarely have the time or inclination to spend months or years researching a Science or Nature-worthy piece, having it peer-reviewed to publish it in a discussion forum. Most of us are unable or unwilling to comprehend those papers anyways.
I have found some authors on this forum able and willing to correct my own misunderstandings and gaps of knowledge using arguments, references and an attitude that ease the change of mind. I appreciate that a lot.
You probably are right that many people are more interested in the latest electronics than in lighting technique. Optics, though?
I do some exposure bracketing. I have learned from technically minded posters that Nikon right now does DR somewhat better than my Canon system. I don't think that I would have known or accepted this without some "curves, numbers and references", or highly controlled side-by-side shots that seems very hard to produce. The equally evil twin of "pseudo-scientists" may be the "touchy-feely subjective position" that may be even more common on the net.
always those pseudo debates based on pseudo infos end in wars, accusations and Michael having to do the policeman in the end or close threads.
This is not how I perceive things.
I'm not against scientists. I'm not against tech.
I'm against pseudo-scientists and tech arguments that come from people with in general little information and little technical skills. That's what I criticize.
I guess that we are all still learning, and given any one group of people and narrow topic of interest, typically only one person of that group will be most knowledgeable.
For the rest of us, participating in the discussion, suggesting explanations and receiving criticism is a way of learning, just like posting images can be a (harsh) way of learning the art. As long as people contribute with a positive tone and don't try to appear more knowledgeable than they really are, I see no problem.
-h
-
Graeme,
Agreed: I mentioned the total photosite counts only to indicate rough equivalence in resolution, not to claim a 10% advantage for the F65.
To put it another way, I was just pointing out that the resolution difference is probably not what some people might think by reading just the headline "Red Dragon 6K > Sony F65 4K" specs.
On the other hand, Sony sometimes refers to the F65 sensor as "8K" (because photosites fall on 8000 different vertical lines, due to their diagonal layout), but a comparison based only on "Sony F65 8K > Red Dragon 6K" would be equally misleading!
Whatever happened to describing resolution in good old-fashioned "lines per picture height"?! Not a serious question: I know that such things are not simply determined from the sensor hardware description alone.
-
4k observations...
I was just at the NAB convention and saw the 4k demo projections from the major 4k cameras in 4k.
The 4k looked beautifully detailed...until the camera panned. Shot at 24fps the motion blur / judder created when panning dropped the detail very significantly. The Canon demo movie carefully avoided panning, I think for this reason.
So, perhaps more important than 4k or 8k, we should be thinking about 48fps or higher for high resolution motion pictures. The challenge is that today, 4k post is not cost justified for almost all productions, and doubling the frame rate will double the already taxing data load that makes 4k so expensive.
Just my 2 cents :)
-bruce
-
So, perhaps more important than 4k or 8k, we should be thinking about 48fps or higher for high resolution motion pictures. The challenge is that today, 4k post is not cost justified for almost all productions, and doubling the frame rate will double the already taxing data load that makes 4k so expensive.
My thoughts too.
ps: If I had to invest right now from scratch (in serious prod) I think a camera like the Sony F35 would be my choice over Ks.
Here is a contrasted point of view: http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2009/12/1/why-i-bought-a-sony-f35-cinematography-camera-by-dan-mulliga.html
It's also interesting to note that the british company Take 2 Films, is working with the F35.
-
The 4k looked beautifully detailed...until the camera panned. Shot at 24fps the motion blur / judder created when panning dropped the detail very significantly. The Canon demo movie carefully avoided panning, I think for this reason.
So, perhaps more important than 4k or 8k, we should be thinking about 48fps or higher for high resolution motion pictures.
Indeed, Hollywood's two most prominent big budget high tech. film-makers, Peter Jackson and James Cameron, are adopting 48fps: Jackson is already using it for the Hobbit (with RED Epic 5K Bayer CFA cameras too) and Cameron says he will for an Avatar sequel to two. So 4K and up and 48fps and 3D ... this should keep the mass storage device industry happy anyway!
http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-discusses-new-filming-standard/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/03/james-cameron-champions-faster-film-projection-rates.html
-
BJL: I've been unable to measure a F65 yet, but some Sony documentation presented it's sensor as 6k x 3k which fits in much better with it's pixel count and what I figure it's measured resolution would be. My only thing is that Sony keep saying 8k, which it's not and 20mp which it isn't either because over 2 of those mp never get seen or recorded.
Bruce: I can't wait to see what Peter Jackson with Hobbit is doing with his 48fps
fredjeang: a contrasting view indeed, but most of what he says is wrong, and it's very out-of-date, (and double wrong from a "today" pov) and looking at the F65 I hope Dan Mulligan made his money back on the F35.
Graeme
-
BJL: I've been unable to measure a F65 yet, but some Sony documentation presented it's sensor as 6k x 3k which fits in much better with it's pixel count ...
It seems fairly clear from the documents that I link above that the F65 sensor uses diagonally aligned photosites (like the black squares on a chequer-board, for example) with the green ones on a 4096x2160 rectangular grid (so, "true full 4K" for green) and then an equal number of red plus blue photosites located diagonally between them. (That is, a chequer-board with red and blue squares, and then a green dot at every corner between the squares.) So the total count is about 4096x2160x2, about 1.77MP. Rounded up to one significant digit to get 20MP?!
-
Yes, 17.7 with a diagonal array, hence the confusion over horizontal pixel count which is 4k or 8k depending on how you count, but the math and the early Sony documentation give a figure of 5.6k and 6k accordingly. Nope, not rounding to get 20mp, but just counting the edge black and unused pixels on the sensor (active pixel count compared to full sensor count).
