February 1, 2016

First Footage from RED's 8K Vista Vision WEAPON Camera

RED WEAPON 8K Footage Erin Gales
Just after we found out that RED's 6K WEAPON MG cameras started shipping, we're getting some of the first public 8K footage from their new Full-Frame 35mm/Vista Vision camera — courtesy of Michael Cioni of Light Iron.

Though footage was shown at Cine Gear on an 8K screen in June, it was mostly wide aerial shots. While these aerial shots were impressive, there wasn't enough variation to really make much of a judgment. Now we have a full video with closeups that gives us a greater sense of what images shot with this camera will look like. Everything was shot in 8K except for a few of the secondary angles in the interview. Panavision's new 70mm Primo lenses were used on the shoot, as they can cover up to medium format/65mm sensors like the ALEXA 65.

If you've got a 4K or 5K screen (or certainly anything above 1080) be sure to head on over to Vimeo to download the original 4K UHD file, which retains quite a bit of quality from the original 4K master:

This is the camera exercise I did with the help of my friend, Erin Gales.  Everything was shot Weapon 8K at 1280ISO except for a 2nd camera angle during interviews, which was a Dragon 6K. Special thanks to Phil Newman, Megan Swanson, and Keenan Mock for their help on set.

The first thing that everyone says when 8K is mentioned is why? Why is a good question, and there are lots of good answers. The camera is being used on the new Guardians film, and the director James Gunn explained his decision about choosing the 8K WEAPON here.

As for Michael Cioni, he spends a whole page talking about why this camera and sensor exist, and why we're going to see more high-resolution sensors in the coming years. Here's a little snippet:

So as I said at the beginning;
“There are already a number of people chatting about how unnecessary 8K is and that the ‘race for resolution’ is a pointless contest.”

What I encourage everyone to consider is that 8K is not the new 4K.  Instead, 8K is about to open up an entirely new era of cameras which I now call "The Super Sensors.”  Super Sensors are camera systems like Alexa65 or Weapn 8K that are capturing with so much resolution that (like a DSLR) they are able to create a new level of smoothness that makes things look more like a photograph and less like a digital representation of film.  Ansel Adams shot large format and no one has ever said, “His images look too sharp!”  On the contrary, Adams’ images look smoother, cleaner, and multi-dimensional because they were super samples.  These are the creative words I think people will begin to use when describing what they see while shooting Weapon 8K.  

As we've said a million times here on the site, single sensor cameras have a Bayer pattern (colored filter) covering the monochrome pixels. Essentially, each individual pixel corresponds either to red, green, or blue, which means that a RAW image looks like nonsense — colors must be interpolated from surrounding pixels. As we get to higher resolution sensors, it's not just about the resolution you're shooting at, it's about the detail you are resolving — which is actual resolution. This is part of the reason why we keep getting higher resolution DSLRs, and why medium format cameras still dominate higher-end photography. More resolution, in the right circumstance, can give you many more options later on.

RED WEAPON 8K with Panavision Lenses Cine Gear 2015

People always talk about film having no resolution, and while that's true, there is a limit to the amount of detail that can be resolved. The same is true for digital sensors, and if you're shooting at 8K, you can't ever resolve 8,000 lines or so. That's because Debayering, the process of interpolating surrounding pixels, is a lossy process, and you'll end up resolving a maximum of maybe 70-80% of the original resolution. That's in a perfect world. In reality, temporal resolution (the resolution over time), plays a big role, as does the lenses you are using. Shoot a fast-moving object with bad lenses or with heavy filtration, and you're no longer resolving anywhere near what you started with. 

Does that mean we shouldn't even bother with higher resolution cameras? No, it doesn't! Just because we may not be maximizing resolved detail in every shot, doesn't mean there aren't other artifacts at play with regards to resolution. If you want to finish at 4K, it can be hugely beneficial to start well above 4K. If you want to reframe, or VFX work needs more resolution for one reason or another, shooting only at 4K means you're going to finish below 4K — and that likely means upscaling if you wanted a 4K finish. Upscaling can look good depending on what's being done, but it's usually a compromise to create pixels that were never really there in the first place. 

Michael Cioni Cine Gear Photo with Joe Marine
Somehow I ended up in the photo Cioni used in his post. That's me in the hat first from the right - ironically wearing a Panavision hat at the Panavision booth.

The other huge benefit to shooting higher than 4K for a 4K finish is downscaling. Cioni explains here:

Avoiding the upscale is a major part of the equation, but the next critical step in superior images is ensuring we have more pixels than we actually need.  When the RED ONE hit the market in 2007, the images were so fantastic because even at bayer-pattern 4K, they were super-samples of 2K and performed wonderfully in HD.  Now that OTT UHD is becoming the new normal, we need to apply that same logic to today’s content which is where the introduction of Weapon 8K becomes a powerful tool.  Don’t just use resolution as a pixel meter for bragging rights, rather use it as a Swiss Army knife multi-tool that can be leveraged in a number of creatively constructive ways.  

The footage that was shown at Cine Gear looked good, as does the footage above. It should, especially when you're using such fantastic lenses and you're shooting at the right time of day or under the right light. For the vast majority, 8K will likely be overkill for a while, but if you're finishing at 4K, there are lots of resolutions in between 4K and 8K that can help give you a smoother image, with less noise, and let you play around with the frame in post. It's also worth noting, that you'll be able to get 4K ProRes files from the 8K RAW image with the WEAPON 8K. So if you want the frame size and depth of field, but don't need all that RAW data, you can start with a 4K file right out of the box. 

Productions are free to make whatever decisions work for them, but oversampling (when done correctly), will usually lead to a better and cleaner image. 

Panavision WEAPON Module

Panavision PV Module WEAPON 8K

Though this has been relegated to the bottom of the post, it's nearly as important (or more important depending on who you're talking to). Panavision is working on a module for the RED DSMC2 bodies. Here's what it has:

  • D-tap on top powered from either input
  • audio in & out
  • 5v USB
  • 00 Lemo Control connector
  • 5 pin Timecode in with Genlock
  • 3 - HDSDI outputs
  • 3 - 12v outputs
  • 2 - 24v outputs
  • hot swap between studio power and Anton Bauer gold mount
  • built and 3D printed out of carbon polymer 
  • total weight of 8K Weapon camera & module is 5.4lbs

Be sure to read Cioni's entire post here, as there are a lot more interesting details about 8K, and where resolution is heading.       

Your Comment

86 Comments

Looks pretty cool. I bet Canon would do well with a full-frame camera in their cinema line. All of their lenses can handle it.

