RED Files and Nikon, 1600 iso

[bcooter]

We are in the process of testing still and cinema lenses on the RED, so I thought people might like to see a RED file as a still compared to a Nikon D700 still file at 1600 iso.

Some sharpening in photoshop, but no sharpening at the processing level.

Not meant to make any kind of statement, (especailly since we are still learning the RED software) but since we had it.

(7mb jpeg)

file here



BC

[paul_jones]

We are in the process of testing still and cinema lenses on the RED, so I thought people might like to see a RED file as a still compared to a Nikon D700 still file at 1600 iso.

Some sharpening in photoshop, but no sharpening at the processing level.

Not meant to make any kind of statement, (especailly since we are still learning the RED software) but since we had it.

(7mb jpeg)

file here



BC

the red looks very good.

what megapixel is the epic going to be?

cheers paul

[bcooter]

the red looks very good.

what megapixel is the epic going to be?

cheers paul

Red doesn't give out a lot of information and what they do is very confusing.

The Red One, with the mysterium X sensor is a 4k file or around 14 megapixels.

The Epic with the same sensor will go to 4.5k, or so I'm told.

The Epic is not really out yet.  There are sightings, people say around April depending on when you signed up, if you owned a RED before, when you purchased your RED, when you signed up, what stage you are,  if you put a cloverleaf in one shoe, a pigeon feather from Tibet in the other.

IMO

BC

[Graham Mitchell]

Not sure I understand what's going on here. The Red shot was at f2 and 1/125. Nikon was at 1/160 and f3.5. Both at 1/1600. That's about 2 stops more light to the Red, or was there a mistake in the EXIF? Nikon shot looks out of focus too.

[bcooter]

Not sure I understand what's going on here. The Red shot was at f2 and 1/125. Nikon was at 1/160 and f3.5. Both at 1/1600. That's about 2 stops more light to the Red, or was there a mistake in the EXIF? Nikon shot looks out of focus too.

I wouldn't go by any exif, because this document was pasted together and it could be from some other image my first assistant started with.   The RED doesn't read exif date for a still capture like a still camera does, though I don't find a lot of exif date reliable anyway.  I know my Conax with Phase backs, the data changes depending on the processor.

We were doing cine vs. still lens test, and checking noise, processing, etc. all for internal use.  

My first used the Nikon camera to give us a reference point we were familiar with.

The RED is a different learning curve in so many ways. It's like staring over and it kind of excites me.

Anyway, Graham it's not to prove anything.

I really wanted to see under high iso if I could use some of the motion files for a still as more often than not somebody is going to ask if that frame can be used for web or print, or in effects work if we can freeze it with some detail.

Just thought I'd share.

BC

[eronald]

I really wanted to see under high iso if I could use some of the motion files for a still as more often than not somebody is going to ask if that frame can be used for web or print, or in effects work if we can freeze it with some detail.

Just thought I'd share.

BC

James,

Very interesting - thanx for posting. As you say, it's going to be interesting to see whether frames can compete with still cameras, especially for fashion (grab that fleeting expression).

Edmund

[bcooter]

James,

Very interesting - thanx for posting. As you say, it's going to be interesting to see whether frames can compete with still cameras, especially for fashion (grab that fleeting expression).

Edmund

We have been wrestling with this for some time.  How to shoot motion and stills for the same project and it's difficult, because if you set for a defining still image your goal is to tell the story in one frame.

To turn that into motion usually results in a somewhat disappointing clip.  I mean what do you tell the talent.  Walk away, smile, jump, uh turn over on your stomach?

What we've found so far is when we shoot both, we set for the motion with some kind of story, even a simple story and then scrub through the motion to see what really would work as a still.

Quickly reset the scene and shoot the still on a dedicated still camera. 

It's much easier for me to start with motion and then do the still image, rather than the other way around.

Now knowing this and knowing clients, someone is going to say, "we just love the motion frame where she is  . . . and somehow we're going to have to make then into a usable still. 

It's too early for me to be sure if that's possible or not with the RED.  With enough post work, it will work, but from what I can tell it's not exactly up to a still cameras quality . . . yet.

