Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red as of 2007  (Read 183820 times)
Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2008, 07:04:23 PM »
ReplyReply

3000? God, you gotta love those boys in your marketing department. :-)
I would've expected 5000-10000.





Quote
Cost, around $3000. It's a fixed zoom lens, 2/3" sensor, 3k resolution.

Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 18, 2008, 05:15:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We are now within inches of where moving digital capture (anything but the term video) is not going to be a afterthought or added on to a still shoot, it will be the standard procedure of a still shoot.

Still sets resemble mini movie sets, with gaffers, monitors, multiple lighting solutions and instant review of what was shot.

The reason I said talk to clients and publishers instead of ad agencies is a lot of agencies still seem to be in the traditional mindset where a still photographer only shoots stills and a film director only directs film and never the two shall meet, at least in harmony.
On film sets, you will always find a stills photographer, even if shot with the best qaulity film or video capture. Why? Moving images do not produce images sharp enough for still work and even with 35mm film, the capture area is smaller than 35mm stills as the film is moving vertically. The movement disguises the lack of sharpness, plus we tolerate a less sharp moving image.


Quote
I recently shot a large project where there were two sets and two productions, one 35mm film the other my still set.

I'm not complaining about my role or what I was asked to do, because it was a very rewarding project, but working next to the "film" set it was obvious that both could be integrated with no more than a change in camera and a few different lighting placements.

If the projects had been combined, the savings would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the interesting part was on the film set the client was relegated to viewing the image on a flickering video tap, where on our still set we had color corrected imagery coming into the computer every click of the shutter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily as stills photographers have minutes, sometimes seconds to get a shot, between set ups and the lighting requirements for each medium are very different. One uses flash and one uses constant lighting, neither much use for the other. So as time is money, doing both on separate stages may be cheaper than combining sets and constantly getting in each other's way.
Also colour correct viewing on set is not so important/easy as with stills, plus the colour is always tweaked when graded afterwards. The DoP is probably much more aware of lighting colour issues than stills photographers, as they have always had more problems with colour temp matching than we do with our daylight flash heads.  The video monitor is more for viewing performance and technical issues, boom in shot, focus pulls etc. Though a monitor that does show colour correctly is better than one that doesn't. Bear in mind the movie kit will have been hired for the day/job and the camera and monitor may never even have been used together before that morning, so precise calibaration is tricky.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 05:16:43 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 18, 2008, 09:56:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On film sets, you will always find a stills photographer, even if shot with the best qaulity film or video capture. Why? Moving images do not produce images sharp enough for still work and even with 35mm film, the capture area is smaller than 35mm stills as the film is moving vertically. The movement disguises the lack of sharpness, plus we tolerate a less sharp moving image.
Not necessarily as stills photographers have minutes, sometimes seconds to get a shot, between set ups and the lighting requirements for each medium are very different. One uses flash and one uses constant lighting, neither much use for the other. So as time is money, doing both on separate stages may be cheaper than combining sets and constantly getting in each other's way.
Also colour correct viewing on set is not so important/easy as with stills, plus the colour is always tweaked when graded afterwards. The DoP is probably much more aware of lighting colour issues than stills photographers, as they have always had more problems with colour temp matching than we do with our daylight flash heads.  The video monitor is more for viewing performance and technical issues, boom in shot, focus pulls etc. Though a monitor that does show colour correctly is better than one that doesn't. Bear in mind the movie kit will have been hired for the day/job and the camera and monitor may never even have been used together before that morning, so precise calibaration is tricky.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, ok, this I know because we do a lot of moving production, except all of this is old think.

To begin with if you have even experience prosumer 2k in the very compressed hdv codec you can eaasily find still imagery that is pretty amazing and will natively fill edge to edge a 24" monitor.

We colortime all of our final footage, even the hdv or standard def on a DiVinci 2k and shooting digitally verses shooting film still gives a lot better monitor view than a blinking pink and monotone lcd.

Since none of the imagery I mentioned will ever see theatrical big screen use, (it's all Television and smaller web play), even if the film had been digitatized in 4k (which it wasn't) it still offered very little benfit over shooting any form of digital video.

You did touch on a few points though and This is where the Red comes in, because up until now, there was no affordable to own, digital video camera that shot a 35mm cinema frame size (remember I said affordable).