February 1, 2016 at 6:10PM, Edited February 1, 6:10PM

0
Reply
avatar
Steven Bailey
Writer/Director/Composer
1034

I don't think the Canon Cine Zoom lenses will cover a full-frame sensor as they are designed for the standard Super35 cine format. This is why Panavision 70mm lenses were used for this RED 8K test. ( RED 8K sensor is approximately 41mm x 21.6mm )

February 2, 2016 at 12:14PM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin
Video Producer
28655

Your opening sentence is technically wrong. This footage of short DOF close-ups subjects is about the worst subject for judging 8K vs 6K vs 4K or even 2K. Every good DOP knows when shooting with a resolution challenged camera, shot longer lens short DOF CU or ECU and avoid wide shots, especially aerials. Aerials are the most resolution demanding shots most people film. That is why 15/70mm film rules 35mm in IMAX documentaries. And why 6K Red has failed to replace 15/70mm film for aerials and why Alexa's large sensor 8K is being developed and tested with aerials. If the camera works great for 8K res aerials it's gonna work even better for everything else. Your only problem will be softening for shooting humans who don't want every pore and pimple visible.

February 1, 2016 at 6:12PM, Edited February 1, 6:18PM

1
Reply
avatar
Stephen A van Vuuren
Filmmaker
68

I agree but I think Joe might have been referring to getting an overall sense of what the camera can do. If it can resolve the details and capture the DR for aerials...great. One thing to check off the list. People have a lot of other questions though. This crosses off a pretty big one.

How's the hunt for music going?? Sorry we couldn't take part...

February 1, 2016 at 6:27PM, Edited February 1, 6:27PM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

My point was that this footage we could have judged the "other questions" on 4K or 6K with same setup. 8K is only relevant on very high detail content.

Music - we are still pushing it, global is the hard part. Want to add some prizes to help entice entries.

February 1, 2016 at 10:12PM

0
Reply
avatar
Stephen A van Vuuren
Filmmaker
68

While you're correct in a sense, the minute details of skin and hair can prove just as challenging to resolve. For instance, what struck me about the 70mm presentation of The Hateful Eight, were the absolutely incredible closeups and not the exterior Vistas.

15-perf 65mm rules Imax documentaries because that's what Imax is: a 15-perf 65mm film stock. If they shot with 35mm it would be a normal documentary.

Imax film is not normal for aerials? A handful of feature films throughout history have shot on Imax film. Every single one is in the $150+ million budget category. None of them have used Imax specifically as an aerial format (although aerials have been shot on it). It wouldn't be efficient since a rigged Imax camera is huge, bulky, and weighs upwards of 30kg. Without being able to prove it one way or another, I'd venture a guess and say Red is the premiere aerials-camera on the planet, certainly being used more than 35mm film and especially Imax film. Why? Because renting a drone is way cheaper than renting a helicopter with a gimbal.

Also, you'd have to surpass 18k digital resolution to match imax film, according to Kodak. 8k Weapon is not meant to replace it. It's a new tool in a massive arsenal available to filmmakers.

What Arri 8k chip is that? They just released a 6k chip and there's no evidence whatsoever of a new chip in development, although I don't doubt that it is but it will probably not be 8k.

February 2, 2016 at 8:38AM, Edited February 2, 8:38AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

That's according to Kodak. Have you seen a test that proves it? I will like to know about it.

February 2, 2016 at 9:07AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

That's according to both Kodak and Imax. I haven't seen any test that points to one way or another. There's a lot of factors that have to be controlled (ASA, optics, scanning, etc.) for film's potential to be maximized. I'm not aware if there are any lenses that that resolve at the level of making Imax film the weak link.

But it doesn't sound too ridiculous, seeing as how other 65mm formats are generally perceived to match 8k-12k, and Imax-film is not only taller but also way wider than any other 65mm-format.

February 2, 2016 at 11:49AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

That's what Kodak and IMAX do say but I've seen 15/70mm and 4K Digital side by side in IMAX venues in carefully controlled tests. Film is not 18K and even if it was projectors are not steady enough, even IMAX's best to resolve it. 4K projection without grain is close enough. 8K projection, assuming laser light source contrast levels and then adding HDR to it will exceed 15/70mm projection (which is much larger image area than 70mm in Hateful Eight).

Kodak and IMAX will respond that the 15/70mm negative is 18K but there is no test I've seen or heard of anywhere that has measured or proven that. Plus the maximum resolution of film recorders for 15/70mm is 5600 x 4200 pixels. 4X oversampling (11,200 x 8400) is the most you would ever want to do. Even if 18k exists, you could only get by shooting film, striking print from pristine neg and projection with some projector capable of 100% steady image which does not exist.

February 2, 2016 at 2:21PM, Edited February 2, 2:21PM

0
Reply
avatar
Stephen A van Vuuren
Filmmaker
68

At what distance and screen size? Where you would gain the full benefit of a resolution like 18k, 4k projection would like a pixelated mess! There's no way that you could possibly compare the two side by side without giving one format a huge advantage. I would also be really interested to know where you got the opportunity to view 15/70mm on one Imax screen next to another Imax screen with digital 4k projection. Or do you mean that you've seen 15/70mm in the same theater as you've seen digital 4k imax?

What do you mean by film recorder? Film Scanner? Film scans are available at waaaay higher resolutions than that.

Like I've said, there's no test that proves or disproves it, but judging by what 35mm film and 65mm film resolves with modern lenses it's perfectly reasonable, and I see no reason (no offence) to trust people on the internet over Kodak (a company known for making modest technical guarantees) or Imax; the only two sources in the world who would reasonably be able to test these kinds of things.

Wtf does HDR have to do with resolution? HDR gives higher dynamic range than the 9 stops that Rec.709 is limited to. DCI is slightly better but film has been capable of more than HDR for ages (up to 14+ stops whereas some of the best current HDR monitors still don't display more than 11 stops) . Don't really see what this has to do with anything.

Do you realize that laser technology doesn't guarantee any contrast level? Some can output great brightness levels but without the blacks you're not going to get the contrast you want. Unfortunately most cinemas have a bright green emergency exit sign that usually fuck up the blacks beyond repair, so you'll have better chance of reaching the desired contrast levels in a high-end home cinema than in an actual cinema. And in the world of high-end home cinema, the few laser projectors out there are pretty much on par with high-end LCOS projectors when it comes to contrast levels.

Still, none of this has anything to do with resolving details, or the fact that you haven't answered any question from my previous post. Even if we were being highly unscientific and also modest compared to the resolving ratings of modern film stocks, RED think it enough to use 8k-resolution on a 40mm wide sensor. 15/70mm is 75% wider, and by their methods that would equate to 14k, which is also way higher than what is currently available in both display and acquisition in the digital world.

February 2, 2016 at 6:16PM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

Do you not read? I said film recorders not scanners right above. I've been a IMAX's, Kodak's and Fotokem's tests and presentations on this in IMAX GT theaters at ideal screen distance (see the patent). And footage from my film has been part of one test.

