NAB'19 -- where's RED or where's still RED ONE when NAB'19 is out there?

[Emanuel]

Does 2018 couple to a RED ONE camera make any sense in a movie practically shot on superb low light photography?

Shot on RED ONE Camera (Mysterium-X if my eye serves to its signature) with Kowa Anamorphic Lenses.

[thebrothersthre3]

Seems like RED's aren't any worse in low light than any other of the cameras usually used in Cinema productions? 

I tend to obsess over low light capabilities, but as long as you have decent lighting 1600 ISO and fast lenses makes the cut for most situations. 

[Laurier]

The raven is horrible in low light I can tell you that , I graded a short shot with it recently and there was already Some noise at iso 500 , pass 800 it was really nasty.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Shot on RED ONE Camera (Mysterium-X if my eye serves to its signature)

I'd be very surprised if it is a RED ONE M, they're relatively rare compared to the MX. (and even worse in low light!)
 

[Emanuel]

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

I'd be very surprised if it is a RED ONE M, they're relatively rare compared to the MX. (and even worse in low light!)
 

Indeed.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Does 2018 couple to a RED ONE camera make any sense in a movie practically shot on superb low light photography?

Absolutely nothing in that trailer screams out to me "wow, an amazing low light sensor!"

Remember just because the scene *LOOKS* low light, doesn't mean it was in reality. You could  have brought it down in the grade. 

Many of those shots look to me like they've got quite bright lights being used there, and not at all subtle. Probably due to the low base ISO of the MX sensor. 

1 hour ago, Laurier said:

The raven is horrible in low light I can tell you that , I graded a short shot with it recently and there was already Some noise at iso 500 , pass 800 it was really nasty.

Yeah M was downright awful, MX was still bad, and Dragon wasn't great either. 

Gemini was the first (and only from RED) to do really well in low light. 

[Emanuel]

37 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Absolutely nothing in that trailer screams out to me "wow, an amazing low light sensor!"

Remember just because the scene *LOOKS* low light, doesn't mean it was in reality. You could  have brought it down in the grade. 

Many of those shots look to me like they've got quite bright lights being used there, and not at all subtle. Probably due to the low base ISO of the MX sensor. 

Yeah M was downright awful, MX was still bad, and Dragon wasn't great either. 

Gemini was the first (and only from RED) to do really well in low light. 

David, I firmly wrote low light photography. For some reason I called it "superb"! ; )

Absence of tools could never be described like that : D

Thus, not necessarily low light sensor technology nor even lack of lighting as you wish.

 

This means the set of skills to gather technology available to somehow include:

- lights of course,

- sensor qualities / range, i.e., its properties and potentiality;

to match the necessary technique (let's not forget post either) to provide a certain goal required by the narrative in such case where a low light design is mandatory.

 

You actually had no need for anything else. That is,

nothing about no lights approach here.

 

10-years old sensor technology was enough for the result intended. That's what counts in the end.

Without talent and know-how, pal, nothing happens for sure : )

I guess people on these boards tend to overestimate their geek soul rather than art and craft(s) techniques... and see anything fiercely committed with innovation.

My point.

 

E : -)

[IronFilm]

Right, I think I see your point now 

However I absolutely think this would have looked better if had been shot on say a Panasonic Varicam LT instead

Then again, for this genre perhaps the gritty / bad look of this style with the MX works better??

[Emanuel]

I found it perfectly well designed. Very filmic, B movie, the 80s score to match the whole feeling. Those true events inspired by the movie happened in 1981, so I guess everything had a reason to happen. On the contrary of the killers' characters motivation, the essence of the horror success there BTW.

My earliest wondering was why the RED ONE MX there? Intriguing until you get the whole thing : )

And yes, there's place for good old digital technology in clever hands : -)

[Kisaha]

13 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Seems like RED's aren't any worse in low light than any other of the cameras usually used in Cinema productions? 

I tend to obsess over low light capabilities, but as long as you have decent lighting 1600 ISO and fast lenses makes the cut for most situations. 

We r shooting all kind of film and video productions for decades and decades and didnt even have the ability for 1600 and/or very fast lenses!

