With Red 8K Raw, movie recording surpasses most still cameras

[eronald]

Hi everyone,

if you shoot with a motion camera like that you can do video and stills at the same time. You use "high frame rate", ~120 fps, with short exposure time. In post you can introduce the amount motion blur you want to the video, even locally, by combining the motion information from different frames. These things are still a bit experimental, but it is just computer science.

Thit is the new way: keep all decisions open to the very end. But art is a continuous stream of decisions. So these techniques will produce images bigger than live, but not art. But that is just like my opinion man (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/opinionated.gif).

Best,
Johannes

Who was it said photography was a technical process and could never be art like painting?

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

Who was it said photography was a technical process and could never be art like painting?

Certainly not the person you quoted since he, as I understand it, is saying that the utter "technicality" of screen grab (including the non a priori decision of timing and framing at the time of capture I assume) makes it non art.

If you had a device able to capture every aspect of the world in real time and would enable you to replay at will in slow motion from any angle in order to select a posteriori a "picture", would you still consider the initial perfect capture as being of photographic nature?

I for sure wouldn't because the essence of photography is choice.

Capturing screen grabs from a video stream is in essence akin to that, still at a much smaller scale of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

[bcooter]

You guys get more off topic than I can, which I do a lot.

I don't know about non commerce, but for commerce every client alive would love to have cinema quality footage and high end stills they could select.

We've tried it, we've done it but with our older RED's 4k and 5k, they shoot a very different still image than were use to the still photography world.

I would equate it to an older Canon or Nikon . . . much older.

Just like all electronic imaging, if your shooting faces, eyes, etc. (like Mark's reel does to show detail), even 6mp can look good and sharp with a dedicated still camera.  It's when you pull back that it gets more difficult with motion cameras.

For one you're normally shooting a medium size to large motion camera horizontal and the frame from uhd to 2 to 1 is very skinny.

This is from an older project and selected only because I like the pose more than the still camera selections.



But it's full length, not that sharp in real life and takes a lot of post.

That doesn't mean the REDs don't shoot a nice file, they have a lot of depth, high bit rate, but even a small shutter angles and/or higher frame rates, the file is never as sharp as a still camera, even at the same shutter speed.*

Now the 8k Helium sensor may solve that, I don't know, but I've been told the main reason for 8k is to kill artifacts in vfx post production.

What I was impressed with on Mark's reel was how well the Helium let bright backlight roll off without clipping.  More film like, less digital, because with my RED's shooting into the sun on a backlit subject is very tricky and you have to be precise.

*What's interesting is the little Sony a7sII at 4k shoots a very sharp file from a still grab.   They thing about grabbing stills from motion is, 1 out of 3 to 5 is blurred, even at higher frame rates and shutter angle.  It's not a camera I'm wild about as I find grading footage difficult, due to low bit rate and 8 bit depth, but it's kind of interesting and when it works it works well.

Today, I don't think there is a less than $40,000 camera you can expect to get quality footage and quality stills.    Someday maybe, but we do a lot of parallel productions and essentially shoot it twice.

Though for commerce it really has become a multi media world.

IMO

BC

P.S.   In ways the Canon 1dxII is mirror and mirrorless.  They're are hard ways to shoot without the mirror and easy ways.  If you set it up right just clip on one of those loupes over the lcd and your good to go . . . for motion footage.   If you shooting stills, it's still much better to use the optical finder.

[eronald]

J,

Maybe the reason there is no really good hybrid is that *no one had a reason to make it*. After all, big budget movies were big budget movies, and only big budget got the big cameras, and they didn't care about stills. If more guys like you need both, it may become a priority "feature" at some point. Although there is no obvious way around the skinny horizontal issue, I'd expect one would still get a really good double-spread from an 8K frame.

My cheap Panasonic $1K GH4 does surprisingly good frames from video. In fact they are much better than any still shot I have been able to make with that camera. As you say, however, the quality still takes one back about 10 years in time, but also there is somehow a different "look" to these images, I think because focus is not so precisely chosen so one get some useful accidents. Also with video the framing one chooses is more generous as the subject is expected to move, and that too changes what one ultimately finds in any one extracted image frame.

I think the trick with the new Canon 1Dx2 might be to mount a third-party EVF viewfinder on it. I was *very* surprised that this was not a launch hotshoe option like on some compacts eg. Leica. After all, once the movie button gets pressed, goodbye mirror, goodbye eyepiece, goodbye SLR view, and hello to trying to hold a heavy rig at arm's length in order to peek at the rear screen.