And if you are gullible enough to belief Kodak or Red or IMAX or any company's claims with independent, reproducible tests, will good luck. I'm just a guy on the internet, but I've done my tests and homework to arrive at 8K square master for my 10 year project to future proof it. Making it 12K or 14K or 8 billion gigapixels is a huge waste.

I'm not here to argue or debate but to point out that if you've tested resolution, shots of faces in short DOF on steady camera will tell you next to nothing even if you have 8K displays (and if you, please donate it to my film). The tech fact checking & editorial oversight on NFS could be much better. Red knows - the article opens with them stating aerials were what they showed 8K off with.

February 2, 2016 at 9:08PM, Edited February 2, 9:09PM

0
Reply
avatar
Stephen A van Vuuren
Filmmaker
68

I've read what you've said. None of it is answering my questions, and a lot of it is just extremely far from the truth. You start off by talking about how Imax is an aerials-system and how Arri has an upcoming 8k sensor. You have yet to answer how you know about this mysterious sensor that no one else on the planet has any knowledge of.

You're still not answering my question. The ideal screen distance will be wildly different, if you want to maximize resolution, for 15/70mm and 4K. Just like the ideal viewing distance for 8k will be about half that of 4k. So, once again, you said you'd seen them side by side. Which IMAX GT offers 2 screens next to each other where you could see this?

I've worked long enough with electronics manufacturers to not believe any unrealistic claim. I do know, however, that Kodak for instance rates Vision3 at 13+ stops, whereas INDEPENDENT tests have rated it much higher (Zacuto rated it at 14.5+ stops for instance). I know of only two companies that post modest specifications in these areas: Kodak and Arri. Until they start posting fantasy specifications, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe Red's 16.5+ stops claim because independent testing has proven it just doesn't get close.

The reason, I would imagine, no independent testing is available on this topic is it's simply too expensive and impractical to do. Somehow, your independent research, of which you've said nothing about other than it exists, we're supposed to believe over Kodak.

I don't doubt that 8k is more than enough for future-proofing. If you look further down the thread, you'll see me arguing that mastering above 4k for anything but the absolute biggest theaters in the world, is foolish, because most people just won't experience the full benefit of 4k.

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about resolving power of IMAX-film. My argument was this: Red 8k is not supposed to replace IMAX film. IMAX film has a (theoretically or not) much higher resolving power than 8k and is a completely different format altogether. RED 8k is ultra widescreen VistaVision whereas an IMAX frame more resembles a 4:3 frame than a 16:9 one. They're altogether different, but like IMAX, Red VistaVision 8k is part of an ever-growing arsenal of equipment available to filmmakers. What a film recorder has to do with the resolving power of a 15/70mm negative is beyond me.

February 3, 2016 at 4:49AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

You are not interesting in asking questions for answers - just in being argumentative and I'm not wildly motivated to reply in detail. Data is out there. But if you really want it...

There is no wildly different screen distances in IMAX GT theaters - see their patents that screen size to viewing distance with steep rake is at the heart of their patents. I was in the theater sweet spot (see patents) but did not have measuring tape.

Tests by Fotokem were butterflied projection of 15/70 and high bitrate 4K DCP with same exact footage synced. Very difficult test to pull off. Kodak tests I've seen Dark Knight prints from camera negative struck by DKP 70mm. That does exceed 4K.

If you really want to see the research in detail that has been done, join the Giant Screen CInema Association and peruse years of reports of these and other tests as well as research by DIGGS specifications. I can't post links here, member only information.

I've actually seen 8K projection in full-dome although it's really more like 6K and had my footage part of that test. A true 8K system (multi-projector) is coming this year in full-dome only.

I only posted here that the footage posted had no value for evaluating 8K vs 4K vs 2K. Anyone who things limited motion of short DOF face shots challenging resolving power of camera systems does not know what they are talking about.

I argued with the claim that 15/70mm resolves 18K. I personally know some of the people making that claim originally and know for a fact it's not been independently tested or verified nor have the claimants published data to prove it.

I also have seen film scanning to film output test of film scanning oversampling and 2X (actually 4X mathwise) oversampling makes easy to see visible difference. That means if 15/70mm resolves 18K, you would need a 36K film scan to properly resolve it. 4 times as much data.

I've seen hundreds of hours of 15/70 from the post pristine to the poorest shot projected on 15/70mm, 35mm, 4K and 2K, laser, DLP, SXRD with various scanning resolutions, source material, CGI.

And film, because of grain, cannot resolve the very fine details one would expect from an 18K negative. That is why 4K projection is now replacing GT sized 15/70 installs, especially IMAX's 4:3 laser system which is anamorphic i..e only 2160 pixel highs. IMAX's own tests revealed that 8K with lower contrast/dynamic range gave poorer results than high contrast, high dynamic range 4K. That claim I entirely agree with and have seen myself and science backs this up. The worst giant screen visuals I've seen are 1st gen Sony SXRD 4K that simply lacked the lumens and contrast range and looked much worse than a bright 2K DLP.

That is why IMAX went with dual projector 2K DLP for their gen 1 digital designed for SR sized (not GT) venues. They hoped pixel offset from dual projectors would provider better resolution. That system failed to show much if any improvement.

I was lumping for time's sake Arris 6.5k, Sony's 8K replacement and Red's. Arri's 6.5 is much more aimed at giant screen and I know the DP (who's done a lot of testing including IMAX cameras to space, currently C500 which is very underrated as a 4K camera. It almost always looks better than Red Epics in giant screen test which is why Red Epics did not got to space. I have not seen Weapon or Vistavision although I will if make it to conferences this year but busy on my film.

Bottom line - there is on 18K film that has been tested. There are some arguments from Fotokem that you might be able to extract 12k from 15/70mm under ideal circumstances but without 12k projection or some test, it's all just claims.

And relationships between negative, scanning and/or digitally captured resolution and resolving resolution of output and projection formats is at the core of creating workflows and budgets as well as foundations of business like Fotokem (I keep mentioning them because they are awesome and they are the only place in US for 65/70mm now.

But for film, the resolution of the film beyond 2X oversampling means it would be wasted as well. If yo do the math, 4K projection is nearly good enough according to just about everybody to replace 15/70. Maximum resolution of 15/70mm film recordings is 5.6K. We can safely assume for flat screen and partial dome, 6K projection is equal or better to 15/70mm projected. Which means capturing at anything beyond 12K is not even theoretically of any value. And if you ever worked or budgeted post for 2K vs 4K or 4K vs 6 or 8K this is just not specs, it's huge money.

Fulldome bears this out (360 degrees horizontal, 180 vertical projection). They've found 8K replaces 15/70mm almost as well for resolution. 12K is great, 16K is about as far as they would ever go.