I can say that focus on the RED is very critical.  You don't notice it when it's moving, but as a still, just 2% off makes a huge difference and it's not a camera that is made for snap easy focus, but once again you never notice it when it's moving.  It all looks sharp in motion.

Though maybe focus is over rated.  Last night at the theatre, I was looking at all the movie posters for the large December releases.   If you stick your nose on each one, none are in focus, or you see things like drawn in eyelashes.  It's hard to tell as there is so much post work and added grain, added effects.

IMO

BC

[fredjeang]

Thanks for sharing the image.

I'm completly confused with Red. (in fact I've been confused since their Epic anouncement) If I understand well, the expected Epic will have about the equivalent of 16MP then ?

Anyway, when I look at the 1600 RED, I'm very impressed in one side but also the color noise is more intrusive than Nikon but it's not to blame considering the product. It does not have AAAAAAA filter, doesn't it?

At lower isos, would you consider the stills commercially acceptable? In other words, can you say that Red is possibly a Video and a trully usable still camera (apart of the focussing critical issue).
The thing is amazing, if we could extract stills directly from the video frames...I know it does not sounds very purist but to me it is exciting indeed. It could completly change the nature of photography that will be diluted in a more muddy water. Stills? Motion? all that could merge at one point or another into a unique lenguage. Exciting!!!!

[Chris_Brown]

The Epic is not really out yet.

Apparently, Peter Jackson bought the first batch of 30. "Handmade", no less. heh.

[ChristopherBarrett]

The Handmade units (Epic-M) are going for a paltry 58k, available to current Red owners.  Even at that money, people are all over them.

It was actually a lot of fun watching that develop on the forum.  Somebody was like "Hey, if the production line's not gonna be up for a while I bet people would eat up a run of machined Epics.  Jannard was like, "Heh, yeah we could do that..." and within a day he announced that they were indeed going to produce a small run of handmade units.

One thing I really love about owning my own company is being able to do whatever the hell I want (within my means).  You gotta admire Red's spirit.

cb

[ChristopherBarrett]

Cooter,

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the glass.  I'm totally waffling on lenses.  On one hand I'm rather enticed by the Schneider Cine-Xenars with their 18 blade iris and on the other hand I wanna get an epic and go with Canon lenses.  I've been in situations with the Red where I really missed a shift lens and the idea of putting my 17 TS-E on the epic....hmm... yeah.

As for snaggin stills from footage, it's definitely softer, but it's a different approach.  I typically don't want anywhere near the depth of field I get in my stills with the video, so I'm shooting around f/4.  Also, I've usually got the camera in motion (since architecture doesn't move) and that softens things a bit.  I did recently return to a project I shot stills on earlier in the year and the DR and Color fidelity of the Red was good as my P65+ stuff.  Really promising.

Over the last month the one thing I've learned is that I have SO much more to learn... and as you said, that's damn exciting.

CB

[eronald]

J,

I have noticed this when I go to the movies (the big screen ones), it does all look sharp in motion. Some sort of weird psychophysics, I know people have tried to extract supersharp stills from movies by image processing.

Edmund

We have been wrestling with this for some time.  How to shoot motion and stills for the same project and it's difficult, because if you set for a defining still image your goal is to tell the story in one frame.

To turn that into motion usually results in a somewhat disappointing clip.  I mean what do you tell the talent.  Walk away, smile, jump, uh turn over on your stomach?

What we've found so far is when we shoot both, we set for the motion with some kind of story, even a simple story and then scrub through the motion to see what really would work as a still.

Quickly reset the scene and shoot the still on a dedicated still camera. 

It's much easier for me to start with motion and then do the still image, rather than the other way around.

Now knowing this and knowing clients, someone is going to say, "we just love the motion frame where she is  . . . and somehow we're going to have to make then into a usable still. 

It's too early for me to be sure if that's possible or not with the RED.  With enough post work, it will work, but from what I can tell it's not exactly up to a still cameras quality . . . yet.

I can say that focus on the RED is very critical.  You don't notice it when it's moving, but as a still, just 2% off makes a huge difference and it's not a camera that is made for snap easy focus, but once again you never notice it when it's moving.  It all looks sharp in motion.