Edmund

You guys get more off topic than I can, which I do a lot.

I don't know about non commerce, but for commerce every client alive would love to have cinema quality footage and high end stills they could select.

We've tried it, we've done it but with our older RED's 4k and 5k, they shoot a very different still image than were use to the still photography world.

I would equate it to an older Canon or Nikon . . . much older.

Just like all electronic imaging, if your shooting faces, eyes, etc. (like Mark's reel does to show detail), even 6mp can look good and sharp with a dedicated still camera.  It's when you pull back that it gets more difficult with motion cameras.

For one you're normally shooting a medium size to large motion camera horizontal and the frame from uhd to 2 to 1 is very skinny.

This is from an older project and selected only because I like the pose more than the still camera selections.



But it's full length, not that sharp in real life and takes a lot of post.

That doesn't mean the REDs don't shoot a nice file, they have a lot of depth, high bit rate, but even a small shutter angles and/or higher frame rates, the file is never as sharp as a still camera, even at the same shutter speed.*

Now the 8k Helium sensor may solve that, I don't know, but I've been told the main reason for 8k is to kill artifacts in vfx post production.

What I was impressed with on Mark's reel was how well the Helium let bright backlight roll off without clipping.  More film like, less digital, because with my RED's shooting into the sun on a backlit subject is very tricky and you have to be precise.

*What's interesting is the little Sony a7sII at 4k shoots a very sharp file from a still grab.   They thing about grabbing stills from motion is, 1 out of 3 to 5 is blurred, even at higher frame rates and shutter angle.  It's not a camera I'm wild about as I find grading footage difficult, due to low bit rate and 8 bit depth, but it's kind of interesting and when it works it works well.

Today, I don't think there is a less than $40,000 camera you can expect to get quality footage and quality stills.    Someday maybe, but we do a lot of parallel productions and essentially shoot it twice.

Though for commerce it really has become a multi media world.

IMO

BC

P.S.   In ways the Canon 1dxII is mirror and mirrorless.  They're are hard ways to shoot without the mirror and easy ways.  If you set it up right just clip on one of those loupes over the lcd and your good to go . . . for motion footage.   If you shooting stills, it's still much better to use the optical finder.

[eronald]

Marcel Duchamp. Art. Yes. This discussion is getting interesting, and I guess is permanently off topic I liked those pictures you linked to. May I too contribute the apposite sculptural entertainment  link? Entirely in line with modern anti-fat-shaming model guidelines, nevertheless suspect from the feministic POV?

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/wwi-dada/dada1/v/marcel-duchamp-fountain-1917



Edmund

Hi,

it starts to get weird. I quote myself. The decision thing is meant in the sense of Marcel Duchamp (and Joseph Beuys and - in a way - Friedrich Hölderlin). In short: The "fine" artist decides which subject he/she is working on, he decides which art form (music, photography, painting, ...), he decides which technique (b&w/color or rock/blues) and so on. The artworker (called artist in the professional world) is given a task: photograph the model in b&w, ask Rob from this forum about these days. But today they say photograph the model in b&w, perhaps we want color too and we might want motion and 360 degree and it would be nice if we could show it in 3D on the oculus rift. You get my point? In my opinion the artist focuses more and more. The artworker should try as good as he can to do the same (Helmut Newton, Paolo Roversi or Dietmar Heneka come to mind). The "artworker" of today should keep everything possible till the end. So in my opinion professional photography goes away from art and art-working, because other people decide what to do.

You find yourself with this rig on set: http://www.roadtovr.com/nextvr-stereoscopic-360-degree-vr-cam-uses-180000-worth-of-red-6k-cameras/

Don't loose your humour. Times are tough but it is a wonderful world.

So back to the original question. These cameras are made, that the camera operator captures everything and the senior executive vice manager of junk and garbage can decide in the end what will be done with the footage.

Only the best,
Johannes

p.s.: To be even more off-topic: This is advertising I find wonderful, because I have a good laugh when I see it: http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6199/killsbugsfast.jpg Here I ask myself which idiot parked that car? http://files2.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_2110/21106605/file/audi-a6-allroad-quattro-wing-600-78365.jpg
But this is a whole different story.

[Alan Klein]

What do you do with 8K movies?  How do you process all that data?