Bottom, bottom line. If you state IMAX film is 18K, you are repeating a marketing statement by people deeply, emotionally attached to film (which includes me) - but it's not a fact or measured result. Nor can it be seen anywhere in any footage under any conditions that I'm aware of.

Perhaps in the future we will have 100K projection walls on sides of 10 story buildings so we can see what distance that matters from. But for now, this footage still is pointless for evaluating 8K.

February 3, 2016 at 1:21PM

0
Reply
avatar
Stephen A van Vuuren
Filmmaker
68

correct me if I'm wrong but if 5 Perf 70mm is easily scanned at 8k, doesn't that mean 15 Perforations can be scanned at 24k? Even though there isn't a film scanner that can do that. Just wondering. digital is also going to look cleaner and sharper, but film renders detail differently and sometimes may perceive things to have more detail.

February 3, 2016 at 2:47PM

0
Reply

Not my favorite test. First off it was delivered in 16:9 which makes no sense at all being that it was captured in a Vista Vision format so you don't even get the feeling of how wide the frame is. All the blacks were crushed and the shots lacked detail or excitement. I honestly don't see anything that this test demonstrates that makes this camera special or ground breaking. Is this really the best Light Iron could do? I think not.

February 1, 2016 at 6:56PM, Edited February 1, 6:58PM

3
Reply
Filmmaker Dude
Film stuff
168

Who's excited to start hearing d-bag DPs and Producers claim they NEED TO SHOOT ON AN 8K CAMERA!!

February 1, 2016 at 7:41PM, Edited February 1, 7:41PM

2
Reply
Nick Rowland
Street Bum
342

I know it's a long shot but...the select few people with 8K cameras? I would imagine they would be pretty excited.

"Noun 1. PRICE GOUGING - pricing above the market price when no alternative retailer is available."

February 1, 2016 at 8:27PM, Edited February 1, 8:35PM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Is price gouging having to pay $10,000.00 a day to rent the Arri 65mm 6K? Coz I'm just sayin.

February 2, 2016 at 12:19AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Don't even get me started on those prices...

They know their market though.

February 2, 2016 at 12:23AM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Compare the $10k rental on the A65 against shooting 65mm film and suddenly it looks like a bargain.

February 2, 2016 at 11:01AM, Edited February 2, 11:01AM

0
Reply

Then compare those two options to this RED camera and suddenly it isn't as flabbergasting as some make it seem.

February 2, 2016 at 12:02PM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Yeah I'm sure they'll be ecstatic getting offered $400/day for their camera package and lens set.

February 2, 2016 at 6:01PM

3
Reply
Nick Rowland
Street Bum
342

You are hilarious.

Where are you getting these prices? Are you just throwing the first number out that comes to mind?

Also, using your LOWEST possible estimation they would pay the camera off after working for 75 days. That is a feature and a couple of commercials.

Then sell the camera and see most of that initial return back. If it puts you to work...do it. If it gets you a leg up on ANYONE...do it. It's competitive and sometimes being on the leading edge of technology gets you jobs. It's more expensive to be there. Certainly riskier. Much bigger payout though. If you really can't do anything with it you sell and minimize the losses. It is the middle ground game, Nick. It's not low budget, it's not high budget. Plenty of people are playing it.

$400/day...

You're too much.

February 3, 2016 at 2:39AM, Edited February 3, 2:39AM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Also, $50/hr is the type of work most normal people go to school for years to attain.

I (fortunately) have the life experience to appreciate the work I get. When you start out washing dishes, hanging gutters, cleaning golf carts, picking raspberries, driving tractors, driving seed trucks, working in retirement homes, working at Arby's, working the night shift stocking shelves, and taking out groceries for people...$400/day to use a camera isn't the worst gig in the world.

I can think of much MUCH worse. I would be wary of scoffing at $400/day jobs in this climate if I were you. Better hope a time doesn't come when you wished that level of work was still available to you. We should all be so lucky.

February 3, 2016 at 2:48AM, Edited February 3, 2:48AM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Whoa dude - get off your high horse.

First off where the hell are you getting your numbers from?

$400/day x 75 days = $30,000. I said CAMERA PACKAGE AND LENS SET. $30,000 is the price of the Weapon Brain ONLY. Let me spell that out for you - It comes with nothing: No matte box, no follow focus, no tripod, no memory, not even a lens mount. No accessories whatsoever.

Decent cinema grade lenses at the low end are $4,000 EACH. $4,000 x 6 piece lens set = $24,000.

So here's a hypothetical. Let's say you're an idiot -HYPOTHETICALLY of course. You buy the Weapon Brain ONLY for $30,000. You get cheap, yet decent, cinema grade lenses for $24,000.

$30,000 + $24,000 = $54,000.....If you wanted to pay off $54,000 in 75 days you would have to charge $720/day. But no one is going to rent a camera body with no lens mount. I hope to god you don't run a business. Your finances must be jacked up. Maybe you should have stuck to gathering life experiences.

And what does working at Arby's and those other jobs have to do with production work? Most of the jobs on a production, especially getting into camera and lighting, are specialized jobs that utilize specialized equipment. Yes, you don't need a proper education to do those jobs, but it does require a specialized skill set to do them. You should be getting paid for this knowledge as well as your investment in the specialized equipment package (CAMERA AND LENSES) a production is wanting to use.

It's called integrity - which most indie productions have none of. It's people like you that keep them this way by undercutting the fair prices that should be paid to people for their time and equipment.

February 3, 2016 at 4:33PM, Edited February 3, 4:43PM

0
Reply
Nick Rowland
Street Bum
342

Wait.

So you're adding a set of 6 cinema lenses to the Weapon package now? This started out as a discussion about a camera. You said the word "lenses" but I didn't think I had to work 6 cinema lenses into my budget estimation? Ha. You're killing me.

OK...I will play on your terms.

Even if I gave you this ridiculous scenario...we all know that none of the early adopters for this camera will be getting less than $1,000 per day. The only comparable camera is the 65mm Arri and they are $10,000 a day with no operator! How on earth could you think the first owners of this camera will be making as much as a kid in LA does with his Scarlet MX?! Your estimation didn't even deserve a response in the first place. The fact that you convoluted it to involve 6 cinema lenses as well shows just how far you are trying to stretch this...what, should we add a grip truck and a Technocrane as well? Lol.

Finally...per the "integrity" section:

Since I go out of my way to not seek or accept Cinematography work, I'm not really undercutting or competing against anyone here. I don't like working as a Cinematographer. It's not "the thing" I like about filmmaking...actually, it's probably one of my least favorite aspects of it.