Whether it's 4k, 3k to 2k, it's more in the compression, the bit depth and of course how well the Red or any digital capture works in higher isos.

Now I don't think that most moving imagery, regardless of quality will just exactly purpose over to stills for all the artistic reasons you mentioned.  Rarely does a cinema session tell the story in one frame because moving to still are really different artistic mindsets.

That doesn't mean that the productions can't be dual purposed.

Tehnically,the process is   converging and I know because I do this weekly, sometimes with just small add on crew for the moving imagery and sometimes with two full blown crews each sharing time.

The video I presented earlier was shot still and video, in studio AND on location, with dialog and MOS, and the stills are a international campaign the video will be purposed in multiple mediums AND it was shot in one day.

Once again, it's changing and we are converging and anyone that doesn't think so, hasn't tried it.

What you talking about is that traditional think that film crews believe a still photographer is either some guy that just shoots over their shoulder with a blimp, or does a "special" session that only needs a few dozen frames.  Historically this has been the case, but if you do work in both mediums you can easily take the good aspects from both and apply them to both mediums.

What I am saying is both moving and stills can be accomplished professionally and with artistic merit on the same day, with a lot of the same crew and equipment.

There is a difference in the style and pace of the two mediums.

Film crews move like the army, slow and methodical and still crews even large ones move much faster and digital capture has only increased the speed in how we work.

The same will eventually hold for moving imagery and everyone working as an "image creator" should take the blinders off and at least be aware of what is possible.

Now I don't think that for a moment, every Hollywood production is going to stop shooting film with 475 people crews, or that every still photographer is going to throw a Red in the case and shoot everything on moving imagery and stills, but both could and probably should happen.

I am sure acceptence to the Red will be met by a lot of the same traditional old think, thought process that still capture went through with digital.  Early on I shot digital and early on I heard all of the misinformation of "it doesn't look like film, blows the highlights, is too slow, too fast, too hard and too cumbersome and all that is just absoltuely not true, especially today where the medium format and 35mm digital still cameras I use far surpass anything that I previously shot in those formats with film.

Don't think the Red is not the beginning of this process and don't think that Canon, Panasonic and Sony aren't looking at that camera with some plans to compete.  Also don't think that Kodak's film stock production is going to start shrinking and if cinema moves at the pace of still capture it will happen a lot faster than anyone plans.

Most importantly don't think a client's won't pick up on the fact that digital caputre in any genre produces faster and more production in a day than film.  

Personally it makes not one bit of difference to me if a still photogrpaher shoots only stills or Peter Jackson never does anything but direct,  but for a lot of clients it does matter a great deal.

It's going to change and like the original Canon 1ds completely changed still capture, the Red or any full frame 35mm affordable camera is poised to do that with moving film and the days of taking 2 hours to set up a camera will come to a close.

JR
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 09:59:33 AM by James R Russell » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #83 on: April 18, 2008, 06:26:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure quite what point you are arguing as your post seemed a bit scattershot.    Are you trying to say that we'll all be using a RED, whether we are still or movie people. And that both will come from one camera?
Also, how is the RED any different from the days of 35mm film in both still and movie cameras? You needed a stills photographer then to get the sharp images. Film is shot at 1/50th sec remember. And when I do stills work, I will do my own set ups to encapsulate the story of a scene or entire film in a single shot. Something that be several shots in the film. Doing that is a completely separate job from the film making process.
BTW I'm talking about film/movie sets, not combined advertising shoots, where the priorities are very, very different. And for years you've had cheapskate producers trying to do frame grabs to save on hiring a stills photographer and only too late they realise, they've made a mistake.

As for the convergence, there are photographers who can transition to moving images quite easily and most who will have no idea. Just like most photographers have limited graphic design skills and even less web production ability.
Stills photographers have become directors since movie making existed, nothing new there. And many have directed the TV adverts a well as producing the posters The more logical move for many photographers would be to lighting/DoP work as that is closer to many photographer's skill sets.


I do agree that RED will change some aspects of filmaking, but the camera has very little to do with 95% of what is going on on rest of set.
Film crews work more slowly as it's a far more complex process, again nothing to do with the camera. Working out focus pulls for complex tracking shots or the structure and choreography of a steadicam shoot can be very time consuming. Stills don't have to worry about boon in shot, wait for a plane to go past or the natural day lighting to change back to how it was in previous set up of the same scene. We did a series of setups in typically British overcast Autumnal light and then for the last couple we had to wait a verrry long time for a cloud to appear in the suddenly completely blue sky.