Graeme
-
The Sony pixel count allows false marketing claims, it reminds me to use an image the Foveon system and interestingly how Sigma exploits it.
Graeme, yes this is an old post on purpose, refering to (or compeat to) material that have evolved since in both brands. It's because I had in mind the second-hand market according to a previous post in this thread.
A different point of view is healphy, specially after realizing the grade of fanboyism the Red forum has, wich I think it's never good for us consumers as any critic is automatically rejected by the users. (Red isn't the only brand in this case, fair enough). Dan's was very aware of it in the article. I got the guys points, so as yours. So far, every cat that have critized Red, experienced or not, the answer is always "that's not true". Maybe it isn't, maybe nobody on earth has brought on the table to date truth reliable contrasted opinions or critics on the system because it's never thruth and there's always a clever tech answer from the magic hat.
This reminds too much MF early days. Hope you guys over there won't fall on the same nonsense, familly business mentality.
-
The Sony pixel count allows false marketing claims ...
But likewise, I would call the RED "5K" and "6K" claims a bit misleading or at least open to misinterpretation, though not outright false. Because in video, and particular with video projection and also with many professional video cameras, resolution spec's like 1920x1080 or 4K have traditionally referred to a count of pixels each with full three primary color information. Many professional video cameras use three or more photosites to get each of these full color pixels, through methods like:
a) striping, using three or six photosites (as in the Sony-made sensor of the Panavision Genesis?)
RGB
RGB
b) Canon's creation of one pixel from four photosites in the C300:
RG
GB
c) using three sensors and beam splitters (only up to 2/3" format though AFAIK.)
But on the other hand, with still cameras and now with recent large sensor video cameras, stated pixel counts are sometimes counts of single color photosites. RED seems to be leading the charge, due to its adoption of Bayer CFA sensors, and Sony (or its marketing department) is now following suit.
When you dig into Sony's documents on the F65, it is acknowledged that what it actual offered is full 4K resolution in green, and from 4K down to 2K resolution in red and blue, depending on the direction in which resolution is measured. (4K horizontal and vertical, 2K at 45º angle, due to the "checker-board" pattern of the photosites for each of these colors.) Does RED describe such details of actual sensor resolution limits anywhere?
-
4k, 5k, 6k etc are always in reference to the sensor and not regarded as measured resolution. With the original R1 in 4k, we found we could get a good measured resolution of around 3.2k, and now with current cameras the "factor" from sensor k to measured resolution is around 80%. That is not 100% obviously, but neither would you want it to be unless you really like aliasing artifacts, which we don't. Although the stills guys can somewhat "get away" with more aliasing because they can always go and fix up that one frame, for motion it can be atrocious. (yes, we've talking about this extensively in public forums)
a) yes, Sony F35 and Panavision Genesis share the same heritage and use a RGB stripe pattern that uses more pixels to produce less resolution and more aliasing and chroma moire than the REDs, so a "theoretical" gain is turned into a practical dis-advantage.
b) Canon's idea is reasonable enough, but if you were to take their sensor data (as you'll soon be able to do with the C500) and properly demosaic then properly downsample to 1080p you'll get a better looking result. I've done that exact experiment with RED data to confirm how that demosiac arrangement works. In other words, there are better ways to decode that raw sensor data, but they're more expensive to implement (in terms of processing power, heat, weight etc.)
c) works well enough at 2/3", but not really practical beyond that, although NHK did work with a 4 way prism for their 8k camera so it can be done. Still, you're trading again and you're getting prism issues and lack of good lens compatibility for some theoretical advantage that doesn't typically pan out to a practical one. Interestingly many 3 chippers used a deliberate offset in the green sensor to achieve better results for 4:2:2 chroma sampling images. And you can't forget you're still fighting sampling theory, still need decent optical low pass filters.
Of course, people often come back with the three layers of film argument, but then when you look at a high quality film scan you see a very different amount of actual detail in the three channels, so this concept of unique RGB values is very much a computer graphics idea, not a traditional video concept, especially as practical video has always recorded and/or broadcast chroma sub-sampled signals.
Oh, no, we're not leading the charge! Very rarely if ever has measured resolution equalled pixel count. For "4k" I believe Dalsa were the ones to start with that description.
-
Oh, no, we're not leading the charge!. ... For "4k" I believe Dalsa were the ones to start with that description.
OK, Dalsa was first. (Whatever happened to Dalsa in digital cinema cameras anyway?) But ...
Very rarely if ever has measured resolution equalled pixel count.
I somewhat disagree: true in digital photography and in video overall, but in the high end of video, like digital cinema, a lot of cameras have used specs like 1920x1080 to mean full three color pixel counts. In particular, in the era when higher end gear was mostly 3CCD --- But that is water under the bridge, and I am not arguing for going back to 3 sensor cameras or striping for the sake of "honest" pixel counts! I agree with you for the rest; as far as I can tell anyway, a Bayer CFA plus good demosaicing algorithms is the current best strategy, despite some occasional forum dogmata about "use all the light!" or "measure resolution by the lowest value amongst the color channels!".
Again my point was just that there is some ambiguity in attempts to indicate resolution by a single sensor spec. number, due largely to the persistent difference between pixel counting in capture [usually one color] vs pixel counting in display [usually all primary colors].
-
I think the number of HD cameras that actually managed a measured HD resolution (never mind equal in RGB) with negligible aliasing is somewhat slim. It is by far and a way not the majority, hence my "Very rarely if ever" statement. Even the best of the beast, the F35 had significant aliasing and chroma moire and didn't really measure 1920 across. To get fully sampled recording, I think all the solutions were off-board recorders too.
