watch Accidental Art, shot on the Red

I'm sorry I will be brutally honest here.

I think the cinematography doesn't look good at all.

I'm a newbie, I joined recently. This was one of the first movies I watched here. That was some weeks ago. I had visited very few threads back then and I had no idea what a RED was. I watched the movie assuming it was just another DSLR. And there was nothing in the movie to make me think otherwise. Same cold shiny look as any DSLR. Now that I’ve re-watched the movie, knowing what a RED is, I think I can spot some differences. But I still think there are a lot of over-exposed surfaces. I can't believe they’re asking $50,000 for something that looks only marginally better than a DSLR.

I also thought Soderbergh's latest movies, “Che part 2”, “Girlfriend experience” and “The informant”, looked like crap (“Girlfriend experience” looks a lot like DSLR to me). I was baffled to learn that Peter Jackson's “The lovely bones” was also shot with a RED. I thought the cinematography was gorgeous (at least in the real world sequences). So, I double checked on IMDB and it looks like they used proper film too:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/technical

Back to “Accidental art”: I like the actors, especially the guy who plays the plumber.

Theodebernacius said:

I'm sorry I will be brutally honest here. I think the cinematography doesn't look good at all.

Click to expand...

No reason to apologize for having an opinion. To each his own.

Theodebernacius said:

But I still think there are a lot of over-exposed surfaces. I can't believe they’re asking $50,000 for something that looks only marginally better than a DSLR.

Click to expand...

The exposures are more from the post production color correction. This was a decision the DP and I made together. For more on this choice hear Greg Sabo talk about it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1-KEB612Q


As for "marginally better than a DSLR", that is based on seeing the movie on the internet, not on a big screen or even broadcast monitor. There are many qualities to the image (and compression) that you aren't seeing from a RED camera compared to a DSLR when the image goes through post production, color correction, then output again and especially with the magnification to a full sized movie screen. A DSLR simply does not even come close to comparing to a RED camera for image resolution and maintaining the image quality for post production. It's a mathematical certainty.

Whether or not it's worth the money to any individuals is up to them to decide. I'm shooting some shorts on the Canon 5D and now AF100 because I don't want to deal with all that overhead for simple 2-3 minute shorts on a RED, so I love the images from all the cameras. These are also intended for the Internet and not really big screen presentation and minimal color correction/FX.