In closing (seriously..not even coming back here to see if you respond) thanks for the debate. I enjoy a good one from time to time. :)

February 3, 2016 at 6:09PM, Edited February 3, 6:54PM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Weird - I swear under your name it says: 'Cinematographer/Composer/Editor'

C-i-n-e-m-a-t-o-g-r-a-p-h-e-r. Is that how you spell 'cinematographer'?

So I guess since you don't like working as a cinematographer, and go out of your way to not seek or accept cinematography work, you're just a pompous douche that likes the title.

Me stating FACTS of what things cost isn't assumptive. It's math bro. Maybe you shouldn't have jerked it so much at Arby's.

February 3, 2016 at 7:05PM

0
Reply
Nick Rowland
Street Bum
342

Bro...if we are judging each other by our NoFilmSchool profiles then you're a street bum with no work to show. Nothing. You sure you want to play that card?

Let's call it a draw and say that we both probably don't care too much about the titles on our NFS user profiles and that we set up our profiles on day one and haven't made changes since? Up to you.

Your counter argument will be "I don't put my work on the internet". I've heard it a million times. The internet is full of "you". The difference is I am not the one making assumptions based on your profile. Have I once called you a "douchebag"? Or insulted you?

Seriously...what is your deal

February 3, 2016 at 8:48PM, Edited February 3, 9:44PM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

I didn't make any assumptions based on your profile. I simply stated, verbatim, what your description says.

I didn't think this would turn into a dick measuring contest. But if you want to play cards then here you go:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3991335/

That is called experience. I also work at a camera rental house on my days off. So, I kind of know what I'm talking about when it comes to what camera packages are renting for and what a low ball deal is.

Where's your work?

February 3, 2016 at 11:12PM, Edited February 3, 11:15PM

0
Reply
Nick Rowland
Street Bum
342

Luke has done more than grips Nick.

February 3, 2016 at 11:26PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

I'm not about to belittle you or your work. I will not go there. You have your opinions and I have mine...let's leave it at that.

I got a thread going on Reduser to see what people plan on renting it out at (ball park). Let's see what actual owners and pre orders are thinking, shall we? We could also ask a few rental houses. What about the one you work for? What's their name? I wonder what they will rent it for during the first year.

February 4, 2016 at 12:12AM, Edited February 4, 1:01AM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

I must be spoiled...the Red 8k
doesn't actually seem like whole
lot of money.

I remember when we paid
$55,0000 yup! 55 grand for
high-end Betacam SP cameras
and another $35,000 for a
Fujinon Servo Lens! Add in
another $100,000 for a
Pinnacle FX system And $15,000
for a realtime colour corrector and
the prices for an Alexa 65 rental
or a Red 8k buy ain't all that bad!

---

Keeping to the subject matter,
We actually shoot quite a bit
of 8k footage. We just rack four
Canon 1Dc 4k cameras in a 2x2
Camera configuration and edit on
four stacked 4k screens. Space
isn't a problem...we've got over
two PETABYTES (2000 Gigabytes)
Of storage and you just need to
have Four AMD FirePro S9150
Graphics cards to handle the
8192 x 4320 pixel footage in
near real time and edit using a
combo Of FirePro accelerated Adobe Premiere and Adobe
After Effects
in animation mode
after the 4 streams are combined
into one! All you have to do is
make sure you're shooting with
PRIME lenses such as Schneider
Xenar3 with some custom
PL to Canon EF adapters
(custom machined)
and lock your focus and
you're good to go!

Works like a charm for specialty
Videographers like ourselves!

February 5, 2016 at 8:28AM, Edited February 5, 8:42AM

0
Reply
Henry A. Eckstein
Director, Research and Development
118

I agree with you about the price of Red 8K. The prices you bring up are from years ago, which would be higher now. So what this 8K camera will be priced at will be low.

To be real about it, almost all of us commenting here won't be buying a Red, or Arri. We will be looking for Sony a7S's, GH4's, BlackMagic's, AJA Cion's, etc. And they will work great for us, producing an image that is better than almost everything we could see on video only 5 years ago.

February 5, 2016 at 10:37AM

1
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Henry A. Eckstein

Your knowledge looks pretty valuable. Do you have a blog?

February 6, 2016 at 12:15AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Amazingly we have no blog as
We kinda-mostly have no time.
We work on custom video projects
That are multicamera in nature
For higher end industrial clients.

Everything from 4 camera
8k shoots up to 32 4k camera
360-degree Surround-View
video shoots which are used to
create hyper-realistic 3D virtual
reality environments.

Its all ridiculously and hideously
EXPENSIVE and time consuming
to do so our blogging is
non-existent but we are more
than willing to share information.

I was formally trained in video
production inthe Cinema,
Television, Stage and Radio Arts
program at SAIT (Southern
Alberta Institute Of Technology)
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and
graduated in 1993 so i've been
doing this video production work
a looooong time!

And that means i have had to
learn the HARD WAY on what
to do (and what NOT to do!)
during many shoots...I call it
the School of Hard Knocks!

I hurts your wallet and mind
like hell...BUT... It is a VERY
Effective teaching method!

I almost highly recommend it that
School of Hard Knocks!

February 7, 2016 at 1:21AM, Edited February 7, 1:31AM

1
Reply
Henry A. Eckstein
Director, Research and Development
118

Thanks for the reply. :-)

Is there a web site for your business?

February 8, 2016 at 9:11AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

P.S. I bit of a Math Mistake above ... 2 Petabytes
is actually 2000 TERABYTES not 2000 Gigabytes.
My Bad.... It's all online storage using MANY
Terabyte Flash Drives and Normal 3 Terabyte Hard Drives!

February 7, 2016 at 9:50PM

0
Reply
Henry A. Eckstein
Director, Research and Development
118

Simply extraordinary image! The close up face at 0:28 to 0:30 has EXCELLENT flesh tone. And it has such fascinating detail while not looking overly sharp---which is the complaint leveled so many times at Red, "Too sharp". It looks soft. It looks beautiful.

The way her lips move at 2:47 to 2:51, and 3:23 to 3:27, is something I've never seen in any video before.

LONG LIVE HIGHER K's!!!!!

February 1, 2016 at 10:15PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Oh yeah, the human eye can't see higher K's. That's right, that's right. And bees can't fly. The periodic table of elements can only hold 112 elements. Pluto isn't a planet. Yeah, the settled science all about us.

February 1, 2016 at 10:24PM

1
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Gene, do you get paid by Red to be such a fanboy?

February 2, 2016 at 9:02AM, Edited February 2, 9:02AM

0
Reply
Alexis Marcoux
Director of photography
43

Yeah, the word fanboy had to come out. It's virtually impossible to say anything good about a Red camera and not have the word come out. This time it almost 12 hours for it to come out. It used to be within minutes. I guess that's progress.

I find people say things on the internet they would not say in person.

If I had said film was spectacular would you call me a film fanboy?