You mention traditional thinking, as in stuck in the mud thinking. A while back I heard about a studio head who decided to get some time and motion people in to try and reduce the no. of people on set and to get things going a bit faster. The study revealed, that everyone was in fact necessary, there was no dead wood and the reality was - different departments have to take turns in working and sadly, there were no magic short cuts. With digital some jobs will disappear [loader] and be replaced by other new jobs [hard drive handler!], I doubt much else will change.
And for years, all the film shoots I've worked on have had full colour video playback, through decent monitors, even if shooting on film. So digital will make very little difference, to the work process in that area, unlike with stills where the workflow was revolutionised by instant access to the shoot.


As an aside there's a Shane Meadows' film called 'Dead Man's Shoes', where the crew was built around the no. of people who could fit in a mini bus, and by eliminating additional lighting and setting the film over a very short period of time, wardrobe and makeup were dispensed with and people doubled up on several jobs. This was only possible because of the particular story. Plus the story was in fact written with some of these strictures in mind. An interesting approach, but with very limited application.


As for the resistance to digital, I don't think there is one in a lot of filmmaking like there was in stills photography. The big difference the RED will make is in affordability. Many features/tv shows have been shot on video/digitally for quite some time and video looked as good as film 3-4 years ago using  cameras that were more than 10 times the price of the RED.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 18, 2008, 06:37:16 PM »
ReplyReply

We were showing some nice "landscape" shots on the RED on our demo reel. They were, if you'd taken a still frame out, very much like you'd shoot with a still camera, but with some inherent movement, clouds, weather, a person skiing by etc. To me, that's a nice still / movie hybrid where the stock footage could work for either media.

Yes, if you're shooting moving images, you may not get shots suitable for print, but if they are suitable, they're much superior coming from a RED than a video camera. Motion blur that works great on movement may not be right at all for the still. Although you're not restricted to typical 1/48th shutter speed, as a full range is available.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 19, 2008, 01:13:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not sure quite what point you are arguing as your post seemed a bit scattershot.    Are you trying to say that we'll all be using a RED, whether we are still or movie people. And that both will come from one camera?
Also, how is the RED any different from the days of 35mm film in both still and movie cameras? You needed a stills photographer then to get the sharp images. Film is shot at 1/50th sec remember. And when I do stills work, I will do my own set ups to encapsulate the story of a scene or entire film in a single shot. Something that be several shots in the film. Doing that is a completely separate job from the film making process.
BTW I'm talking about film/movie sets, not combined advertising shoots, where the priorities are very, very different. And for years you've had cheapskate producers trying to do frame grabs to save on hiring a stills photographer and only too late they realise, they've made a mistake.

As for the convergence, there are photographers who can transition to moving images quite easily and most who will have no idea. Just like most photographers have limited graphic design skills and even less web production ability.
Stills photographers have become directors since movie making existed, nothing new there. And many have directed the TV adverts a well as producing the posters The more logical move for many photographers would be to lighting/DoP work as that is closer to many photographer's skill sets.
I do agree that RED will change some aspects of filmaking, but the camera has very little to do with 95% of what is going on on rest of set.
Film crews work more slowly as it's a far more complex process, again nothing to do with the camera. Working out focus pulls for complex tracking shots or the structure and choreography of a steadicam shoot can be very time consuming. Stills don't have to worry about boon in shot, wait for a plane to go past or the natural day lighting to change back to how it was in previous set up of the same scene. We did a series of setups in typically British overcast Autumnal light and then for the last couple we had to wait a verrry long time for a cloud to appear in the suddenly completely blue sky.

