RED ONE... HD LOOK?

Yeah... Does RED ONE have that annoying HD look? Also, why does HD have that annoying look? Is it because of the fps? Any other reasons why it's like that?
 
The RED ONE camera is probably the most "filmic" of all the video cameras. Not only is it a progressive image, but it's a 35mm sensor that gives the depth of field precisely the same as a 35mm film frame, plus it's made for the film lens packages, not HD lenses.

The contrast range of all video versus film are still no where near each other at this time. The latitude of actual celluloid film can do more. For the newbs, this means the difference of exposure between bright and dark spots. IE if you have someone on a sunny day standing in the shade of a tree, you'll have to expose either for the person in the shade and then the sunny parts will get "blown out" (meaning too bright to have detail), or you can expose for the sunny parts in which case the person in the shade will be too dark to have any detail. With film you can find a happy medium and have detail in both areas because the latitude of film is currently better.

As for HD having a "video" look, that tends to be more of an issue of 60 interlaced fields, but even progessive video can look videoish if the image doesn't have good lighting, composition, and exposure.
 
Yeah... Does RED ONE have that annoying HD look? Also, why does HD have that annoying look? Is it because of the fps? Any other reasons why it's like that?
MadMan, if you don't know what the HD look is, or what the film look is .... how do you even know what you are talking about? It has to do with Depth of field and frame rate and resolution. The Red uses 35mm lenses so it has the Depth of Field of Film. You can shoot the RED One at 24fps so it has the same frame rate as film. The Red R3D Codec is approx 4k so that exceeds the 35mm films which are 2K scans.
 
Did you see "My bloody valentine 3d" or "Jumper"? These are both shot fully with RED ONE's and showcase it's abilities in the hands of professionals.

I think that it's more of a projection/ tv/ display issue than a capture issue though. I'd love to get an HD camera, i'd just output at SD when all is said and done.

Alot of the problems I have with HD I've seen is on HDTV's, specifically high contrast edges that are in motion, they seem to cause lots of "mosquito noise". I pointed it out to a worker at Best Buy and he said he had never noticed it before. I don't see those same artifacts with SD at all, so until they can solve that, I'll stick with SD...
 
Interesting

I watched Directv on a full ( 1080 ) HDTV the other day . It was a basketball game and the clarity was amazing . However , I did notice that it lacked any real warmth and was , after about 5 minutes , just a lifeless picture with really vivid colors . I wonder if the new HD cameras would produce more depth with a Red Rock M2 adapter and a really nice set of lenses , appropriate for the needed shots ? Or would it just be what I saw on this T.V. , and still be flat but vivid ?
 
I watched Directv on a full ( 1080 ) HDTV the other day . It was a basketball game and the clarity was amazing . However , I did notice that it lacked any real warmth and was , after about 5 minutes , just a lifeless picture with really vivid colors . I wonder if the new HD cameras would produce more depth with a Red Rock M2 adapter and a really nice set of lenses , appropriate for the needed shots ? Or would it just be what I saw on this T.V. , and still be flat but vivid ?

Yes they do provide more depth, but you're also comparing an HD 1080i signal that is INTERLACED (sports videogrpahy in HD), which has a radically different look and texture than the PROGRESSIVE look. They also don't use the CINEGAMMA color styles in sports that have more "filmic" looks.
 
Last edited:
The RED has fantastic HD quality, and a really nice look. You have to keep in mind though, that if you don't know how to use it, or light a scene properly, it will look like any other piece of SD or HD crap.

If you know how to color-correct, and maybe add a few subtle filters, you can get RED footage to look amazing.

I don't understand this new dislike for the 'HD look'...it is what it is. It isn't film. It's really high resolution images. You can't get away from the HD look while using HD...unless of course you use adapters and lenses, while utilizing the DOF which film is so known for (as well as adding color correction to each shot).

A very skilled DP (with a lens kit), and a very skilled lighting designer can make RED footage (or other high-end HD cams) look just as perdy as 35mm (at least in my opinion).

As long as you don't over-do post filters (like Filmlook or Cinelook), it will look great.
 
Last edited:
I watched Directv on a full ( 1080 ) HDTV the other day . It was a basketball game and the clarity was amazing . However , I did notice that it lacked any real warmth and was , after about 5 minutes , just a lifeless picture with really vivid colors . I wonder if the new HD cameras would produce more depth with a Red Rock M2 adapter and a really nice set of lenses , appropriate for the needed shots ? Or would it just be what I saw on this T.V. , and still be flat but vivid ?
Don't compare sports to movies, apples and oranges. A basketball scene in a movie with the same camera would have been shot/lit a lot differently.
 
Don't compare sports to movies, apples and oranges. A basketball scene in a movie with the same camera would have been shot/lit a lot differently.

Yes , I know . I am a huge fan of H.D. I am gonna check out " Jumper " tonite on an H.D. monitor , as soon as it downloads . I am asking about adapters and cameras to get a feel for my next camera purchase. My next few projects will be seen by , for the most part , people on HDTV's in their living room . Thank you all for your answers . They were thorough , and I appreciate it .
 
Last edited:
The Red Ene is the most impressive camera I've ever seen. I'm might be going to a university that owns some Red One cameras. I can't wait to try one out. I don't think HD is a bad thing, it seems to be getting people to step up visuals. Of course a film isn't any better just because you use a higher resloution.

I'm still a big fan aged film though. Older films kind of have more character because the quality isn't perfect.

This diagram puts it all into perspective though:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9426/28kredcamera.png
 
I just got the chance to act in a Red feature, and it was amazing. The images were unbelievable. They rented the whole kit (which comes with a stacked grip truck and all), and it was quite different waiting for the setups...much longer to place and move the camera. They also had a very impressive steady-cam rig, which allowed for some very smooth action sequences. I will say, however, I was impressed with how quickly lenses can be changed.

The footage I saw was really top-notch...on the level with a Hollywood film...of course, it does help (and is necessary) to know how to light a scene...which they did know how to do...so the footage I've seen cut together thus far is impressive.

The camera is a lot larger than I thougth it would be...especially when you have all the attachments hooked up.

I can't recall the price...somewhere around 7K for 3 weeks...I could be wrong about that.

If you want to see some stills and such, visit www.smalltownmovie.com

Take care.
 
Having just shot a short piece with the RED ONE camera today, let me assure you: This is the single most filmic video camera I've ever worked with. The contrast range, depth of field, lens selection, and broad spectrum of color and picture information all match film in ways I've never experienced with video, even HD, even before.

With some minor tweaks with RED CINE (that rivals the controls of an actual telecine), the footage can be amazing film-like. Lighting and composition have a lot to do with it, but still the cameras abilities are very cinematic and detailed.
 
Back
Top