And no, I'm not paid by Red. Silly. Have you no imagination?

Try to challenge yourself to think up out of the 'fanboy' ditch.

This Red 8K camera is simply amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you handle the truth. No, I don't think you can.

I think you guys that bring out 'fanboy' are little more than trolls that ruin the vibe of comment threads.

I'm paid by Red, sheesh, that is so 5 years ago.

February 2, 2016 at 9:11AM, Edited February 2, 9:29AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Gene....come on man. A simple no would have worked.

February 2, 2016 at 10:26AM

1
Reply
avatar
John D. Smith
All in One
189

John,

you think Alexis was looking for a yes or no answer? He was making a statement, no?

February 2, 2016 at 9:43PM

2
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

This camera is amazing, like all other dragon-based cameras but this whole defensive "higher k's means better image" argument is kind of tiresome. What you fail to mention is the screen size and what distance people view the material. To get the full benefit of 4k on a 65" screen you have to view it at 1.6m/5 ft (for someone with perfect vision). How many people do you know who do that? How many people are going to view 8k material at half that distance?

I can personally attest to the fact that 4k looks better than 1080p even outside the range where it should give an effect, but the difference is minute. I think Michael is on to something, when he's talking about the smoothness of higher resolutions.

February 2, 2016 at 6:29PM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

Higher K's do mean better image. That is why all camera makers are rushing to go into higher and higher K's.

February 2, 2016 at 9:47PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Not all camera-makers are rushing to higher K's. Most are very satisfied at 4k, and right now only one camera-maker is actively pushing resolutions up.

I'd be much more interested in seeing higher dynamic range than higher k's. I don't necessarily believe that higher k's look better, but there are obvious advantages to it.

February 3, 2016 at 4:51AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

4K is a higher K.

February 3, 2016 at 10:29AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Gene, it was a joke obviously... But I been reading your comments on this and others tread and it always the same. kkkkkkkkk!!!!!!! Man, there is a lot more to an image than it resolution... Get over it a bit and chill out

February 3, 2016 at 4:32AM

0
Reply
Alexis Marcoux
Director of photography
43

It wasn't obviously a joke. Put a wink eye by your jokes.

And of course there's more to an image than resolution.

February 3, 2016 at 10:30AM, Edited February 3, 10:31AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Gene, I thought your first comment was a joke lol.

February 5, 2016 at 4:14AM, Edited February 5, 4:15AM

0
Reply
avatar
Stephen Herron
Writer/Director
1117

Which one?

February 5, 2016 at 6:27AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

I'm 100% sure RED doesn't pay any third parties to do promos. Yes, their employees do work on some promos in house, and Yes, Red is somewhat selective to ensure their first batch of new cameras goes to recognized talented hands. But Red is not Sony, Canon, or BMD; RED does not pay people to say good things. If anything, I wouldn't be too surprised if some of the initial negative commentary against RED were born out of the fact they refused to pay reviewers. The 8K Weapon is the best digital "cinema" camera period. If the desire is for a "web" camera for Youtube or Vimeo, then almost anything will do thanks to the wonders of compression that conform/clamp DR and heavily reduce/remove detail.

February 2, 2016 at 1:30PM, Edited February 2, 1:45PM

0
Reply
avatar
Daniel Reed
Hat Collector
745

"The 8K Weapon is the best digital "cinema" camera period."

That's a pretty weird statement don't you think? Nothing has objectively proven the Red Weapon (this is that but with a wider frame size) or any other cinema camera, for that matter, to be the best.

Also, when have BMD ever paid someone for a promo?

February 2, 2016 at 6:35PM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

People rush to say Arri is the best with every Arri camera that comes out. It's ok that some will say Red is the best. It may turn out this 8K is the best. Image is not all about dynamic range. Though one would get the impression from reading some commenters that since Red's DR is not a much as Arri's that Red is automatically rejected in favor of Arri.

One thing that is clear, this 8K image has some characteristics I've never seen in video before.

What I'm interested in next is the color gamut. This video was not shot showing off the potential in color of this camera.

February 3, 2016 at 10:36AM, Edited February 3, 10:38AM

3
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

The laws of basic optical physics
Say Alexa 65 is better than Red 8k

Larger pixels and good colour
science is what makes for
beautiful Pictures...and Alexa's
larger individual pixels by
definition means it will have
MORE latitude and less noise
than Red plus I've shot on
enough Sony F65s, Dalsa Origin,
Phantom Gold 65, Panavision
Genesis, Canon C500/5D3/1Dc
And Alexa cameras to know only
Canon and Panavision come even
CLOSE to an Alexa...Red isn't even
In the game when it comes to
getting the colour sciences
down pat like Arri, Panavision
and Canon!

In terms of the BEST inexpensive
camera with great colour and
good (low) Noise level is actually
the Canon 5D Mark 3 when hacked
with Magic Lantern shooting RAW!

It has something like 12.5 stops
Of latitude and the colour in raw
Mode was absolutely AAA
Prime Cut quality even when
compared to an Alexa.

With Canon cameras, you need
To shoot with around 11 stops
In mind ...if you do, your colours
Look great and NO noise!

Of all the cameras i listed above,
The Canon 5D3 with Magic Lantern
RAW offers the best bang for
the buck! Just remember to
shoot with a high end prime lens
Like Zeiss or Schneider or if you're
More on the broke side, a Sigma
ART series 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm
lens...only $950 and SUPER
SHARP rivalling a Zeiss Master
Prime in sharpness for many,
many thousands of dollars less!

February 5, 2016 at 8:58AM, Edited February 5, 9:32AM

0
Reply
Henry A. Eckstein
Director, Research and Development
118

A GH2 Hacked can fool people that it is an Arri. I know to a highly trained eye differences can be detected. But it takes the highly trained eye--and they are rare. Maybe you are spoiled, like you say. If all the cameras you list were shown side by side, no one, except the trained eye, could tell you which is best. They'd all look the same, even the $400.00 GH2 Hacked.

I think it comes down to who is handling the camera. I've seen EXCELLENT footage from a few people with a Red. And I've seen average stuff from an Arri.

Honestly, Arri's look too warm/yellow to me.

February 5, 2016 at 10:45AM, Edited February 5, 10:49AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Wait and see ! This first footage is not so amazing.

February 2, 2016 at 3:56AM, Edited February 2, 3:58AM

0
Reply
avatar
Martin Flament
Director of Photography
86

Not that impressive. This footage could also been shot on any other 1080p camera.

It does not show the pontential of 8K, which only exists in post-processing (reframing, downscaling to 4K, ...).

For the human eye, delivery in true 4K or true 8K makes no sense at all. You just see no difference anymore in higher resolutions.