You mention traditional thinking, as in stuck in the mud thinking. A while back I heard about a studio head who decided to get some time and motion people in to try and reduce the no. of people on set and to get things going a bit faster. The study revealed, that everyone was in fact necessary, there was no dead wood and the reality was - different departments have to take turns in working and sadly, there were no magic short cuts. With digital some jobs will disappear [loader] and be replaced by other new jobs [hard drive handler!], I doubt much else will change.
And for years, all the film shoots I've worked on have had full colour video playback, through decent monitors, even if shooting on film. So digital will make very little difference, to the work process in that area, unlike with stills where the workflow was revolutionised by instant access to the shoot.
As an aside there's a Shane Meadows' film called 'Dead Man's Shoes', where the crew was built around the no. of people who could fit in a mini bus, and by eliminating additional lighting and setting the film over a very short period of time, wardrobe and makeup were dispensed with and people doubled up on several jobs. This was only possible because of the particular story. Plus the story was in fact written with some of these strictures in mind. An interesting approach, but with very limited application.
As for the resistance to digital, I don't think there is one in a lot of filmmaking like there was in stills photography. The big difference the RED will make is in affordability. Many features/tv shows have been shot on video/digitally for quite some time and video looked as good as film 3-4 years ago using  cameras that were more than 10 times the price of the RED.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There is a lot of territory to cover here and if I go off track, it's because I write this stuff at light speed then get back to work.

In a way we are talking about the same thing in the fact it will always take talent, technique and skilled professionals to produce compelling work, regardless of the capture device.

And yes your right and we all know that a lot of eposodic televsion is shot video.  Regardless most people that work in the high end of cinema have been to date reluctant to move to digitial video for features.  

My point, or rather my expertise isn't in theatrical production, but advertising where the longest run time is a few minutes or less and  the crews and technique of high end still capture have grown and moved to closely resemble a small film crew.

Yes, I know that still photogrpahers have directed advertising commercials and cinema directors have shot still advertising campaings, after all talent is talent so that is not really ground breaking.

Regardless of that, what digital video offers is a shorter learning curve from still digital capture that didn't cross over as easily in the film days and up to now with a camera like the red, not as easily affordable.

Though in regards to your comments about the executive cutting costs, I am in total agreement with his overall thought, though maybe not the exact methodology.  Fitting everything into a mini bus and hoping for high end production is obviously going to make a project suffer so there is also nothing new about that, but cutting out a dozen teamsters and grips that huddle around the kraft services table probably won't make anything change other than the catering bill.

What I see with digital video is the affordability and empowerment to learn and do much of this yourself or at least learn it to a level where direction is precise and determined.

If higher iso becomes a reality, then you will see crews get smaller and production go faster just because the lights, generators and cable all get reduced in size and scope.

As far as the speed in which film crews work vs. still crews, I've shot and produced at least 20  parallel projects in multiple cities and countries and have never seen a film crew (reagardless of the thoughtful complexity of the process) move as fast, work as hard, multi task and multi purpose like a great still crew.

Don't take that statement as a lack of respect for film technicians and artists because the good ones are truly amazing and bring more worth to a project than can be explained.


JR
Logged

Robin Balas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51



WWW
« Reply #86 on: April 19, 2008, 06:13:22 AM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 05:12:55 PM by Robin Balas » Logged

[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #87 on: April 19, 2008, 10:59:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Can someone explain red shutter speed ?

Ie can you up it to say 1/250

That means take 50 1/250 frames in a second

Does one have light control beyond the aperture/iris and the latitude in the RAW file

maybe there is an dialable electronic ND filter ?

getting my head arond the whole thing

ps James I am in total agreement that there is merging-ness this is becuase advertising used to either a film (an advert) or a still in a magazine with the web that is no longer true - I can see stills that run when you mouse over them etc

S
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 11:00:46 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #88 on: April 19, 2008, 12:24:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can someone explain red shutter speed ?

Ie can you up it to say 1/250

That means take 50 1/250 frames in a second

Does one have light control beyond the aperture/iris and the latitude in the RAW file

maybe there is an dialable electronic ND filter ?

getting my head arond the whole thing

ps James I am in total agreement that there is merging-ness this is becuase advertising used to either a film (an advert) or a still in a magazine with the web that is no longer true - I can see stills that run when you mouse over them etc

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



The only thing that limits all of this merging into one production is we don't have universal fast bandwidth to play full screen moving imagery without a download wait.

It's coming and once everyone can just click and instantly view the world gets much different.

Last night we purposed out imagery for different devices.  HDV, SD, Web, Apple TV, I-pod and I-phone.

The HDV footage even shot on prosumer hdv codec cameras and colortimed, is just stunning on a 24" computer and I can't even begin to imagine how much better it would be on a red, 3k, 4k, or 5k camera, even downsampled.

Consequently the SD footage played through different monitors was challenged at best, though 2 years ago nobody would have complained or seen a difference.