Though maybe focus is over rated.  Last night at the theatre, I was looking at all the movie posters for the large December releases.   If you stick your nose on each one, none are in focus, or you see things like drawn in eyelashes.  It's hard to tell as there is so much post work and added grain, added effects.

IMO

BC

[Rob C]

Well, I certainly know next to nothing about movie cameras: the only time I used one it was a hired 16mm Bolex. A friend worked in an industrial unit where they also had one, and when I'd picked up the rental unit he asked if they'd supplied a filter. I said no, I hadn't asked for one. He suggested I check the gap that's to be found in the thing where it is essential to use a filter holder, at least, to keep it all light-tight. Thank God for friends - I borrowed one from his company! The thing was to supplement a travel brochure - it meant sitting in the jump seat to get the landing at Ibiza and shooting the brochure model coming down the steps from the 'plane and also walking around the passenger compartment. I never saw the pics from it: the company just wanted the film.

But the point here regarding stills from motion must be relevant whether one knows much about movies or not; two points, in fact: first, if the shutter's working at around a 25th of a sec or thereabouts, how can it be sharp, ever; if the model looks great during a moving sequence, how on Earth can you be sure she wasn't blinking or otherwise with an unfortunate momentary expression, at the moment when, watching the film, you might think she looks fantastic? It's presumably only when the frame is inspected, frame by frame, that you might find no moments during that peak are actually useable. This hardly happens with a proper stills shoot. Or at least, I'd hope not -you normally spot when you've caught a half-closed eye...

Of course, maybe there is no 1/25 sec. restriction today - I wouldn't know, as I said.

Regardless, I see a one-camera-does-all solution as always going to be very expensive and with a totally closed pro market. At last, just like the movie industry!

Rob C

[bcooter]

 I'm totally waffling on lenses.  .......snip........
Over the last month the one thing I've learned is that I have SO much more to learn... and as you said, that's damn exciting.

CB

In my brief testing, I believe lenses are dependent on what you shoot, or the style each project requires.

For hand holding, (uh I should say two hand holding) I'd probably rather use still lenses as cine lenses take about a full turn to cover any amount of focus change, still lenses 1/4 of that.

For on the sticks with a focus puller, obviously I'd go with cine lenses as they have a longer rotation and track smoother.

I've tested the Zeiss compact primes, my set of Nikon manual lenses and next week we look at RED lenses and the Zeiss nikon still lenses.  

But take all of this with a grain of salt because I haven't shot anything of importance with the camera yet and until then my opinion is not really valid.

I'll know more by mid Jan. as we have two shoots planned, one in LA, one in Paris.

I bought this camera to up my game in motion, or better put force me to up my game.  I'm excited, but I know that once you start writing those checks, you can write a lot of them.

_______________________________________________________________

Can it be used as a stills camera?  Yea sure anything can, but I don't think it will replace a dedicated still camera, though some frames might be usable.  Once again I'll know more soon.

Will motion imagery marginalize still imagery?  That's really the heart of the matter.

_______________________________________________________________

The Peter Jackson RED relationship is kind of strange.  I always read they're close, but other than that short wwI piece Peter Jackson shot, as far as I know he's never shot anything of importance with the RED.

The Hobbit may use 30 cameras, but it's schedule as a special effects 3d release so since all of that is done in post, I'd think the capture device is a small part of the picture (no pun intended).

Expert post can make do with a lot of formats, including stills.

(go to this link and under making of, hit the second thumbnail for porsche family tree.-

http://www.asylumfx.com/index/strip/commercials/making#

Also he may use 30 Epics, but nobody said he bought 30 epics at list price.  Buying and using are way different.

(I may be wrong on this as I don't really follow the RED forum. )

IMO

BC

[eronald]

I went to a marketing presentation of video with 5DII from Canon in Paris, at the Adobe office, at the same venue they were also talking about software post with Adobe products. It was interesting because, although the presentation had next to no content, the IQ in the room was substantially higher than that which you find in still photo presentations, questions were much more savvy but never unpleasant.

My impression is that the video guys have much higher budgets than the still photographers, and this means that corporate video guys are smarter, because organisations who pay them are placing them at a higher pay grade. They also seem to be less individualistic than their still photography counterparts, they listen better and play together better.

