Demistifying the RED ONE -Visual Effects Cinematography Genius - General

Recently my university's course (Brunel University, Broadcast Media Technology) got its hands on one of the newest shit hot pieces of technology in digital imaging today; the RED ONE Camera, an object of myth, rumour and confusion is an interesting beast to work with in more ways than one, and in this brief run through I'll give you my view on this beast of a camera [URL=http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3185/iso800.jpg][IMG]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3185/iso800.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [i]Individual frame from original 4k footage (shot at 30fps) Original Size (8.3 megapixel video) Adjusted to ISO 800 in REDAlert (more below) and Slightly out of focus (original .Tiff was 54mb, "high" jpeg compression settings) [/i] [b]Context[/b] This camera is being used almost specifically for composition/visual effects purposes, is kept in a green screen studio, and my workflow is entirely mac based (reasons for which I shall explain later on). This works; I'm not asking you to suggest better. [b]Hardware[/b] As I stated earlier, this camera is a beast. A heavy chunk of metal and glass even without the lens attached, it is not the same piece of technology you're used to when you pick up your handycam or latest panasonic offering. It has no on-board sound, its lens (we went for the relatively standard 18-85mm f2.9) has no auto controls, and your best bet at any kind of image stabilisation is putting it on a £5,000 tripod. It's not for messing around, and takes long enough to set up, let alone considering anything other than a locked shot until you've mastered its many foibles. It cost £60,000 for the entire setup that we have at the uni, and we're the only uni that lets undergrads use it. Lucky me! [b]Controls[/b] Herein lies the RED's main failing in my eyes; It is a fantastically complex camera. Every type of setting you could imagine to do with video is changeable, and oddly only able to be set up through a single LCD screen and thumbwheel. This just isn't intuitive, and getting out the chunky manual to go through the 25 or so trees of settings is maniacal (It can shoot in more different aspect ratios and fps formats than most cameras have settings in total); adding a few buttons to edit commonly used parameters like White balance/Colour Temp. and video format would be preferred. Thankfully for us, however, our set up means we know the exact colour temperature of our lighting system and generally keep the file format to 4k HD (4k Footage in 16:9 aspect ratio specifically for final output to 1080/720 HD) [b]EVF (Viewfinder)[/b] The viewfinder on the RED is stunning; a fully 720p HD image that lets you see exactly how sharp your footage needs to be (very important), its worth about $3k on its own [b]Storage[/b] We're using the compact flash cards, 16gb holds about 20 mins of footage, pretty acceptable [b]Shooting[/b] Once its all locked down and ready, there are a few steps that need to take place Expose, Focus, Shoot Exposure is a two stage process; ISO setting on the camera, and aperture on the lens. SLR Photographers will know what I'm on about, apart from that unlike with camera RAW, RED RAW also happens to keep ISO options available to the user in post; very useful. Wider aperture means more light, also means shallower depth of field and so less tolerances in focus. Focusing your RED properly is absolutely essential. Anything that isn't perfectly in focus (as seen in the opening picture, the slight blur was only caused by him moving slightly closer to the camera) is wasting the power this fantastic machine offers you. Measuring out the distance to camera and blocking out movements is not uncommon. Shooting is a push of a button as far as the camera is concerned. [b]Capture and Processing[/b] Being on compact flash, getting the footage of the camera is rather simple. Slam in the card, copy down the folder of footage and grab a coffee while it runs into the gigabytes. The footage the RED provides you with at this stage is nigh on unusable. A dodgy file format you can't use (.RDC if I remember right) and quicktime proxies of various sizes that are quite well known to be very unstable and make programs crash in an instant. The step you need between here and editing, is transcoding. For the unaware, transcoding is a smart word for "convert it into another video type", and herein lies one of the key reasons that I would never edit RED RAW on anything that isn't a mac; Apple's ProRes Codec. ProRes is fantastic for working with high size, high data rate footage, and with the ProRes 4444 setting, will leave you with almost all the image data you started out with, at the expense of a ~20% larger file. If you had a strong enough computer you could even play it seamlessly in quicktime if you wanted. My program of choice is REDAlert, a first party piece of software that functions almost exactly the same as most Still image RAW importers. The strength of the RED comes through here. The footage you import will be a washed out, dull looking mess, but through manipulation of white balance, exposure, ISO, and curves, just as you can on the camera before you shoot, you can make stunning looking footage pop, with a fantastic dynamic range. [url]http://vimeo.com/9470436[/url] (obviously best off viewing with HD on and in full screen.. this is only 1/2 the size of what the RED can really do) [i]Same settings as still, transcoded to Apple ProRes 4444 then downconverted to 1080 h.264[/i] Other programs are available to do this, including REDRushes, a paired down simpler to use batch converter that lacks some of the customisation options, and using Log and Transfer in Final Cut Pro, a bridge between the two, with the ability to bring in colour profiles from REDAlert to apply to your footage. [b]Editing[/b] From this point on its all free to you. If you decided to downsize to a HD resolution like 1080 (clever people), it will be just like any other HD editing you know, only with fantastic looking footage. If you're crazy/a movie editor you'll keep it at 4k/2k, and if you are one of them you probably have a computer powerful enough to allow you to preview it without your OS melting Since I had an assignment for compositing to do where I also wanted to mix in some cheesy motion graphics, After Effects became my tool of choice; The sharpness is fantastic for pulling a great key, and matched with careful lighting and spill suppression, gives fantastic results [url]http://vimeo.com/9466085[/url] I'm sure I left out lots, so ask any questions you want and I'll flesh this out with more info!

Why would you waste a RED on that ten second video that wasn't serious?