We are not far from where the next fashion editorial you see will be a full screen movie of 6 urban youths running down broadway but as you mouse over their shirt it will freeze and say, Bananna Republic, $74.95.

Like it or not, advertising and editorial will move into a mix medium direction.

Right now on the computer next to me is a 30" TV screen that plays apple TV.

Two pushes of a button and any movie, stills of video on my computer will go right into the Apple TV and I can watch, or search the web for just about anything I want to view and watch it, pause it, rewind and play it whenever I feel like and it all can be done through one device or networked to every computer in my studio wirelessly.

It can also be downloaded to my phone or an Ipod and I can show my complete reel and still portfolio anywhere in the world.

The crazy thing is that the same desktop computer that I use for viewing can also cut, colortime, grade and store the project I shot.

Like it or not most of us are driven by commerce.  We may have gotten into our chosen art for the creative expression, but as we go down the line we are moved by who hires us.

I've known photographers that screamed they would never shoot digital though that changed when their largest client demanded digital capture.

I'm sure these are the same photographers that will say they will never shoot "video" until the person writing the check demands moving imagery, then there will be a Red, a Sony, or a P2 on set.

It's all changing and some of it for the good.  I know of one large fashion retailer that  produces a huge catalog and started purposing the catalog imagery to the web.  Now the web is 65% of their "catalog" sales and the printed catalog will eventually just phase down to a series of small specialty books, that will probably phase down to a series of small specialty web sites.

This hasn't change the fact that the retailer needs compelling imagery, it's just change the way they show it to the public, but the web is a much different carrier than print in the fact that it moves.


JR
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 12:46:49 PM by James R Russell » Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #89 on: April 19, 2008, 02:06:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The only thing that limits a... than print in the fact that it moves.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We agree completly (from different ends of the industry)

Now the only question for is which 'moving image recorder' to buy

Crazy to jump in at the RED level maybe but considering my nikon advantage and my tendency to end up with the top end kit anyway it might be a proposition

Trying to decide..

$1000 toy to learn on

$6000 commercial but limited smaller chip rig (that I will probably just sell at a loss)

$20000 thing to keep for years and build into a (rentable to third parties) system

probably the first then the third but never the second - too lossy (cashwise)

Thanks James for your input

Those costs are quite small compared to the other investment that I am working on right now...

SMM

---------------
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 02:23:26 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #90 on: April 19, 2008, 02:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We agree completly (from different ends of the industry)

Now the only question for is which 'moving image recorder' to buy

Crazy to jump in at the RED level maybe but considering my nikon advantage and my tendency to end up with the top end kit anyway it might be a proposition

Trying to decide..

$1000 toy to learn on

$6000 commercial but limited smaller chip rig (that I will probably just sell at a loss)

$20000 thing to keep for years and build into a (rentable to third parties) system

probably the first then the third but never the second - too lossy (cashwise)

Thanks James for your input

Those costs are quite small compared to the other investment that I am working on right now...

SMM

---------------
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



It's the $20,000 option, at least in my experience.

I have two hdv cameras, assorted convertors, lenses, etc. and the price probably totals 10k, 1/2 of a start up red.

They still have thier place, especially for fast autofocus behind the scenes, but for serious production the Red seems to have snuffed them all.

Now if I could buy a Red today I probably would, ( I was e-mailed that the wait is 5 weeks) though whe you look at that little 3k camera I'm sure that will eventually replace the hdv cams.

JR
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #91 on: April 19, 2008, 03:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's the $20,000 option, at least in my experience....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 that ends up being best value ??

I wonder how much you have really spent and what the devaulation is

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #92 on: April 19, 2008, 04:34:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
that ends up being best value ??

I wonder how much you have really spent and what the devaulation is

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The best value is the camera or format that doesn't keep you from shooting what is in your mind (or some cases, the client's mind).

JR
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #93 on: April 20, 2008, 11:02:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The best value is the camera or format that doesn't keep you from shooting what is in your mind (or some cases, the client's mind).

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is such a silly response, I can't believe I wrote it.

Regardless, does a 20, 30, or $40,000 cinema camera makes sense?  I doesn't until you compare a full 35mm film cinema camera to the red, then the numbers more than even up.

If you compare it to a Panasonic p2 then the choice is more difficult.

The thing about the prosumer grade digital cameras you will use it even if you own everything, just because it's easy, and fast and  it's fairly inconspicuous.

