Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#21

Post by krig »

libraryatnight wrote: post #9
krig wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strangest thing about the whole 3D cinema trend is that it seems to have sprung out of some anti-piracy / anti-home-cinema idea among the studios. I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home. Why would I want to watch a blurry, dim version of the film through a pair of glasses on top of my regular glasses? I did watch Avatar in 3D, and I regret doing so. It'…

In the production video blogs he seems legitimately excited sometimes, and other times it's like the people on the blog are in a commercial for 3D. We do see Alan Lee and John Howe illustrating and story boarding in 3D which is cool. As a side note, it's insane to watch those production videos: I remember Jackson saying they have 48 RED cameras (2 per rig), it shows them scouting locations in 5 helicopters, and it's…

Yeah, I saw that and I still can't make up my mind about it. I mean, I can see how it's a shiny new toy and it must be great to get to play around with all this amazing technology. At the same time, the Lee/Howe concept art in 3D stuff seemed more like a gag. But yeah, it's an incredible setup and a ridiculous amount of money being spent.

Would be fun to have a pair of RED cameras to play around with... I just don't know if I want to pay to see the result in a cinema.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#22

Post by RandallBrown »

EvilTrout wrote: post #10
RandallBrown wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly effect. Most animated movies turn out really well too. Of course, most movies aren't filmed with 3D in mind and it is crappily added in post. Those suck.

Actually Alice in Wonderland's 3D was done in post.

Yes, but it was done very well.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#23

Post by SeanLuke »

Here's what I don't get. According to online videos about the making of the Hobbit, the Epic cameras they're using have quite poor saturation, particularly for (ironically) red, resulting in a muted, dull look. But instead of grading the video in postproduction, Jackson's team is instead adding bright makeup and oversaturated props to compensate.

If I were buying 30 cameras from Red, I'd demand better.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#24

Post by wmf »

GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #5

Will that fabulous sensor in the Red camera make it to the consumer market some day?

Large sensors don't get cheaper (they don't benefit from Moore's Law), so maybe not. However, APS-format still cameras that shoot video aren't that expensive (<$2,000) and are constantly improving.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#25

Post by cmdrreiki »

SeanLuke wrote: post #23

Here's what I don't get. According to online videos about the making of the Hobbit, the Epic cameras they're using have quite poor saturation, particularly for (ironically) red, resulting in a muted, dull look. But instead of grading the video in postproduction, Jackson's team is instead adding bright makeup and oversaturated props to compensate. If I were buying 30 cameras from Red, I'd demand better.

I'm not really impressed with RED cameras either. They're cheaper than any other higher resolution digital cameras because they traded spatial resolution for bit-depth. Red returned to a bayer-filtered CMOS array, abandoning the higher quality 3CCD sensors. RED has marketed to the higher ups that feel they don't need to listen to digital video engineers about signal quality, and its worked. About the limitations of bayer filtering: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3370690

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#26

Post by revdinosaur »

cmdrreiki wrote: post #25
SeanLuke wrote: post #23

Here's what I don't get. According to online videos about the making of the Hobbit, the Epic cameras they're using have quite poor saturation, particularly for (ironically) red, resulting in a muted, dull look. But instead of grading the video in postproduction, Jackson's team is instead adding bright makeup and oversaturated props to compensate. If I were buying 30 cameras from Red, I'd demand better.

I'm not really impressed with RED cameras either. They're cheaper than any other higher resolution digital cameras because they traded spatial resolution for bit-depth. Red returned to a bayer-filtered CMOS array, abandoning the higher quality 3CCD sensors. RED has marketed to the higher ups that feel they don't need to listen to digital video engineers about signal quality, and its worked. About the limitations of b…

At the rental house that I use, I hear that the Arri Alexa gets more traffic than their stock of REDs. It makes sense that a powerhouse in the industry like Arri would be able to cater to moviemakers better than a newcomer that showed up making a lot of promises that they couldn't always honor.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#27

Post by gamble »

tomjen3 wrote: post #20
RandallBrown wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly effect. Most animated movies turn out really well too. Of course, most movies aren't filmed with 3D in mind and it is crappily added in post. Those suck.

Agreed. Sometimes HN seems like a bunch of hipsters -- yes it can be done incorrectly, but by that token you shouldn't ever use color (and all movies should be silent). 3D is an enabling technology. It will not prevent bad films from being made, anymore than Ruby will prevent bad developers from creating a mess.

Current 3D technology results in a dramatic loss of picture quality. In theory they're supposed to compensate for the brightness reduction by cranking up the projector, but I've yet to see a 3D film that wasn't dramatically murkier than the 2D version. You also get terrible judder. And, for people like myself that wear glasses, the fact that no movie theatre distributes polarized glasses designed to fit around a pair of glasses means that I usually have difficulty focusing and get awful eyestrain.

I don't have a problem with the idea of 3D, per se, but its implementation has made watching films in a theatre very frustrating and uncomfortable.

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#28

Post by DrStalker »

krig wrote: post #3
ck2 wrote: post #2

Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D ? If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening, extra especially if it changes the script or action just to appeal to the effects.

The strangest thing about the whole 3D cinema trend is that it seems to have sprung out of some anti-piracy / anti-home-cinema idea among the studios. I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home. Why would I want to watch a blurry, dim version of the film through a pair of glasses on top of my regular glasses? I did watch Avatar in 3D, and I regret doing so. It'…

I hear a lot of complaints about 3D being blurrey and dim, but in my experience (Sydney Australia, cinemas near the CBD) 3D movies are always done on the newer digital projectors and are bright, vibrant and extremely sharp. 2D on those same projectors is also sharp, and while the glasses may block half the light getting through it only takes a few seconds for my eyes to adjust and it looks just as bright again, but with a nicer colour depth.

Are other locations in the world using old/poorly maintained/incorrectly configured projectors from 3D?

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#29

Post by mashmac2 »

revdinosaur wrote: post #26
cmdrreiki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really impressed with RED cameras either. They're cheaper than any other higher resolution digital cameras because they traded spatial resolution for bit-depth. Red returned to a bayer-filtered CMOS array, abandoning the higher quality 3CCD sensors. RED has marketed to the higher ups that feel they don't need to listen to digital video engineers about signal quality, and its worked. About the limitations of b…

At the rental house that I use, I hear that the Arri Alexa gets more traffic than their stock of REDs. It makes sense that a powerhouse in the industry like Arri would be able to cater to moviemakers better than a newcomer that showed up making a lot of promises that they couldn't always honor.

Well, also important to note that an Alexa is rented more then a RED because of the price jump associated with owning an Alexa...

Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood

#30

Post by snowwrestler »

libraryatnight wrote: post #9
krig wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strangest thing about the whole 3D cinema trend is that it seems to have sprung out of some anti-piracy / anti-home-cinema idea among the studios. I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home. Why would I want to watch a blurry, dim version of the film through a pair of glasses on top of my regular glasses? I did watch Avatar in 3D, and I regret doing so. It'…

In the production video blogs he seems legitimately excited sometimes, and other times it's like the people on the blog are in a commercial for 3D. We do see Alan Lee and John Howe illustrating and story boarding in 3D which is cool. As a side note, it's insane to watch those production videos: I remember Jackson saying they have 48 RED cameras (2 per rig), it shows them scouting locations in 5 helicopters, and it's…

That part about them hand-illustrating in 3D was a joke. They show one guy working on the red version and one on the blue, side by side. There's no way they could do that precisely enough to actually produce a 3D image by hand.
Post reply on HN