Because it's for an assignment where the aim was to show you can manipulate the footage in post. And the idea that you can waste a camera that otherwise for that morning would not be used is quite preposterous; It's like saying I'm wasting electricity Like a lot of the work on my course, just because it can be made to look silly does not mean it is silly; you've got to learn some things by doing. For a day's work, 's not so bad

[QUOTE=onox37;20236569]Why would you waste a RED on that ten second video that wasn't serious?[/QUOTE] I feel the term waste seems as if by using the camera somehow ruins it. Almost as if you only had a certain number of limited uses and it's over. Since it's all digital you don't have to worry about wasting film and as DaveP mentioned, experience is the best teacher. Personally I've always been intrigued by it. Are there any major downsides besides the mobility?

The menu system is a bit clunky, and of course you have to go through an entire workflow to get the clips usable; for most VFX shots that were intended for internet video and the like I'd probably better recommend a camera like the sony XDCAMs just as they will get a quicker result that you may need to fit into a project timeframe You need to know what you're doing, basically.

I've just got to share this example of what you can do with the RED ONE ^^ [url]http://vimeo.com/8734762[/url] That is some quality work right there :pervert:

By waste, I meant to imply that you would only get so much time with it. I'm sure other students are gladly lining up to use that fine piece of machinery.

[QUOTE=onox37;20237703]By waste, I meant to imply that you would only get so much time with it. I'm sure other students are gladly lining up to use that fine piece of machinery.[/QUOTE] Green Screen time is at more of a premium than the camera; it's a brand new piece of kit that barely anyone here understands (I'm somewhat ahead of the game on most other students on it), it's free reign to dick around with it as much as I feel like as long as I book out the time There's about 80 people on my course between the three years (only four years old and 40 people is around the max intake for first year), and perhaps another 5 people from another course who would likely be interested in its use, let alone the first years not really knowing enough to use it, so something in the region of 45 people who could have the possibility of using it, far less actual people wanting to use it due to time and deadline constraints versus the time needed to learn and perfect the process, when its use is effectively unimportant to the result of a good piece of work; it is to oil paint when you only need to draw

Where do you go to school DaveP?

Brunel Uni, West London

[QUOTE=Mr.Egg;20236977]I've just got to share this example of what you can do with the RED ONE ^^ [url]http://vimeo.com/8734762[/url] That is some quality work right there :pervert:[/QUOTE] Do want.

this is interesting

[QUOTE=Mr.Egg;20236977]I've just got to share this example of what you can do with the RED ONE ^^ [url]http://vimeo.com/8734762[/url] That is some quality work right there :pervert:[/QUOTE] Shiit thanks a bunch. I found that video on some other website some time ago and thought it was fucking awesome, crap quality though. How big is the chance that one of your favourite "porn" videos are in HD?

Nice overview. Question: Why don't this thing's lenses have continuous, let alone, single shot auto-focus? When you plunk down that kind of money, wouldn't you expect it to have a feature that every consumer grade camera has? I'd imagine it's nigh impossible to do any real motion shots with it. Also, I noticed in that the black in your jacket in that sample green screen video has a considerable amount of noise (the pixels look like they're dancing). Is that due to shooting with high ISO, or is it something else?

[QUOTE=joo52;20242402]Nice overview. Question: Why don't this thing's lenses have continuous, let alone, single shot auto-focus? When you plunk down that kind of money, wouldn't you expect it to have a feature that every consumer grade camera has? I'd imagine it's nigh impossible to do any real motion shots with it. Also, I noticed in that the black in your jacket in that sample green screen video has a considerable amount of noise (the pixels look like they're dancing). Is that due to shooting with high ISO, or is it something else?[/QUOTE] Yeah i noticed that too. In the other videos though, the Megan one and those there's not that noise. Is that because you're bad at adjusting it, or is his camera different or what?

[QUOTE=joo52;20242402]Nice overview. Question: Why don't this thing's lenses have continuous, let alone, single shot auto-focus? When you plunk down that kind of money, wouldn't you expect it to have a feature that every consumer grade camera has? I'd imagine it's nigh impossible to do any real motion shots with it. Also, I noticed in that the black in your jacket in that sample green screen video has a considerable amount of noise (the pixels look like they're dancing). Is that due to shooting with high ISO, or is it something else?[/QUOTE] As I stated earlier, this isn't prosumer; if it had Auto focus, 98% of the people that use the lens would turn it off. Almost all cinematography lenses are manual focus, as they give you the precise control you need; one person on set, a focus puller, has the specific job of making sure the camera is in focus during the shot, and that means measuring out distances, positions, and just working the follow focus into place (it's one of the things you have to do before you can be a camera operator on proper film shoots) The noise is due in part to the high ISO, and also made more obvious by the clear cut, motion graphics background; I'm also sure there's an element of "I'm new at this" going on; in colour correction on the two monitors I've previewed on the contrast is enough to negate the noise to the point of not noticing it

I get what you're saying about manual focus being important in proper film shoots. I just don't understand paying more to not have the auto-focus feature (it would definitely be useful sometimes, if only to gauge the proper distance). Prosumer lenses can do both manual and auto-focus. Why can't a professional lens do the same?

Because there isn't the need for the lens to do it; it's surplus to requirement, extra weight, extra complexity. Film shoots that use cinema cameras are so rigorously planned out that there's no need for that kind of functionality. If you want to gauge the proper distance, you measure the proper distance with a tape measure, and you'll get an answer more precise than the lens can tell you. Pro cameras don't have 'easy mode', they don't have inverted, sepia and black and white, and they don't have in camera transitions/overlay

sexy. ...er, at least, the megan fox vid. :razz:

Would definitely like to replace our shitty cameras at our Multimedia class with one of those.