This may be an issue for some of you pros here - clients may expect their video providers to be able to sit up and beg properly

Edmund

[Morgan_Moore]

Cooter

I just posted for more info please in the other place (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49332.0)

ive done the same thing to create a shoot

map out little scenes - sequences, film them and then set some stills up of the same thing..

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=47

On motion from stills it seems there are options, none good

1) shoot high shutter - then you just get a stills camera with a big motor drive

and stuttery footage you may be able to blur in post

2) shoot filmic shutter - 1/48 and hope to get some stills

3) shoot high FPS 48fps, shoot at 125th for a chance at a sharp still and merge the frames to create 24p video

----

What I have been playing with is Nikon D3 and 7d on one tripod, then you get filmic motion and frozen stills with less than $5g of kit

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=46

Can you embed vid on LuLa yet ?

S

[bcooter]

I went to a marketing presentation of video with 5DII from Canon in Paris, at the Adobe office, at the same venue they were also talking about software post with Adobe products. It was interesting because, although the presentation had next to no content, the IQ in the room was substantially higher than that which you find in still photo presentations, questions were much more savvy but never unpleasant.

My impression is that the video guys have much higher budgets than the still photographers, and this means that corporate video guys are smarter, because organisations who pay them are placing them at a higher pay grade. They also seem to be less individualistic than their still photography counterparts, they listen better and play together better.

This may be an issue for some of you pros here - clients may expect their video providers to be able to sit up and beg properly

Edmund

ummm, maybe.  There is not much difference, though I take exception to the phrase beg.  If you beg in this biz, you don't get very far.  You gotta please, you gotta deliver, but begging, no.

I work in LA with camera operators that will work as swings, directors, gaffers and kind of do whatever the job entails.  Obviously if they're the director, they have more pull, if not they just do the job.

I've shot ads in Barcelona and split time with the film crew, where the DP was an academy award winning director and trust me, the dp knew a lot more than his boss, and he did the job, though he didn't do it quietly and he ran his own show.

We even helped each other out on ideas and technique, but still there was that feeling in the room that he stayed out of my s*%t, I stayed out of his.  We both had a job to do and we both were going to do it.

The film industry has always been a "little" more open in their secrets as the crews are large and lend to more collaberation, but on the day, if the director is good, the director is god.

Don't think the motion image industry doesn't think the still guys have it better, the still guys are positive film directors graze in a better field.  It just depends on the gig, the client, the budget and how much leverage you have on the moment.

Also a director or dp is not going to give up his whole bag of tricks, regardless of the client.  Just like in stills you don't work for years and just turn over your electronic rolodex because a client asks.

When you work in commerce somedays the goat eats you, ohter days you eat the goat.

It really doesn't matter if the camera shoots 1fps or 24.

IMO

BC

[ChristopherBarrett]

@Coot,

If you like the Zeiss glass but prefer the form and function of still lenses, go with the ZF's.  The CP.2's are the same optics, you're paying 4 times the money for the Cine housing and the Still glass is a little faster.

I've spoken to people who've tested the CP.2s and they prefer the Red Primes.  I got the All-Star mount with PL adapter and can use my ZF lenses and my Red 17-50 with no mount change.  All-Star also makes lens adapters for Contax/Yashica (sorry 35 not 645) and Leica R glass.  There are a couple adapters for using Canoin glass on the R1 but they both void your warranty and close any upgrade paths due to how much of the lens mount you  have to disassemble.

Writing checks, no shit man... I want the lightest tripod I'd trust the R1 on and that's 8k for O'Connor head and sticks.  Damn.

One thing I've learned recently... unfortunately... I really prefer strobe to HMI.

Cheers,
CB

[Morgan_Moore]

Worth a thought

now Im not fully up to speed on Red developments but

is not the Epic AF

and therefore some new lenses

this could mean some price fluctuations on MF red lenses  next year

which way I dont know !

Worth bearing in mind befroe dropping $50k

[ChristopherBarrett]

The Epic will have AF capability, including Canon/Nikon integration and touchscreen focusing.  I'm more of a manual focus kind of guy, so the PL Primes are still a decent investment and the Canon lenses I'll use are T/S so no AF there.

There are plenty of Red shooters who love working with Nikon and Leica-R glass too!  So many lens possibilities