February 2, 2016 at 6:23AM, Edited February 2, 6:23AM

0
Reply
JeffreyWalther
Steadicam Operator
386

Hi,

I can see a difference between 1080p and 4k, 6k, and 8k, even with my glasses off.

I see comments that talk about 1080p equaling high K's. Can you link that 1080p video here so I can see how it looks?

February 2, 2016 at 9:24AM, Edited February 2, 9:26AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

You haven't got my post. Please, read it again.

February 2, 2016 at 9:38AM, Edited February 2, 9:38AM

0
Reply
JeffreyWalther
Steadicam Operator
386

You say the human eye can't see a difference. So link a 1080p video here that looks the same as 4k, 6k, and 8k. I will look at and see if my eye doesn't see a difference.

February 2, 2016 at 9:46AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

I was just at Best Buy on Sunday looking at 4K tvs. I saw a clear difference from 1080p tvs. I was also looking at curved screen tvs. People say there is no difference between flat screens and curved screens. But I saw a clear difference.

4K is the hottest thing in tvs right now. The general population is snapping them up! The general population is not stupid. They want 4k for good reason. Only the people that think the general population is stupid are stupid.

February 2, 2016 at 9:54AM, Edited February 2, 9:57AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Maybe I was not precise in my comment. So let me explain in detail, please:

There is a significant difference between footage, that is natively recorded in 1080p and footage that is natively recorded in 4K. No doubt, 4K footage has more pixels and more information.

If you deliver 1080p, you just can do that with 1080p recorded footage, which is OK. But if you use 4K footage and scale it down to fit into 1080p you get a much sharper look. I think we all can confirm this. This is what the human eye can see without problems.

In case of 4K delivery, you can use native 4K footage. Or you increase resolution in production, let’s say to fancy 8K, and scale it down to fit into 4K for delivery. But: here in 4K delivery, the difference between native 4K and scaled down 8K is not that high.

As I said before, 8K makes sense for post-production only, which means reframing, downscaling, digital-zoom.
Maybe also in future, when cinemas beam directly 8K to the screen.

February 2, 2016 at 10:37AM, Edited February 2, 10:39AM

0
Reply
JeffreyWalther
Steadicam Operator
386

Thanks for the insight, Jeffrey. I really enjoyed your comments. I personally shot this material and would strongly say that no 1080p camera could capture these images the same way. -A variation of these images, certainly! But with this exact texture? I would say no. For example, the DOF driven by a 40mm wide sensor creates falloff that cannot be replicated using a smaller sensor (I tried to create a few shots that demonstrated this). In addition, I have not experienced a camera with photosites this small that are this quiet, which is another unique element of Weapon 8K imagery.
Some additional thoughts about 8K can be found here if you care to investigate.
Michael
http://michaelcioni.tumblr.com

February 2, 2016 at 5:15PM

0
Reply
avatar
Michael Cioni
President, Light Iron
10

Thanks for the test Michael! would the falloff be the same if the smaller sensor was using a speedbooster equaling that to the a full frame sensor? Also would a 50mm 1.4 lens on full frame be the same as a 34mm .95 on super 35? I keep hearing people it's all the same when you do these alternatives

February 3, 2016 at 2:52PM

0
Reply

QUOTE: "4K is the hottest thing in tvs right now. The general population is snapping them up! The general population is not stupid. They want 4k for good reason. Only the people that think the general population is stupid are stupid."

-----
Actually the ugly truth is that a large portion of the general population is dumb enough to get lost in a phone booth.

February 2, 2016 at 11:19AM, Edited February 2, 11:20AM

0
Reply

You are absolutely correct! Another ugly truth is that if you wanted a high-end panel in the consumer TV market (which is what Best Buy deals with), they're not being produced with 1080p resolutions anymore. Kind of like how every TV has 3d whether you want it or not. Everyone bought 3d because that became the norm, not because it was better.

February 2, 2016 at 6:41PM, Edited February 2, 6:42PM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

Oscar,

Just go to any store that has a 4K tv next to a 1080p tv. Look at them for a moment. The difference is immediately seen. 4K is better. I guess some people don't think it does look better. Some people will always think horses are better than cars. Horses definitely are beautiful.

But 4K is not a sales gimmick. 4K sells itself. It sells itself because it is an improvement on what came before it. No one in any store where 4K tvs are being sold have to work hard to sell them. The only aspect of the sale that is work is trying to point out in an easy to understand way the difference between the brands.

February 2, 2016 at 9:59PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Look Gene,

Before I started working in film I worked for about 9 years in home electronics (still help out from time to time) and I've sold tv's and projectors for most of those years. Not only did I work in home electronics but in a high-end home cinema store that properly displays products in a dark environment with all the bullshit-settings turned off (ie giving each display the optimal opportunity at maximum performance).

I've sold 4k projectors since when 35mm projection was still the norm in cinema theaters. I'm extremely aware of the benefits of 4k. While I think the differences are more apparent on a 120" screen, and while I don't argue that 4k generally is better, the differences are EXTREMELY small at the viewing distances that most people adhere to.

Simply put, out of all the 4k tv's I've sold (a couple of hundred at least) I don't think a single person has sat close enough to get the full benefit of 4k resolution. With that said, I'll attest to 4k looking better than 1080p even outside the range where 1080p has its full benefit. By better I mean text looks slightly crisper and there's a slightly higher perceived resolution but that's it. With that in mind, I will definitely say that 8k in the home is completely useless. The only place higher than 4k-masters are of interest, are in the biggest cinema theaters.

4k is (once again I'm not saying it's not better, just kind of pointless for most people) like anything else in the tv world, something that you get whether you want it or not. Like 3d, like LED (or LCD which is wildly inferior to plasma technology in almost every single way), like dynamic contrast, like frame interpolation systems, something that in its first generation was a premium and after two years it's there whether you want it or not if you're looking for a somewhat high-end image quality. Some of these things are good (4k is), but most are bad. That's just how the tv market works, however. The manufacturers decide what's up next and then they shove that down your throat.

February 3, 2016 at 5:21AM, Edited February 3, 5:23AM

1
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

I think it's not fair for people to keep talking about the distance we're supposed to be sitting from a 4K tv to see it at its maximum resolution. No one ever brings that up when talking about 1080p tvs. Because, I'm sure there's a distance where 1080p is viewed at its maximum too. You can see a difference between 1080p and 4K, no matter how close or how far you sit from it. It's not fair to disparage 4K tvs because people are not viewing it at it's maximum level of resolution since it's never done with any other tv before.

I'm not a cynic about this topic. Can I suggest, and I'm not trying to take a shot at you about this, but, maybe you've become a little bit of a cynic about it.

February 3, 2016 at 6:11PM, Edited February 3, 6:15PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Cynical, Hank?