" as far as I can tell anyway, a Bayer CFA plus good demosaicing algorithms is the current best strategy," - yes, but only at a decent enough resolution. If you try that for sub-3k resolution on the sensor, I think you're getting into the realm where the other approaches begin to make more sense. Turning it around, the bayer CFA sensor only began to make sense when it went large and high resolution (like a DSLR or in a digital cinema camera). I was terrified of bayer CFAs for motion cameras before RED, but practical experience of DSLRs and then of what we could do at RED taught me otherwise.
"Again my point was just that there is some ambiguity in attempts to indicate resolution by a single sensor spec." - absolutely, which is why we've often posted MTF plots to tell a better picture of what is going on.
Graeme
-
Graeme,
[EDIT:] I get your point: even what I sarcastically called "honest" pixel counting is not a completely reliable measure of resolution so ... [/EDIT]
"Again my point was just that there is some ambiguity in attempts to indicate resolution by a single sensor spec." - absolutely, which is why we've often posted MTF plots to tell a better picture of what is going on.
That is great, I had not come across those ... can you post links for the current models? I do not think anyone will accuse you of crossing the line into advertising if you do that in response to a question. And update us with RED Dragon MTF links when available, please.
-
The plots are buried in the depths of Reduser somewhere. I recently did some Epic MTF plots, but I've not had them published yet so we'll see what happens now that the chaos of NAB is over. I'll post back over here when they're available.
(Me, marketing, never! I just love to talk tech and talk to people who make great images.)
Graeme
-
b) Canon's idea is reasonable enough, but if you were to take their sensor data (as you'll soon be able to do with the C500) and properly demosaic then properly downsample to 1080p you'll get a better looking result. I've done that exact experiment with RED data to confirm how that demosiac arrangement works. In other words, there are better ways to decode that raw sensor data, but they're more expensive to implement (in terms of processing power, heat, weight etc.)
That's fascinating, Graeme!
Do you have any mathematical insight as to where the gains come from? Naively looking at the information one might guess that 1920 x 1080 4:4:4 derived from a sensor with RGGB blocks ought to do as well as anything else. Is it the anti-aliasing optical filter you have to have? I guess with that scheme you are fighting the need to anti-alias the red and the blue twice as much as the green, so maybe you lose out on the green resolution you could have had if you'd done the deBayer to a 4 pixel block then downsample. So I could see that maybe if you are using a more sophisticated algorithm doing some sort of deconvolution over multiple pixels, you might win if you do the deBayer first?
It has always bothered me that I don't really understand why perceived sharpness and detail are so much better if you start from a very highly oversampled sensor. The artistic side of me absolutely knows that a 5D mark 2 shot downsampled to web-friendly 1280 pixels looks crisper and sharper and more detailed than a 5D mark 1 shot with the same lens, but the physicist wonders how there can be much of a difference when both are downsampling so dramatically. I also noticed that doing an unsharp mask before downsampling, and again if necessary at output, gives a more natural crisp result than doing it just once as the final step at output resolution (which used to be the conventional wisdom).
There's no denying that footage from my Scarlet looks utterly, utterly fabulous downsampled to 720p, compared with footage from my AF100 downsampled from 1080p to 720p. Oversampling *REALLY*, *REALLY* helps and oversampling a lot seems much better than oversampling a little. I just wish I understood where these perceived gains are coming from physically!
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Good question Hywel!
If you look at a bayer CFA quad:
G R
B G
and make one RGB pixel out of it, if you don't apply any filtering in the process (so just "binning", and averaging the greens) the green value's spatial location is centred on the quad and the red and blue values are offset half a diagonal pixel. This will induce some mild colouration on sharp edges. The averaging of the greens is a very mild filter and helps very slightly with aliasing, but not much. Remember downsampling is a sampling process, so adequate filtering is needed.
When you do a full demosaic to RGB, you're now in the position where you can apply a proper filter before downsampling, which will lead you to a more co-sited RGB result (vastly reduced colour fringing on sharp edges) and a sharper image with less aliasing.
There's too many factors in play to properly figure why your downsampling example is different.
Graeme
-
(snip) the green value's spatial location is centred on the quad and the red and blue values are offset half a diagonal pixel. This will induce some mild colouration on sharp edges. The averaging of the greens is a very mild filter and helps very slightly with aliasing, but not much. Remember downsampling is a sampling process, so adequate filtering is needed.
When you do a full demosaic to RGB, you're now in the position where you can apply a proper filter before downsampling, which will lead you to a more co-sited RGB result (vastly reduced colour fringing on sharp edges) and a sharper image with less aliasing.
Ahhhh, smart. Thank you! I hadn't been thinking of it in terms needing co-sited results. Of course that makes sense. You have three sampled monochrome images slightly offset from each other, so handling that offset as well as you can is vital when you downsample. Then it makes sense that you can do a better job of that by deBayering to full resolution with a good algorithm before you downsample.
I'll be slightly less impatient with my Mac as it chugs through my R3Ds at full deBayer now :-)
(I know, I know, I should get a RED Rocket. I fully intend to purchase one when the money comes in from selling the first shorts shot with my Scarlet! It's bearable with CPU renders while I sleep for the moment… )
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Graeme,
Sorry to take the subject off the rgbg discussion, but since you have RED's ear, a few suggestions and comments on the Scarlet, after using it for 4 weeks straight.
Good.
1. 6k upgrade. Though I don't know what I'l do with it, I'm sure it will be a better sensor. Thanks.