I shot a whole corporate today with a C200 and 2 L lenses, and never went above 1000iso and my aperture was 4-5.6 at all times. 90% indoors and on a very rainy day.

You, youngsters, like to shoot on your basements, public catacombs or abandoned mines!

 

[webrunner5]

Mercer sent me this video a couple of days ago. Yeah I know it is not a Red. It was shot on a OG BMPCC with a 28mm Super-Takumar and a cheap Tamron 10-200, and he says it was shot in ProRes LT.. Sure they used a Speedbooster and lighting, but we all know a Pocket sucked at low light, but they pulled this off big time to me. So it is not the so much what camera, although I still think the Pocket is one of the best Cine cameras ever made, it is about skill,  using the right tools, and not having 50,000 dollars of equipment with no clue how to utilize them and expecting miracles..

This trailer makes me want to go out and buy a OG Pocket again lol. It doesn't get much better, especially for what they cost.

 

[kye]

One quick hack to turn ANY cinema camera into a low-light MONSTER!!!!!1

 

[Emanuel]

C'mon, day for night or nuit américaine as known in French through Truffaut's movie is far to be 'the solution' there. Not so easy ; ) not so sensorless technique, let's also give the right credits as due ; -)

[zerocool22]

18 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Mercer sent me this video a couple of days ago. Yeah I know it is not a Red. It was shot on a OG BMPCC with a 28mm Super-Takumar and a cheap Tamron 10-200, and he says it was shot in ProRes LT.. Sure they used a Speedbooster and lighting, but we all know a Pocket sucked at low light, but they pulled this off big time to me. So it is not the so much what camera, although I still think the Pocket is one of the best Cine cameras ever made, it is about skill,  using the right tools, and not having 50,000 dollars of equipment with no clue how to utilize them and expecting miracles..

This trailer makes me want to go out and buy a OG Pocket again lol. It doesn't get much better, especially for what they cost.

 

The pocket wasnt that bad in low light when you compare it to most cinema camera's which used to top out at iso 800. Sure if you compare it to A7S II and such sure. But if you light your stuff you prob never have the need to go above 800. So sure you could use a cheap camera, but lighting aint cheap either if you want to light massive sets, or use a lot of diffusion. (especially if you are shooting in daylight)

[IronFilm]

25 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

The pocket wasnt that bad in low light when you compare it to most cinema camera's which used to top out at iso 800.

Indeed, when you shot in raw with the BMPCC then did NR it cleaned up pretty well. I know people with REDs who had a BMPCC as their "lowlight" camera

[webrunner5]

Sure at the time it was not too bad. But I would not call a camera that has a top ISO of 1600 a low light beast. About anything is better than a Red, even now, for low light. Figuring ISO 800 was the base ISO that didn't leave a lot of options.

[thebrothersthre3]

Isn't shooting at base ISO pretty standard practice in cinema? The Pocket is nice for most applications. Lighting day time stuff is honestly a bigger pain than nighttime. At least its manageable on a small budget vs trying to compete with daylight. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah moving off of base ISO on a Cine camera is not really a good thing in the long run. They are expected to have you either use a ND filter or add lighting, or at times both. And yeah fill, spot lighting in daylight is sort of requiring you to hire a truck to haul in that kind of lighting equipment, and a pretty good Visa card to pay the electric bill lol.

[zerocool22]

10 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Isn't shooting at base ISO pretty standard practice in cinema? The Pocket is nice for most applications. Lighting day time stuff is honestly a bigger pain than nighttime. At least its manageable on a small budget vs trying to compete with daylight. 

Yeah exactly, I was hoping on some cheap lights this year. But cheapest 5K tungsten equivalent light in LED is still +5K$. Guess we need to wait for a couple more years.... 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

6 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Yeah exactly, I was hoping on some cheap lights this year. But cheapest 5K tungsten equivalent light in LED is still +5K$. Guess we need to wait for a couple more years.... 

 

Hot lights are pretty cheap tho! Got a 1k for like $100. 

Just saw an Arri 6k HMI for $1000. 

Have to be able to power it though lol