[pluton]

Last I checked, "raw" at Red means 3:1 compression.  That very lossy for raw.  A max quality Adobe ACR-generated JPEG has 4:1 compression.  Just something to consider before drinking the 'Red Koolaid'.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bart,

The lens thing is probably quite true, but we are also seeing a lot of good lenses. Canon redesigns a lot of lenses, probably to match higher resolution. Carl Zeiss has some new designs for the Sony FE mount and they have redesigned some of the Milvus lenses, like the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4.

The Sigma Art series also offer some excellent designs.

The major problem seems to be axial chroma, it seem that it takes a lot of design effort using AD-glass to get rid of that magenta green fringing in OoF areas.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Edmund,

…

"He also claims that lenses, and not the camera, are having a bigger effect on the final image than other factors."

Cheers,
Bart

[eronald]

Hi Edmund,

don't listen to the art historians. Listen to the master himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gNqeNNPkOs

Best,
Johannes

Hi Johannes,

 I remember flying over the pond to let her do some shopping and get an urban vacation, and waiting for her, standing in the Whitney next to a table parked on a dais on the side of the room between some colored partitions, a tour group came along, the guide said "This table stood in the death row cell of Mr X for 10 years". And then in response to a question "no it's not the same table, just that model", and then "no the artist said he was an artist, not a decorator, so someone was brought in to set up and paint  the partitions for the exhibit in appropriate colors". And  I looked around at this table, the guide, the group and the Whitney, its building, its staff and realized this "artist" perfectly understood that a modern museum needs "explainable" pieces as an alibi for keeping a basically superfluous institution alive and stocked with nice people with art history degrees, this artist is a world-class prankster.

In the tradition of Duchamp.

Edmund

[Rob C]

Hi Johannes,

 I remember flying over the pond to let her do some shopping and get an urban vacation, and waiting for her, standing in the Whitney next to a table parked on a dais on the side of the room between some colored partitions, a tour group came along, the guide said "This table stood in the death row cell of Mr X for 10 years". And then in response to a question "no it's not the same table, just that model", and then "no the artist said he was an artist, not a decorator, so someone was brought in to set up and paint  the partitions for the exhibit in appropriate colors". And  I looked around at this table, the guide, the group and the Whitney, its building, its staff and realized this "artist" perfectly understood that a modern museum needs "explainable" pieces as an alibi for keeping a basically superfluous institution alive and stocked with nice people with art history degrees, this artist is a world-class prankster.

In the tradition of Duchamp.

Edmund

What I think you have done here, is paraphrase what I take to be the inner thinking of Jeanloup Sieff, as exposed to us all in his last book from Taschen. He had very little respect for the art guru mafia despite having had innumerable exhibitions of his own across the galleries.

Perhaps it's because of the vacuity of much that now passes as modern, in the sense of contemporary, art that it has such a sad name today, at least outwith the sacred hallways. FWIW I'm sure the urinal was simply intended as a two-finger salute (or possibly a single-fingered one) to those same establishments. I don't believe that artists have no sense of humour.

[eronald]

Hi Johannes -

 It's a discussion, not a performance - I'm astonished at your links, especially leMonde.  PM me for coffee, when you're around, it'll give me an excuse to get out of the house.

 Rob, I think the surrealists had plenty of humor and plenty of fun, but they are now taken so seriously ...the angle at which the finger is held is very important as every critic will tell you.

  BTW, as you're a famous photographer, want to swap prints? I have a really nice collection of "tech tests". I basically throw away everything I photograph these days, but sometimes one of the files doesn't get erased from my disk. An hour or two retouching every week or so keeps me in practice, but I think I haven't used my printer for several years now.

  Here is a tech test of my GH4, some stills from a video clip. Retouched ...

Edmund

[Rob C]

Strange, isn't it? Women are still the best creatures/things to photograph, yet men are always so boring!

Rob

[eronald]

Strange, isn't it? Women are still the best creatures/things to photograph, yet men are always so boring!

Rob

I'm thinking of doing some pictures with this dancer. On reflection I quite like her images now, although in person I didn't feel much appeal. I also think I should have another go at retouching the image and maybe do a print.

Edmund

[Rob C]

I'm thinking of doing some pictures with this dancer. On reflection I quite like her images now, although in person I didn't feel much appeal. I also think I should have another go at retouching the image and maybe do a print.

