Originally Posted by Glimmie
There is no confusion. The initial problem was the RAW files could not be transcoded in a timely manner
which made the work flow unusable. And IIRC, the industry ran into the same old RED "our way or the highway". Well that highway is well traveled with other vendors that understood the workflow. Why was the RED Rocket card such a crash project? They had no choice as nobody in the A title business would use the RED RAW.
Maybe confusion is not the right word. Ignorance would be better.
Some of those initial problems can be laid at REDs door, because they where very bad at educating the "masses" relying too much on "third party educators."
There also took quite some time to build good enough RAW conversion tools.
But you can not blame them by comparing the Red workflow to established workflows at the time, because non of the other workflows started out as RAW. It is first now nearly five years later that Arri and Sony RAW workflow and tools are being used in any significant degree. And they have Red to thank to having gone before them with RAW.
Still, following Red from 2007, I saw the difference between the guys that had no problem with the RAW workflow and the guys that where constantly complaining.
Soderbergh managed to shoot two movies, the Che movies on preproduction beta Red One camera so it was doable. He has shot all his movies since then on Red cameras, so some get it to work, others don't.
The biggest mistake in the workflow pipeline, which gave Red an undeserved bad reputation, was that so many just transcoded the Red RAWs to ProRes.
Because of this they neither had the advantage of grading on the RAW files, or any way to go back to the the RAW files if the ProRes was not transcoded from the ultimate development of the RAW files.
Here Red should have been much stronger on informing and educating people that they should linkback to the RAW files and not discard them before the edit was finished.
This is all history now as the Red Cine-X editor is much better, and Red RAW has support in all the major editing programs. This also makes the need for Red Rocket less.
You are very good at collecting data off the net but do you work in this business?
I don't take that as a compliment, and I believe you don't mean it as that.
I have worked with cameras and been interested in camera developments for very many decades. You just have to accept that I know some things about this.
It is not the first time I have been involved in discussions to clarify and rectify facts about the Sony F65 or Red and Arri cameras.
Have you heard the term "the RED look"? And that not a complimentary term in A title DP circles.
Yes I have heard. Depending on the circles you wander it is often a compliment as not.
Some of that negative reputation you can as much lay on the doorstep of people who never cared to learn how to shoot a RAW camera or how to develop the images which I outline above.
With RAW you can make your image look exactly the way you want. People who don't master that don't know how to use RAW.
There is also the Alexa look, not always meant as a compliment.
I have lost a lot of respect for the people in the film makers community because of the irrational reasons some people give to why they wont shoot Red cameras. Which mostly are based their lack of knowledge, basing their reason of hearsay and unwillingness to learn something new and have a rational professional attitude to new technology.
And they of course defend themselves by criticising without really having a basis for their critic.
I agree RED is a player in the market. The do well with budget strapped projects and new startups. But enough of this poster boy for RED.
You don't manage to have a discussion without inserting the negative remarks now and then do you?
I guess that's because you have taken a standpoint based on stories about Red that have little facts in them. And that perception is hard for you to change.
But that also show that you know less than you thought you did.
So to say that Red cameras are only good for "budget strapped projects and new startups" rather show you are unwilling to check your facts first.
So take a look here and see
if your statement holds water?
And that's just a small percentage of the movies shot on Red, not to mention all the movies where Red cameras are used as B-camera or for VFX because the A-camera can't do what the Red cameras can.
My guess is that your are a student? Your post style fits the model very well.
You are very wide off the mark in the first sentence, I am much much too old for that, but then life is a contentious learning process, isn't it?
Maybe I should take the second sentence as a compliment as too that I still have my youthfulness and have not become an "old fart".
But I am not a scholar and neither do I have the style of one.
English is also not my first language.
P.S. this is most incorrect:
What do you mean by the "significant capture of green"? Yes, we have twice the bandwidth on the green channel. That is then used to further interpolate the red and blue. And it's very effective.
Yes it is effective, and is being used more and more in CMOS sensors. But there are a discussion going if the extra green photosites should be counted when giving a sensors resolution numbers or not. But I guess all manufacturers lie a little when they want to "hype" a new camera.
The most interesting going on at the moment regards to CMOS sensor is Fuji's use of random pattern Bayer in their X-Trans sensor. Eliminates the need for OLPF.
But that's a story for some other time.
I come out of the TV industry. And after all these so called "digital film cameras" are still in fact TV cameras. The same color science principles that were used in the development NTSC still rule today. Math does not age.
An important difference between the TV cameras and the Digital Movie cameras is that the movie cameras have significantly larger sensors, which makes an impact of how the image appear. Different optics, shallower DOF etc.
Even though basic Math doesn't age, newer mathematical equations like newer and better algorithms are created all the time and in that way improves image quality even from an older sensor.
That's the strength of RAW. Because sensor data is just "a heap of numbers", by continuously improving the Math you can make a sensor perform better.
Such things it is that makes Red owners very loyal, because the sensor in their camera "becomes new" every time Red release a new sensor data firmware upgrade.
Just want to tag on a link to a new website that is somewhat related to this discussion, an alternative to IMDb's technical specs. The website gathers technical information about films.
Quite new I think, and growing it database fast. Should be a great learning tool and reference for people interested in the BTS of movie making; ShotOnWhat?
I guess I have exhausted everybody by now.