2. Scarlet form factor. Complicated, but nice weight, works with just about everything, hand held, stedicam, sticks, crane. Once again Thanks.
3. Red Cine-x and Rocket are to improves in all aspects was including stability. Thanks.
4. Scarlet screen. Beautiful, great resolution, big. Thanks
5. Scarlet file, Good high iso, a little smooth for my tastes but easily fixed. Thanks along with RED Gamma 3.
Wish List.
1. Please give us an option for a matte screen. Even with a shade, even with medum ambient light, turn and track the wrong way and you go from seeing the image to seeing your own reflection.
2. Autofocus. Don't need it all the time, not even most the time, but if their is a firmware fix to stop the hunting, please have RED address it. For some things autofocus can be brilliant, for others, well so far it's a manual focus camera.
Not a big complaint, but a little help would do.
3. Nikon Mount. Maybe it's me, but I've got years of manually focusing Nikon Lenses in my brain and manually working a Canon lens just kind of throws me. I can do it, but I have to practice and try to remember each time.
I have both large sets of Nikon and Canon Lenses and would rather go the Nikon route, especially the Zeiss as I love the sharpness.
3. Cine-X. Two needs, well make that three. The ability for real single channel corrections that are on sliders (see lightroom). The ability to get a quicktime movie that plays in quicktime 7 that matches cine X. I know this is an apple issue, but something is screwy with the gamma from Cinex to quicktime, (in any flavor). The ability to lightly vignette the files. Nothing drastic, but just enough to give that slight corner darkness or brightness.
4. This one is big. Some kind of locking mechanism or more stable sound inputs. Those mini plugs are a nightmare. I've bought all versions from straight out to L shaped and they just aren't secure and a slight move makes them pop. Anything to help in this regards will let me sleep a lot better at night.
5. Sound playback. Maybe I'm missing something, but to playback a clip and not hear sound is a heart stopper. There may be a function I've missed in the setup, but I can't find it and I've looked, test, tried, rinsed and repeat.
6. A quick start document. The RED operational guide is the only camera manual I've ever read and I've read it three times and it's kind of all over the place. I know this is a complicated and amazing device, but something that allows A user to pull out a sheet or two read through it and find an issue on setup would be golden. As you know, most of us start production tired due to heavy pre production and schedules.
I've become use to the Scarlet and most things are second nature, but sometimes a brain fart and oops, it's back to what was that setting I was looking for. It could be simple, just format, resolution, sound input and ouput, etc.
Other than that.
Thanks.
IMO
BC
-
Nikon mounts are coming in August. The latest word from Jarred:
"Nikon Mounts are officially off hold... time for a little Nikon love.
Electronic Nikon Mount Aluminum $700.
Electronic Nikon Mount Titanium $2200.
Ships early August."
I do agree that the user manual could be organized a little better and a quick start guide would be helpful ... but with a resource like REDUSER ... most questions get answered pretty quick.
-
1) More resolution, better dynamic range. Price for Scarlet upgrade is TBD, for Epic it's $6k.
3) the RC-X team are really working hard, and are very responsive to bugs, issues etc.
Thanks for the wishlist:
1) I'll ask on matte screen.
2) Yup AF is tricky. I know a team is constantly working to improve this and that some AF lenses work better than others.
3) vignette is a lovely idea - I'll put that forwards. Gamma is a pain, and mostly afaik in Apple's court. Not sure what you mean on the single channel controls, pm me and I'll figure out what you're suggesting.
4) I'll ask the guys on this.
5) In the works as far as I know.
6) We're working hard on educational materials, and this is obviously one that should be done. I'll ask our education team.
Thanks for the quality feedback,
Graeme
-
ffft,
Thanks for the info on the Nikon Mount. I'll inquire with my RED rep is there's a list, (whoa do I hate lists), but really thanks.
As far as RED user net, I kid about the fanboyism, but it does have a lot of resource, though I just don't have time to dig through it. Maybe it's my key wording, but we tried to find info on the scarlet sound playback in camera and never found anything substantial, though we gave it very little time, as for 5 weeks our crew has been sleeping about 5 hours a night tops and has done 4 countries in that period.
Graeme,
For single channel corrections, I really mean those little color squares in light-room with slider adjustments. They go red, orange, yellow, blue, cyan, magenta, etc. I know those aren't real rgb values, but it allows hue, luminance and saturation of each of those colors.
Case in point, on this gig, we had a lot of voice over from real subjects and rather than just run sound I we shot a portrait style on a white background, for an effect I want to do on the 4 videos. As these are subjects from around the world in virtually every ethnic lineage, they're are a lot of color changes in skin.
We had one scene with a very white western man next to a beautiful woman of African decent. The man had a magenta hue the woman slightly orange. This can be corrected in curves but is tricky and time consuming.
Go into light-room with a still image of faces and find that function with the color squares and you'll notice what I mean.
For vignetting, it sounds a like a trick (it is), but early on with digital video I would slightly vignette the piece. Most of us have locked in our head that film lenses and film cameras slightly degrade from the inside of the frame out and I played on this and made it work.
There are plugs for this, apple even has a vignetting setting, though most are kind of funky and don't look film like, more effect like. Light-room is good at this, but early on I did it in FCP using layered timelines and masks. I can't tell you the number of times clients, duping houses, people in our industry would say, "that's great did you shoot this super 16 or 35 and I'd say digital video and they'd say we know it's digital video now, but what format did you shoot on and I'd say "digital video". I'm convinced the vignettes plus the coloration and throwing slight focus gave them that impression.