Edmund

If I were you, then I think I'd want to take some new pictures. Not because of the ones you have, but because of those you might yet get.

My printing stopped with the death of the HP inks for the HP B9180, but even then, I'd already stopped regular printing for a few months... To tell you the truth, I think I have actually gone through a sort of stage where the Internet is what I see as the new wall. My space is limited and I don't want to change pix becuse of newer ones. The new doesn't devalue the old familiar, which is also how I have come to feel about digital cameras. I say digital, because after the F and the 500C, everything else was pretty much just back-up and replacement for worn out, so I had long lost the desire to swap years before I stopped working. The only late changes I made turned out to be mistakes - going from 6x6 to 6x7, which was driven by another mistake: believing stock agencies.

I have the boxes of Hahne. prints. I never look at them. They are leff for posterity and the family to do with as they please when my voice falls silent.

Wish I lived in Paris. Or Rome, even better!

Rob

[Telecaster]

What do you do with 8K movies?  How do you process all that data?

Hopefully you make really good looking 4K from it.

Having owned a 4K TV for the past 9 months or so, I have yet to see much good looking 4K video. Lots of odd CG-looking (though not CG) stuff, though. OTOH properly made, clean 1080p looks great.

-Dave-

[eronald]

Rob,

 Yes, I think I'll give her a call, and see how much I like working with her.
  I wish I saw some sun occasionally. Maybe we should swap lives

Dave

 I don't know about 8K, but HDR really is a stop forward, and I believe is here to stay. It looks like a 4K HDR TV could even display photo stills acceptably.

Edmund

 

If I were you, then I think I'd want to take some new pictures. Not because of the ones you have, but because of those you might yet get.

My printing stopped with the death of the HP inks for the HP B9180, but even then, I'd already stopped regular printing for a few months... To tell you the truth, I think I have actually gone through a sort of stage where the Internet is what I see as the new wall. My space is limited and I don't want to change pix becuse of newer ones. The new doesn't devalue the old familiar, which is also how I have come to feel about digital cameras. I say digital, because after the F and the 500C, everything else was pretty much just back-up and replacement for worn out, so I had long lost the desire to swap years before I stopped working. The only late changes I made turned out to be mistakes - going from 6x6 to 6x7, which was driven by another mistake: believing stock agencies.

I have the boxes of Hahne. prints. I never look at them. They are leff for posterity and the family to do with as they please when my voice falls silent.

Wish I lived in Paris. Or Rome, even better!

Rob

[Telecaster]

It looks like a 4K HDR TV could even display photo stills acceptably.

Yep. My TV is now my main "printer." For vertical photos I like displaying in groups of two or three, and have been taking verticals with this in mind too.

-Dave-

[eronald]

Yep. My TV is now my main "printer." For vertical photos I like displaying in groups of two or three, and have been taking verticals with this in mind too.

-Dave-

Maybe one could have rentable "galleries" with wall to wall TVs

Edmund

[ppmax2]

It's surprising that one of the points earlier didn't draw more debate: the notion that two equally beautiful images are somehow different if one is a captured as single frame, rather than extracted from a stream of frames (video). I think this is hogwash. The logical implication is that beautiful cinematography is somehow less valuable, less interesting, less beautiful than still photography. It's hogwash because beautiful imagery is about color, about composition, about suggestion, about capturing light and shadows in a pleasing and intellectually stimulating manner.

Well made films and videos are full of such examples.

Of course, the other logical extreme would be the contention that a picture from a pinhole camera is somehow better than a picture from a modern camera.

This is not to say that the "difficulty" of achieving a beautiful shot isn't relevant or valuable. But it doesn't make an image intrinsically better than a less difficult acquisition.

[Telecaster]

It's surprising that one of the points earlier didn't draw more debate: the notion that two equally beautiful images are somehow different if one is a captured as single frame, rather than extracted from a stream of frames (video). I think this is hogwash.

I agree when considering the images strictly as images, as when viewing someone's work with no knowledge of how it came to be. In this case the processes or techniques used to capture/create the still images don't matter. For some folks, though, the process is as important or even more so than the final image.

My modern cameras all have a continuous exposure mode. Press & hold the shutter button and let the frames accumulate. I never use it. This is just personal preference…I'd rather go for "the shot" and either get it or not. My friend Bruce, OTOH, lets 'er rip and then picks his favs later. It's all good.

-Dave-