I was speaking to a gaffer last night about the Red and he mentioned a cinematographer that was a really big "film" guy that somewhat like the Red.

I've heard the F word before in still capture so I knew from the moment this conversations started where it was going, which made me think that Red should offer a film option.

They can have an detachable "film" mag full of CF cards and open their own "film" lab for color and grading.  You just send red your "film magazine" they process it and send you back a digitized disc.  


JR
Logged

Sean Reginald Knight
Awaiting Authorisation
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2008, 03:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(Snip)

This hasn't change the fact that the retailer needs compelling imagery, it's just change the way they show it to the public, but the web is a much different carrier than print in the fact that it moves.
JR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How about this: [a href=\"http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/info.do?cid=39628]http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/info.do?cid=39628[/url] ?

Darius Khondji too. I wonder how he processed the 'footage' from RED. I wonder about his workflow.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2008, 01:33:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I fear you haven't really understood the whole deal with raw unprocessed sensor capture if you fail to see the advantages RAW have over 35mm Stills film, based on what I sense in your posts here, but english is not my native language so I could be wrong about that.
Yes you are wrong about that. I use RAW all the time and fully understand it's strengths, but RAW being the capture medium has no bearing on the different ways the image is physically captured on video/film vs stills. It's the slow shutter speed that is the biggest difference and the inability to use flash to freeze movement, that is the major difference.

Quote
I will not claim anything regarding movie raw capture yet as I haven't finished my research on that based on a stills photographers needs. But not having to nail color, contrast and partly exposure 100% prior to shooting is a huge time saver and hence money saver. And when we saw already 5 years ago that we even delivered a lot higher and consistent quality as well by not making decisions prior to the post-work, it was a done deal. So I have a hard time accepting that a lot of moving image capture on film not will be in for a revolution on all aspects - even commercial ones as we have seen in stills capture.
I cannot see DoPs getting sloppy over how they light a set, just because of RAW. They'll simply use it as way of increasing ability to tweak afterwards. Post production in film is very, very expensive/time consuming, so getting it right on set makes more sense.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2008, 02:03:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And yes your right and we all know that a lot of eposodic televsion is shot video.  Regardless most people that work in the high end of cinema have been to date reluctant to move to digitial video for features.
Less and less. Quite a few have moved across, Robert Roderiguez, Michael Mann, George Lucas are three I can think of straight off.


Quote
Regardless of that, what digital video offers is a shorter learning curve from still digital capture that didn't cross over as easily in the film days and up to now with a camera like the red, not as easily affordable.
I'd disagree on that one. Film was less techy to start with and the transition from using a still camera to a film wasn't a big thing. Affordability yes. Video is cheaper than 35mm and the RED camera will impact heavily in some areas, but only to those who could afford to buy 30, 000 video cameras, which is still not most people.

Quote
Though in regards to your comments about the executive cutting costs, I am in total agreement with his overall thought, though maybe not the exact methodology.  Fitting everything into a mini bus and hoping for high end production is obviously going to make a project suffer so there is also nothing new about that, but cutting out a dozen teamsters and grips that huddle around the kraft services table probably won't make anything change other than the catering bill.
This was a film made by an established director and was partially an artistic decision and the film stayed showing in the cinema, way longer than most major Hollywood films.

Quote
What I see with digital video is the affordability and empowerment to learn and do much of this yourself or at least learn it to a level where direction is precise and determined.
That's been going on for years, nothing new there.

Quote
If higher iso becomes a reality, then you will see crews get smaller and production go faster just because the lights, generators and cable all get reduced in size and scope.
Lighting is more often an aesthetic choice than simply a practical one.

Quote
My point, or rather my expertise isn't in theatrical production, but advertising where the longest run time is a few minutes or less and  the crews and technique of high end still capture have grown and moved to closely resemble a small film crew.
But they do not have many of the problems, shooting film has. I'd say there's a huge amount of crossover, but where it's different, it's very different and a lot fiddlier and therefore slower to do.
Quote
As far as the speed in which film crews work vs. still crews, I've shot and produced at least 20  parallel projects in multiple cities and countries and have never seen a film crew (regardless of the thoughtful complexity of the process) move as fast, work as hard, multi task and multi purpose like a great still crew.
I've done film shoots where we've done 22 setups in a day. And having worked on film sets I'd say that was a daft statement, people work stupidly hard, can multask brilliantly, but it's a far slower, more complicated process  capturing a moving image than a still image regardless of what camera is used. And film crews do so day after day after day. Week after week at times.
Hurry up and wait best describes the film making process as often departments have to take turns to do their job, it's nothing to do with being slack, it's simply how the logistics work out.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Robin Balas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51