As far as Scarlet sound playback. Sound is a monster, as you know. Even the most talented sound techs, in the most perfect room can drop the ball and when the issues is not caught quickly we have hell trying to fix it. I always (or nearly always run two computers with max digital red red rockets installed and with the Scarlet we have to pull the SSD run it through the computer and listen. With the Max digital case it runs a fan so we have to disable it to not interfere with the shooting and as you know running a 4k file without the RED rocket, even in the latest powerbooks, is somewhat slow and takes a while to spool up.
As you also know every minute of production time is costly and the sooner they fix the playback on the Scarlet the better my life will be.
As far as the mini jacks, I just find them very spotty. I would have loved real xlr inputs, or at least the R1's mini xlrs. they lock and are stable. If your team knows of any more substantial solution for this, please, please let us know. In fact I'm so aware of the mini inputs that a lot of time I'll run an R-1 for sound collection, not really as a visual B cam but just because it gives me a visual reference to pair the sound later and I know the R-1 inputs are safe.
One more note then I'll stop boring everyone, but for the first time we had a problem with one of our R-1's. I'm not blaming RED because that one body has been to hell and back and I got complacent and thought it was virtually indestructible. So stable that I left our second R-1 back in the studio, because we were carrying over 1000 pounds of equipment as it was and baggage overage in europe is a fright. Next time the second R-1 comes along. I could kick myself.
What happened was about mid way into the project we lost the ability to see changes on the monitor. WB, ISO, tint, etc. In fact to make the monitor look good we had to be a stop hot which we caught early on so we'd set the shot, set the camera and then go into cine-x for preview make corrections in cine-x and then set the camera to those settings.
Thank goodness for the raw file because until I caught this I had two sessions that were a stop hot and cine-x pulled them back and they look great.
I like the Scarlet, may grow to love it, (don't know yet), but if you can love a machine I love the RED Ones. I know them inside and out and I still think they shoot the most cinema graphic look of any digital camera I've owned, motion or still.
Sorry. One more suggestion. A hot shoe addition for all the cameras. I know that sounds silly, but we run a second camera mounted mike for sound scratch and sync and they're are times you want to mount a small led at the lens for just a slight fill. There are third party solutions, but if RED made one for the R-1 and specifically the Scarlet it would be in our kit the day it came out.
Thanks.
IMO
BC
P.S. I'm sorry, but one more thing. Why won't the Scarlet run a Phantom powered mic? I like Rodes, much better than seinhauser (sp?) and for a quick set up nothing works better or faster than one or two mics on stands out of frame pointed to the subject (as long as the subject isn't moving). Also powered mics are a pain as nobody remembers to turn them off, so every day, the batteries have to be changed. Seems like a small thing but as you know time is killer in production and anything that works, works fast is a godsend.
P.S. 2. This may sound like a list of complaints but it's not. As of "today" nobody makes a raw file camera at the price of the RED and though an added step in processing, is well worth the security. I'm convinced that RED has pushed the whole industry and without RED Sony or Canon wouldn't have dreamed of a raw file (my opinion).
People can say what they want about RED's raw file if it's really raw or not, but I know a stop over is not the plan (see my above note), but the ability to pull it back and make it look great is te=rememdous asset so thank the RED team.
-
James,
Probably in the next build of firmware the scarlet might be able to adress phantom power.
At least this was Jim´s answer from Redusers "Questions thread" (I agree, Reduser is another black hole of time):
snip
04-17-2012, 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by Omar Al-Masab
Is phantom power coming in the next build
Yes...
snip
HTH,
Cheers, Ulf
-
Thanks Ulf.
You saved me two hours.
BC
-
OK, Dalsa was first. (Whatever happened to Dalsa in digital cinema cameras anyway?)
What happened to the Genesis is some productions actually used them for payed gigs.
I was on a week long production with a pair of the cameras, & we came very close to getting lawyers involved.
Panavision employees referred to it as "The Science Experiment".
-
Disclaimer. I'm over three weeks into a 4 country gig, Milan until Thursday, then off to London and none of us have had more than 5 hours sleep a night (that's being generous).
Maybe it's time to rethink your commute. The savings in airfare, & baggage overages, should offset the $400k price tag.
http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/04/willow-garage-creates-awesome-open-source-telepresence-robots-video/
Google, & Autodesk, are using them regularly, with Sergey Brin owning multiple robots just for himself.
-
Maybe it's time to rethink your commute. The savings in airfare, & baggage overages, should offset the $400k price tag.
http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/04/willow-garage-creates-awesome-open-source-telepresence-robots-video/
Google, & Autodesk, are using them regularly, with Sergey Brin owning multiple robots just for himself.
Talk about playing to the 1% or should I say the .00000001%, making half a million dollar toys for the new dot com rich.
I don't know man, I think we need to rethink this digital thing.
IMO
BC
-
Lack of audio playback is a real pain. Hopefully, that will be addressed and enabled soon in a firmware upgrade. They have indicated that a clean HD signal is right around the corner ... so that will make the Pix owners very happy ... and probably make Epic/Scarlet a real Alexa killer at their respective price-points.
-
Lack of audio playback is a real pain. Hopefully, that will be addressed and enabled soon in a firmware upgrade. They have indicated that a clean HD signal is right around the corner ... so that will make the Pix owners very happy ... and probably make Epic/Scarlet a real Alexa killer at their respective price-points.
There is little I can write that RED probably doesn't know.
The Scarlet is good, a little buggy, great file and like most digital video cameras somewhat complicated.
What I would love to see is the audio playback addressed quickly and much, much improved autofocus.