February 2, 2016 at 9:54PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

What coming is HDR tvs. They will be there very soon.That will change a lot of things because cameras will need better codec to show all the DR and color space. We don't need more k's, we need better codecs, DR and color space

February 3, 2016 at 4:18AM

1
Reply
Alexis Marcoux
Director of photography
43

Alexis, HDR won't be nearly enough to catch up to today's cameras. The average tv's today show maybe 5-7 stops of dynamic range. The cameras have been able to do more than what HDR will be capable of, since the inception of the Alev3 sensor (so about 10 years now) and most probably way before that. Although I agree that DR and color space are more interesting than higher resolution.

February 3, 2016 at 4:54AM

0
Reply
avatar
Oscar Stegland
DP/Steadicam
374

Your right Oscar. But it will be a good start. We will move away from all this resolution obsession. And see other informations in the images that are as important

February 3, 2016 at 6:27AM, Edited February 3, 6:27AM

0
Reply
Alexis Marcoux
Director of photography
43

It all depends on the display. Dolby has displays that see over 20 stops and only HDRx footage from a RED can get up there.

February 3, 2016 at 11:45AM

3
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

Luke, can we please see the infos that are backing up your claim? Because from all that I read, and seen. Right now, only Arri cameras have a TRUE 14 stops of DR. Here is a link to a very serious tests made by Mailing list cinematography:

http://cinematography.net/edited-pages/CML-UWE-tech.html

(Read the results lower in the page) Red camera seem to have far lower stops in DR then what they are claiming...

So how can it be the only camera that good for HDR if Arri as more of it???

February 4, 2016 at 1:09AM, Edited February 4, 1:19AM

0
Reply
Alexis Marcoux
Director of photography
43

Luke said using HDRx, which is slightly different from the normal way of shooting. In case you're not familiar:
http://us.red.com/learn/red-101/hdrx-high-dynamic-range-video

February 4, 2016 at 1:18PM

0
Reply

What Brian said. HDRx is capable of 6 stops (on top of what the MX/Dragon gets normally)

February 9, 2016 at 3:13AM

0
Reply
avatar
Luke Neumann
Cinematographer/Composer/Editor
1567

>>>"they are able to create a new level of smoothness that makes things look more like a photograph and less like a digital representation of film."

I find this quote funny because people have been putting down 1080p / 4K digital compared to film because it looks too smooth and doesn't have the organic grain of film. And now people will still be putting down 1080p / 4K digital because it's not as smooth as 8K digital footage and doesn't have that "photographic" look to it. Ha!

February 2, 2016 at 12:23PM, Edited February 2, 12:23PM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin
Video Producer
28655

Fantastic! Now I can see her blackheads really clearly.

February 2, 2016 at 6:34PM

4
Reply
avatar
Jonathon Sendall
Stories
1325

Phew! There's a few people that a super sensitive about film.

February 3, 2016 at 10:12AM, Edited February 3, 10:12AM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Super sensitive? I think you're the one that's getting hot under your collar ;0) Some people are just of the view that resolution isn't the most important factor in a good image. I wish I could find the article that actually gave the math that delineated distance to screen and human eye/brain resolution. That would settle a lot of argument about when res is important and when it isn't.

February 3, 2016 at 1:01PM

2
Reply
avatar
Jonathon Sendall
Stories
1325

I've never asserted, anywhere, nor thought, that image quality is all about resolution. If you, Alexis, and Oscar are thinking you needed to reply to my comments about this camera because you thought I am only caring about resolution, what was it that made you think that? You all must have preconceived ideas about people that like higher K's.

And the idea that we have to sit at a certain distance to view 4K really has no place in the real world. It's just so much mathematical argument fodder.

No one ever said we must view 1080p and this or that distance. I am certain 1080p also has a distance where you must be to see it at it's maximum resolution. It's more of a study in psychology as to why it has suddenly become important with 4K tvs than an actual factor that matters in the real world. I think a substantial part of the reason is because things are changing SO FAST. There's so much knowledge to keep up with. There's so many things changing on more than one front. It can feel tiring. It can even feel a bit frightening.

Anyone can see 4K tvs look better than 1080p tvs. And the price is of 4K tvs is virtually the same as 1080p tvs were about 2 years ago. Its prices will, of course, continue to come down. Sales 1080p tvs in America will soon be gone just like standard definition tvs sales are gone now.

BTW, it's not just more details in the image that is being captured by 4K, 6K, and 8K cameras, but also more color is being captured. Higher K's means more iridescence in color.

I only see things to be excited about in K's going higher. And I think what's being said about 8K, that it is a sweet spot in resolution, where camera companies will pause to develop all the other aspects of image, like 4:4:4, wider DR, 16bit color, etc., before going on to even higher K's, is true.
There's something special about this 8K image.

February 3, 2016 at 6:38PM, Edited February 3, 6:42PM

0
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
515

Now for those of you who want
4k (or even 8K) on a budget,
Try hacking some GoPro Hero 4
Blacks ($500) and TAKE OFF the
lens assembly...for about another
$400 at the cheapest if you find
an open source EF mount design,
you can get a CNC machined
Canon EF mount that can be
delicately reset in such a way
that the small 4k sensor
Of the Hero4 can take full
advantage of any Canon or
Sigma EF lens...and you can
directly hack/Tap the flash card
interface to go out to CHEAP
external USB 3.0 external
hard drives for unlimited storage!

It's a bit of work but you CAN get
Very high quality Full 4k 24 fps or
30 fps out of a gopro hero 4 black
with some hacking and the
imagery is rather Amazing.

It's all about getting a good lens
attached and shooting
With good light!

If you want 8k footage, you rack
Four EF remounted lenses on
A 2x2 configuration of GoPros
And ALWAYS ensure you use a
Clapper board and signature
High pitched whistle so you can
Synchronize all four cameras to
the same frame when you create
An 8k animation file in adobe premiere for editing.

If your computer system can't
handle the work load of 8k,
create a 2k proxy file of the
combined 2x2 4k originals
and save an EDL (Edit Decision
List) file during your Adobe
Premiere edit sessions so you
can batch process a final 8k
video From your original stacked
2x2 4k video files. The end result
Is quite beautiful and FUTURE
proof so you can do future high
End distribution of your stories!

Of course, make sure you have
A good story planned out with
Good lighting and decent dialog
And remember to keep your focus
TACK SHARP!

February 7, 2016 at 2:07AM, Edited February 7, 2:10AM

0
Reply
Henry A. Eckstein
Director, Research and Development
118

Nothing like an article about RED to get the drama started! good read lol.

February 4, 2016 at 10:01AM

1
Reply

Looks good on my iPhone

February 4, 2016 at 9:57PM, Edited February 4, 9:57PM

0
Reply
avatar
Eric Thayne
Director | DP | Music Producer
21