WWW
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2008, 03:18:14 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 05:13:45 PM by Robin Balas » Logged

[span style='font-family:Arial']Robin Balas
DIGITALIS

Professional Photographer, Engineer, Teacher and Consultant[/span]
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2008, 06:25:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I apoligize for my wrong assumptions.
But why do we have to use the slow shutter speeds like the motion picture guys are doing? I know I wont do that all the time and I am not doing it today with the HD video cameras. We are not going DI and to the cinema with it, we are making short clips for web, multimedia presentations and effects shots and mostly cranking and ramping up and down all the time. We would like to do that with our HD cams today but we are limited in the range available and I am not happy with the quality. There are other ways of capturing motion than 1:1
I am trying to come up with a new product which is an alternative to stills, not something totally different like an motion film ad - thats for the other guys to do. Imagine shooting a model running towards you at 120fps at 1/2000 will provide me with the possibility of picking a perfectly sharp frame in one take with the perfect look, as I will have hundreds to cherry pick from. Then I do a second take with a 180 degree shutter and have nice footage for motion clips at slow mo or real time, with consistent colors and contrast as both can be graded exactly the same. Today that is an issue even with a Canon 1DsII as it is slow and very different from our HD video gear. And I will never even try that with my MF gear as it is not suited at all for such a shot.

I don't expect todays DoPs getting sloppy - I am taking about doing new stuff in new ways for new small teams of people like a stills crew is today. And I do not consider leaving my options open being sloppy either. Why spend time nailing the perfect white balance when we all know that it will be changed in post - nailing it to the nearest 500K is more than good enough shooting RAW as long as it is consistent in the shot and not having different temperatures form source to source. Exposing for keeping the desired information rather than to obtain a special look is also easier and faster. Post production in film is very expensive - today, thats true. But I am not shooting a film, I am making 3-10 sec. clips which resembles what I shoot on stills. And I am testing it now with RED Cine and the available raw footage as anyone can do and it is not very time consuming at all as long as you are taking clips and not feature films.

I know very little of the work flow of the motion or even short film industry. I don't plan to learn it either because it is not suitable for my work as it seems very inflexible and ridiculously expensive for no other reason than it has always been that way. Personally I believe it is easier for photographers knowing stills RAW shooting for years of commercial work to both measuring light with respect to sensor performance and color correcting a bayer raw file quickly and well than the motion film guys - read the posts on red forum and you will see they complicate simple issues enormously and struggle with the new way of thinking. Just like the stills photo industry did + 7 years back with the first LEAF/Sinar backs with idiotic work flows and people new to digital capture.

And today we already shoot a lot of stills with Arri film light gear of various kinds with great success, both commercial and bridal and portraits outdoors. And simply doing more of that on a Red One or Epic will be easy and affordable as the Arri gear is a lot less expensive than the Bron setups we have.

I see more possibilities and new interesting ways of working than technical challenges  so far, but I am not done at all with my testing - so I could easily change my mind in a month or more if some big issue is unsolvable. This is a very exiting time to be working with photography weather stills or motion as there is fundamentally different tools and work flows being invented. New products and uses for this gear is bound to  emerge sooner or later.
MHO.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Robin,

I don't think you have anything to apologize for as JJJ is coming from the traditional view and your looking at this as a new medium or way to capture motion in video and stills.

For what it's worth even shooting flash does not gaurantee a complete freeze

[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg]http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg[/url]

as this image was shot with acutes on 1/2 power.  Maybe bitubes or Broncolor would hold it tighter but this sequence was shot with  a Nikon D3 and continuous stadium light and I can promise you it's as sharp if not sharper than the studio image.

http://ishotit.com/running1.mov

I don't know if the Red or any cinema camera can capture this, but I'm betting we're going to get very close, very soon.

JR
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #99 on: April 22, 2008, 12:08:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
gaurantee a complete freeze

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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

Its it always the FPS

120 FPS is the Max of the Red right

So that would create the same freeze as shooting at roughly 125/th of a second

-----

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

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

Giving sharp stills and moving image too

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

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad