FORUMS: list search recent posts

Video of Ted Schilowitz's RED Presentation

COW Forums : RED Camera

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
HDEXPO
Video of Ted Schilowitz's RED Presentation
on Dec 3, 2007 at 9:15:08 pm

Thought the users on this site might be interested in this from the recent November 2007 expo. "Leader of the Revolution" Ted Schilowitz did a presentation on the Red camera and he was gracious enough to allow us to tape and stream his presentation from the website hdexpo.net/virtual. This is a variation on the presentations he's done at NAB and IBC, complete with a screening of Peter Jackson's "Crossing the Line" short (though it's not included in the streaming clips).

http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels_RED.html


The clips include Ted talking about the camera's specs and expected capabilities, post workflows, and some of the activities of the RED community at large...

HD EXPO | 818-842-6611 | info@hdexpo.net | the future in hand | hdexpo.net


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcowcow
blub06
That was worth while
on Dec 6, 2007 at 7:39:41 pm

I thought this stuff was worth watching if not just to hear it from the source. I could not help but come away from it with some impressions I had not expected. Perhaps I am just dumb to not get some of this before. One thing that stood out was that these guys seem to have a us against the world self image. Each and every thing someone says to doubt Red is taking a personal blow against them. I guess if I were in their situation I might feel the same, still, to me its just equipment but to them its something else.

I finally get what this thing is, this whole thing seems to come from a silicon valley mindset which goes unspoken but is at the center of this project. In silicon valley it seems absolutely everyone is taken with the notion that you only have to see the future and invent a product that you guess people might need when we get to that future. And who can see the future? Really really really smart people are the only ones who can, so, you invite yourself to be Mr. smarty paints and anyone who does not buy into your thing is dumb. I allow them their conceits, I only wish they did not use it as a cudgel against those who don


Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 8:23:28 pm

Film does not have 8k or 9k resolution though. Film is routinely scanned at 2k or 4k. Yes some do scan higher, but that's not getting you extra detail, but avoiding some aliasing artifacts from the grain structure. And that's the neg, not what you watch.

Projected film can have sub HD resolution levels quite easily as you're watching a copy, not the neg.

The clarity is that "proxy" is not a good word to use. Say you shoot 4k, the camera makes a .R3D file that holds the 4k data. It also makes three Quicktime reference movies that point at this data. They're a few k each as they just reference the data. They decode the data at three different resolutions - 2k, 1k and 0.5k. So yes, those Quicktimes are "proxies", but they're generated instantly and reference the 4k data. So when you play one of them in FCP, you're playing a 4k file with a live proxy to 2k or 1k or whatever. So yes, you're working with the 4k files, just in a more easily viewable form.

As for "video" - well, to me, a "video" camera is not what RED is. It works just like a DSLR shooting RAW, but at a higher (in some cases very much higher) FPS. All sensors, be they silver or silicon or carbon based, clip. If you put too much light into them, they will saturate and fail or give you no detail in those areas. With all sensors, it's good advise to protect highlights, especially your eyes :-)

As for "fix it in post" - you're not fixing anything - you're developing a RAW image in a way of your choosing. That's not fixing, that's working. RAW is very powerful and a valuable thing to have. You're not under-exposing, you're exposing correctly. There's a big difference.

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index


blub06
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 9:13:45 pm

Thanks Graeme that clears some things up. I think we differ on some issues though. Kodak, not me, reported in the summer of 2005 that no one had really done the study to find out just what the full rez of film was. The 4k comes (this is me speaking) from the best that video/computers could do about 10 or so years ago. Kodak did the study and found that in order to get all the info on a 35mm frame of film you need to scan at 8.5 to 9k.

If you know a little about Kodak you appreciate that that company is a bunch of guys walking around in lab coats. Science is their thing not emotions on film. As someone who has focused on film from still photography though cinematography I have always looked to Kodak as the final word on their products. I know that PR can come from even the most technology based companies but I have of yet not found Kodak to be at fault when it comes to technical issues regarding film.

I agree that you can have some bad release prints (Fuji) and bad projector lenses as well. The most common problem is theater owners saving money on insurance by using a lower wattage bulb for the projector then the space and screen require. I am sure Kodak was doing a best case because if computers and some other memory form connected to computers become the favored archival method Kodak wants the Studios to know what the rez must be for a perfect reproduction of that film.

Keep in mind that while you are indeed watching a copy of a copy when you see a film in the theater, most if not all of those copies are contact printed so there is no glass between the neg or interneg and the release print.


Chris


Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 9:28:12 pm

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf gives a very good indicator of the resolution of negs, prints, and what someone will see in a real cinema. It doesn't make for pleasant reading.... "The highest resolution... ...measured on the screens of the six selected movie theatres was about 685 lines/PH".

As I was trying to point out, the resolution of film and the resolution of film you have to scan it at to avoid artifacts are two different things. That's because film is not continuous, but has a grain structure. To avoid sampling artifacts on the grain structure you would over-sample on the scan and scale down with suitable sub-sampling filters afterwards. You don't gain more resolution by scanning at a higher resolution, but you will gain less artifacts. So yes, you might need to scan at very high resolutions to get all the information from a bit of film, but not all of that information is resolution or detail.

Graeme


Return to posts index

blub06
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 10:36:32 pm

I found it interesting that Kodak chose to state 8.5 to 9k. In other words, in some way they agree with part of what you are saying, the proper rez is not an absolute, it will vary.

Any product shot with 4k digital and released to theaters in film form or even digital form is going to find the same bump down in resolution that film is subject to. Measuring the screen rez sounds more a project for the consumer. I prefer my apples to be measured separate from my oranges. Of course all of my references were to camera original neg, I don


Return to posts index


Graeme Nattress
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 10:48:48 pm

Anything projected in a normal cinema is basically, according to the PDF I linked to, sub-HD resolution to the viewers eyes. That's what measuring the screen resolution is referring to - it's what a viewer can see.

If you're wanting to compare apples to apples, forget about that 8k or 9k figure from Kodak - that's the resolution to scan at, not the resolution you can measure from a neg which is sub 4k. The MTF of the neg has dropped below 10% at 2400 lines/picture height. It's not going to go much beyond 3k before it bottoms out. Anything beyond that is noise / grain, and that's why a much higher scanning rez can be chosen, to avoid aliasing artifacts on that grain.

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

blub06
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 11:32:27 pm

From your lips to Kodaks ears.

Kodak has published that in order to properly scan a frame of 35mm film and capture all of its information you must scan at 8.5k to 9k. They did not say, after you qualify it this way and that, they said in order to get all the information its 8.5k to 9k. They are a technology company working in chemistry and CCD.CMOS tech, they deal in absolutes when it comes to their products.

If you are saying, or are repeating someone else who is saying, that Kodak is all wrong, I don't know how to respond.

Chris


Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 7, 2007 at 11:47:11 pm

What I'm saying is that the reason to scan at >8k is not because there's >8k resolution there, but that to scan at less may introduce sampling artifacts.

Graeme

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index


Craig Meadows
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 8, 2007 at 6:01:20 pm

A few years ago when HD really surfaced I distinctly remember Kodak publishing information stating that HD would have to be twice the resolution to match 35mm. You still see that referenced today on many sites if you google film vs. HD. I wonder if they were comparing to the negative or a 2K or 4K scan?


Return to posts index

blub06
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 10, 2007 at 1:30:47 am

Just imagine the look on their faces when they actually went into the lab and did the scientific work (not guess work) to uncover the truth!


Geessss...

Chris


Return to posts index

rene Hazekamp
Re: That was worth while
on Dec 16, 2007 at 3:47:02 pm

Whether or not Film is 8k
this Red contraption will make Kodak the next Polaroid.
A pity, I really like polaroids


Ren


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]