I say autofocus because the way advertising has changed. We're now in a world that's not just a linear narrative piece, video or stills, we're in a multimedia world where especially in lifestyle advertising camera and subject movement changes the look of a video from a snore to something exciting.
If your shooting locked down and tracking someone walking towards the camera, almost anyone can reasonably pull focus. If you want to rush the camera at the subjects, spin around them, catch an expression over a shoulder then that requires a very good focus puller (which is going to make the rig heavier) or you need reliable autofocus.
Recently everything we've shot is started with the RED1's and/or Scarlet for safety and to establish the scene, but 75% of the time I grab the Sony FS100 and set it for autofocus and image stabilization and make the image interesting. I'm probably as use to walking backwards as I am walking forward.
Now the reason I bring this up is I guess the Epic and Red One have targeted to the Alexa, (I wonder how many dp's buy a Alexa vs. Rent). but the Scarlet seems to be a Canon and Sony competitor. If the Scarlet would have some of the features of the present and new to come 4k Sony, I'd not have to consider another camera.
I am positive that in 3 weeks when we get into the editing booth with the client, the imagery they will go wow about won't be the most refined, it will be the most exciting.
The issue with Sony isn't the camera, it's the lens offerings and none of us know how they plan to process our 4k raw. Those things RED thought out a long time ago and a RED rocket, regardless of price changes the game when it comes to workflow.
The issue with all the camera makers is do they take their mid range scarlets, Sony FSes, Canons and make them a competitor for their own higher priced cameras. Will Sony let the 4k FS loose and make it a huge sales success, or will they hobble it to protect F3 sales?
In the last 2 years I've learned volumes about these cameras, files, workflow, pre production, production, etc. etc. etc. and my personal preference of file look is the R1with the MX sensor. To me RED got it right after a lot of trial and error. I love the look of the R1.
Then again when the rubber meets the road and time is compressed, the little FS 100 has a lot of smart features. Playback is a snap, real dual XLR connectors and the ability to mix sound take setting up and security of shooting a much easier and stable task.
Bottom line is in 5 years we'll see what happens. I assume Adobe with lightroom will find a way to give real professional color grading without workarounds. To me that will be the real leveler . . . maybe.
IMO
BC
-
About the Arri Alexa,
It's true that Red compeats with Arri, and at the same time the products are slightly different.
I'd like to develop that point a little if I may because I think we often tend to compare the 2 cameras.
Here in the high-end avert, the camera mainly used is the Alexa, way before the Red cameras, and still a lot more than we imagine: film; but I'll talk stricktly about digital so the Alexa.
Each time I had the oportunity to ask, on a plateau or in private, why the Alexa and not the R1 or Epic ? the answer were not about film look (both have film look), or DR (both have wide DR) etc...
The main reasons the Alexa haunts the advert and cine-teevee crew is because the incredible simplicity and reliability of its workflow, both on set and in post, and the other main reason is because all experienced operators are "at home" as they are trained on Arri since they were sucking pacifier.
Very very rarely the Alexa is used in Arriraw config. It's very costly and everybody prefers the LogC - Prores workflow. The post prod of Arri files is really simple, simplier than Red and doesn't need so much power or redrocket. So, the Alexa is generally prefered for that reason and it produces superb flat files right-out-the-box, no transcode, no debayer but direct (done internaly in the Arri). In fact in any situation where also high volume of footage is requiered and delays are short the Alexa wins.
As an example, I can edit with my now 3 years old workstation, Alexa's files quite comfortably, no prob, while the latest Red 6K anouncement, no way. And right now I don't have the Redrocket so I use a workflow with the Avid that works for me but based on proxies or based on AMA, sometimes a DPX workflow too if I don't edit in Avid but all that need re-link or transcode at one point or another. More manipulation.
Red gives however, IMHO, 2 main advantages. One is the possibility to crop (or reframe, it sounds better); and of course the other advantage is the latitude and flexibility that Raw is giving, this point doesn't need more explainations for being so obvious. I think it has been demostrate many times here in this forum in any forms and colors.
HD format has no room to crop and solutions are costly. So if youy operate an Alexa in non-raw, you have very little flexibility on that aspect.
But if really short deadlines are required mixed with volume and high-quality R.O.T.B, the Alexa IMO still beats a Red system. Red on the other hand has the power and flexibility and price-friendly.
Both cameras produce beautifull footage and I think it's a question of priorities. They compeat, yes and no at the same time. I think both have found their niche-clients.
The photographer, by its training, nature, budgets and mentality will without doubt be much more inclined towards Red cameras. The Alexa will attract more the video-cine crew (Red does too) but I doubt many photographers will join the Arri club. You could eventually use an Epic for stills but not an Alexa.
The Red is more versatile, flexible, forgives much more mistakes, still photography friendly, and well priced.
I think that naturally, Red has a lot of potencial buyers within the photographic comunity (they are very aware of it) and the motion's of course; while Arri strictly targets motion crew.
The real Red competitors are going to be the Sony, Panas 4 or more Ks to come.
I also agree with James: it would be indeed highly desirable that we end to work within a sort of Lightroom or C1 for motion with advanced grading capabilities. It would also be great if we could end to have a standart RAW, although I doubt it will happen and I think that DNG in motion will end the same as DNG in still, a presumed standart that almost nobody applies.
It would also be very nice if all motion capable cameras would feature thruth xlr, as mentionned, phantom power would not be a luxury and if they could apply the rule of one-button-one-function I'd be eternally thankfull. Plus, sensors that would allow multiformat or at least the capability to project the cropping lines wich is generally not the case.
-
What I would love to see is the audio playback addressed quickly and much, much improved autofocus.
The new camera firmware released last week supposedly contains. " ... New Autofocus Algorithms ..."
I haven't tried it yet, primarily because I shoot mostly manual focus Zeiss lenses. My only Canon autofocus capable lens is my Tokina 11-16. I do have a bunch of Nikon zooms and it will be interesting to see how (or if) autofocus works with them when that mount is released.
-
Very very rarely the Alexa is used in Arriraw config. It's very costly and everybody prefers the LogC - Prores workflow.standart RAW,
I just dont get why people dont crave to shoot RAW at the higher end.
I think that most cinematographers are simply a decade behind us photographers in understanding the power of a raw file
As for cost - it would seem that on set costs could be reduced too !
IMO
S
-
I just dont get why people dont crave to shoot RAW at the higher end.
I think that most cinematographers are simply a decade behind us photographers in understanding the power of a raw file
As for cost - it would seem that on set costs could be reduced too !
IMO
S
Sam,
Believe it or not, RAW has little, if any advantage over Arri log for color grading. Both formats record the full range that the chip can image. When the white balance is set "close enough" in Arri log, color grading is quick and easy without having to fuss with the RAW converter.
There is also the issue of the color reproduction of the RedRAW. From my experience with red color and red color2, I have not been very happy. Perhaps red color 3 has fixed these issues, but it was not released in time for my last film. This is the main reason I hear from cinematographers for choosing Arri.
-
I think we're talking about different groups.
Probably most relevant to this forum is the still photographer that is looking to expand their repertoire by adding some motion, the still photographer that's making a larger shift towards motion imagery. They want more than a 5d3.
For them raw files make sense because that's a format they're use to. Most will shoot and hand off the footage, after usually processing out in prorezz.
For the traditional film maker, especially someone working on episodic television, the Alexa makes sense. It's a form factor their use to and for the producer they can go straight from camera to editing in proxies without any downtime in processing raw.
Both the RED and Alexa will require a finish out look in color grading, but for the cinematographer the Alexa has it's benefits. I just wonder how many dp's/ camera operators are going to buy vs. rent and Alexa.
You also have to keep in mind the Alexa is a 13 lb. body, which limits some usability and requires much heavier and larger support.
For the still photographer making the move to motion, especially if they are rent rather than buy type of person, the numbers for any RED make more sense, regardless of raw vs. prorezz output.
Personally I wish the RED would shoot a prorezz or raw file, depending on project.
What kind of surprises me is Arri seems to be ok with essentially a 2k system whether the standard alexa or a 4:3 system for anamorphic.
What doesn't surprise me is RED going to 6k. I don't think anyone is going to edit in 6k, but I believe RED is thinking 6k not only sounds better, but should (time will tell) produce a better still image.
Also RED has Canon and Sony hot on their heels selling 4k raw cameras.
Obviously RED will sell their cameras to anyone, same with Arri, but I would bet RED sees an opening in the market for a dsmc camera that works for still photographers as well as film makers and a lower price point/
Now I know there is going to be the scream that buying a motion camera does not make you a film maker, but keep in mind a lot of commercial work is not centered around narrative cinema, or episodic TV.
Commercial clients are asking for video to parallel their still productions and will continue to do so and shooting each still scene in motion does have value. I could point out hundreds of instances but that will go no where with the traditionalist in either still or motion.
IMO
BC
-
For the traditional film maker, especially someone working on episodic television, the Alexa makes sense. It's a form factor their use to and for the producer they can go straight from camera to editing in proxies without any downtime in processing raw.
Exactly
You also have to keep in mind the Alexa is a 13 lb. body, which limits some usability and requires much heavier and larger support.
Yes, the Arri is a camera made to be operated by crew that had the structure-mediums and were operating Arri's big brothers. For the photographer making shift to motion, to expand repertoire or for larger shift, the Alexa isn't really the natural choice IMO.
I don't think that Arri is interested on us, they have their niche market already very faithful, a little bit like Grass Valley targets a niche markewt based on TVs and not that much us for wich Adobe, FCP or Vegas are more likely to be the major players.
About those 6K, honestly, when CB lauched the thread, I wasn't really enthousiastic by this Dragon, a part from the visual marketing that I find a little infantile and the fanboyism involved but that's not important in the end. Not that I thought that 6K was a bad idea, but I couldn't help smelling some old MF remake, even if I know that Red isn't PhaseOne. The thing is that each time we entered into pixels-more-pixels, it was generally at the expense of usability without talking of the non-finished producted released on the market and the we'll-see -later-how-to-fix-it-if-people-complains politics. Then the pro service and availability of the device. There are some signs that Red has a MF's soul somewhere, but it doesn't mean they will make the same mistakes. Just that I can't help feeling this "mmm..."
I know, I shouldn't extrapolate and project "fears" that Red will be the MF of the motion world. Hope they'll know how to manage that or Canon will win again on the middle term.
The pixel race for the pixel race is not something I'd like to see one more time.
-
Fred,
I still think you've missed one point of 6k. If it works, if it's clean and sharp it should produce excellent stills, even in the 2:1 format.
I know traditionalists in stills will go oh my god, not a video grab, but I've seen "some" sessions where the video grabs are stunning, not so much in technical quality, but in look. There is just some things we miss in stills that 24 and 30 fps captures.
I do believe a time will come where motion frame grabs for stills will be as commonplace as anything we do in production.
Now how RED applies this will be what makes a difference, but for a small company they have come leaps and bounds.
I said it before, but they've pushed our industry like no single manufacturer.
IMO
BC
P.S. I might have mentioned this before, but at one of our largest still rental companies I was talking to the manager and he said he's renting very little flash equipment, but tons of continuous lighting.
Whatever that means . . . you can draw your own conclusion.
-
James,
I'm completly in alignement with all your lines. The 6K goodies included for still didn't escape to my radar.
I fully agree about the stills from frame grab, I saw some printed editos from Red and they are gorgeous.
It makes no doubt for me that all this "convergence" stuff (to use a shortcut) is occuring and will be the norm.
I also recognised the apportation and importance of Red within this industry. Truth that there is this cultism and all the BS involved but Red has brought
a revolution like any other player. I've applauded this many times and I think that the guys in Red have done and are doing fantastic job for us.
I just think that if they bring 6, 7 or whatever ks without messing with the rest, more than perfect. But then if they start to forget about their origins (R1), if they release beta products that would have need more dev, if they mess with proper connection, glossy screens, if we have to be in an endless waiting list, if...then, those resolution jumps...
In short, I applaude Red for what they've done past and present, I just wish they won't be the remake MF of motion.
But I have a strong respect for the brand and their products.
-
Fred,
I know you knew this, but thought I'd just bring it up. Yes I agree I don't want to see a pixel war and end up with 40mpx motion cameras.
And I do agree that RED's releases are usually a work in progress. They're a small company, but then again Sony is still sending our firmware updates also, so I think this is a lot of what we will always have with digital.
The R1 is now stable, but then again it's been around a while.
It's funny that it depends on who you talk to. I've heard things about all the 2k, 4k, 5k cameras good and bad, successful and disasters. Heard the same thing about still cameras also, but usually they were user errors, or not fully understanding the system.
These cameras are complicated, very complicated and I doubt if they'll get simpler.
IMO
BC
-
And difficult to access (delays) + cult...JJ is not silly.
It reminds me something.
When I was young in Paris, I used to go to a nightclub called "Le Palace". Well, at that time we were a bunch of crazy artists (or we liked to call ourselves artists but it was more decadent than any thing else),
and the place to go for work contacts and picking international sexy girls was "Le Palace". Don't know if it still exists.
There was the Gainsbourg, Lagarfeld crowd, all top models, famous painters, and not so famous like us. The success recipy was that it was difficult to enter. It became a cult, a place to go. I was living just next to the Chantal Thomass lingery boutique and I saw her in the Palace. But we, as non famous people, we never knew if we will access it and that feeded the cult factor.
One day I realised that it was harder to enter to "chez Régine", so it becames the goal. Then I ended to be a Regine's client and it was less fun. Once you're in, nothing special occurs. But that's the sensation to be in the center of the events, and to be somewhere not everybody can access to. Silly times but lot of fun indeed.
-
... Personally I wish the RED would shoot a prorezz or raw file, depending on project.
I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. It is really not in RED's DNA to offer those sort of codecs. However, in the next week or so Epic/Scarlet owners will be able to output a clean 1080p HD signal via SDI to a Pix, so essentially you will have that flexibility ... actually better .... a clean HD feed to your Pix for easy HD editing + simultaneous 4K master footage. How good is that?
... What doesn't surprise me is RED going to 6k. I don't think anyone is going to edit in 6k,
I doubt anyone will be editing in 6K soon. There are no 6K monitors or projectors (yet). Just like when the RED1 was introduced, no one was editing in 4K and there certainly were no 4K monitors or projectors. However, that is rapidly changing. Numerous 4K consumer panels and displays were shown in January at CES. At the RED / Light Iron Digital party at NAB there were 8 to 10 4K professional panels / monitors / displays set-up to screen the entries in the 4K Portrait Competition (all the footage had to be in 4K). I would hazard a guess that very few of you have actually seen 4K footage displayed on a 4K panel / monitor / display. I can tell you it looks AMAZING! How much "better" 6K might look is actually hard to imagine. 6K would certainly give you more framing options in post.
... but I believe RED is thinking 6k not only sounds better, but should (time will tell) produce a better still image.
... I still think you've missed one point of 6k. If it works, if it's clean and sharp it should produce excellent stills, even in the 2:1 format.
I know traditionalists in stills will go oh my god, not a video grab, but I've seen "some" sessions where the video grabs are stunning, not so much in technical quality, but in look. There is just some things we miss in stills that 24 and 30 fps captures.
I do believe a time will come where motion frame grabs for stills will be as commonplace as anything we do in production.
That time is rapidly approaching. There was a reason why RED took out an (expensive) 8 page fold-out ad in the April issue of "Vogue" magazine to show the stills capabilities of their DSMC cameras. Unfortunately, it seems that the "Digital Still" aspect of the DSMC concept has taken somewhat of a back-seat to the "Motion" aspects of the cameras in the development cycle. Hopefully, that will change soon as well. I can tell you that I have already printed 48" x 24" canvas giclees from 5K Epic frame-grabs (literally one frame from a 24fps motion sequence) that were "developed" in RCX PRO using the new RG3 and RC3 color science and Jim's "favorite recipe" from RCX PRO. The results were breathtaking. (One of those canvases is actually hanging on the wall in Jarred's office.) How much better would 6K be? I really don't know, but I can tell you that 5K looks very, very good. Certainly gallery quality and certainly good enough for the covers of slick fashion magazines like Vogue.
-
That time is rapidly approaching.
I think it's there.
I can tell you that 5K looks very, very good. Certainly gallery quality and certainly good enough for the covers of slick fashion magazines like Vogue.
Correct. I've seen it too. Printed output is stunning considering the "low" res for still and perfectly valid for covers. At least for fashion editos.