RED cameras absent from all Oscar cinematography and best picture nominees

[Lucian]

For Her, 

 

It was a really tight budget with a tiny crew.  The ACM article makes no mention of any specific instance where the C300 was used.  I haven't seen the film yet but I'm betting, being they shot in LA, on location, with almost no money and a tiny crew, it was used to impromptu steal a shot or location discretely or just get a camera crammed somewhere the Alexa was just too big to go.

 

Apparently much of the exterior stuff was shot in shanghai. They had trouble finding non white extras and so the was a bit of fuss about the lack diversity in the "future".

 

I saw the film and loved it. I think it's an obvious choice to shoot a film set in the future on digital but to me it would have been much better on 35mm since it's really more of a love story.

 

16 million in box office off a 20m budget (not including marketing). I hope it can make some money on VOD and other avenues. It is almost impossible to make a good film and make a return :(

[Lucian]

Also, I think the academy has a very limited scope on cinematography.

 

The master says best:

 

http://sea.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/874483/christopher-doyle-interview-part-2-life-of-pi-oscar-is-an

[Andrew Reid]

I don't think he's said that the GH4 is going to be better than the Pocket. This question may be better posted on the appropriate article's thread (e.g. recent 4K article).  :)

 

No, I really do think the GH 4K will be better than the Pocket. Wait and see :)

[Rolf Silber]

No, I really do think the GH 4K will be better than the Pocket. Wait and see :)

And all of a sudden I seem to know that you may know what a lot of us would want to know.... ;-)

[Guest]

No, I really do think the GH 4K will be better than the Pocket. Wait and see :)

Well OK, that's rather interesting. But as you know "better" is subjective - to put my post in context, the guy I replied to was asking about RAW. RAW is "better" than compressed for certain things. I can't believe the GH4K is going to have raw. Unless at 1080/2K???

[Damphousse]

Well OK, that's rather interesting. But as you know "better" is subjective - to put my post in context, the guy I replied to was asking about RAW. RAW is "better" than compressed for certain things. I can't believe the GH4K is going to have raw. Unless at 1080/2K???

 

Raw is a niche thing.  I'm sure when he said "better" he meant in the average common situation.  You can pick all sorts of weird niche situations where one camera is "better" than another.  That's not useful when you are talking about everyday pedestrian shooting situations.

[leo]

I might not buy it immediately but man that gh 4k will be in my hands eventually, and in good numbers, and with some good lenses( pana 42.5 1.2 stabilized, oh yeah).

I hope they read this ( Panasonic), a shit load of people around the world still shoot events and low budget commercials, music videos etc. with canon 5d, mark 2, mark 3.

Very few upgraded to C100 and very very few to c300, now, if Panasonic drops a 4k camera with peaking and maybe some raw features for full HD, man there will be mass switching to m43.

How can a 5d compete with a clean and sharp 4k image.

And to be on topic, I have nothing more to add :) 

[Chrad]

If Panasonic include 1080P RAW, all of a sudden they'll dominate the video DSLR market.

Which is why I don't believe they'll do it.

 

But theoretically they could. It's meant to be capable of dealing with similarly high bitrates for its 4K compressed footage. Maybe the add on XLR/SDI adaptor could also function as a recorder, with CF slots?

 

Argh, I shouldn't dream. But if this really did come true, it would be a guaranteed sale for me. I'd happily trade the extra bit of dynamic range of the Blackmagics for the practical usability of a GH camera.

[cantsin]

All Panasonic needs to do is implement 10bit 4:2:2 Video with a log image profile and a decent codec. This would be equivalent to the Blackmagic recording ProRes log, but in a nicer camera package with less quirks, more out-of-the-box functionality (EVF, audio, UV+IR-cut and OLPF filters in front of the sensor, pixel mapping of defect sensor pixels) and much better handling.

 

The good thing is: 10bit 4:2:2 already is part of the official 4K/UHD specification. So it's not something esoteric to expect. Andrew might know more and even might have been given a prototype model, but would most likely be under an NDA with Panasonic at this point.

[Guest]

Raw is a niche thing.  I'm sure when he said "better" he meant in the average common situation.  You can pick all sorts of weird niche situations where one camera is "better" than another.  That's not useful when you are talking about everyday pedestrian shooting situations.

That's why I said better "for certain things", and why I pointed out that the context of the original query reffered specifically to RAW. Hell, a T3i is "better" than a Pocket for everyday pedestrian shooting situations.

[Guest]

All Panasonic needs to do is implement 10bit 4:2:2 Video with a log image profile and a decent codec. This would be equivalent to the Blackmagic recording ProRes log, but in a nicer camera package with less quirks, more out-of-the-box functionality (EVF, audio, UV+IR-cut and OLPF filters in front of the sensor, pixel mapping of defect sensor pixels) and much better handling.

I agree. I can't believe RAW makes sense for Panasonic. Besides, Andrew seems specifically excited about 4K, which basically HAS to be compressed in the GH4. But won't 4K 10bit 4:2:2 file sizes be gargantuan? As myself and numerous other people have already said on the 4K thread, it just seems a shame to put so much of the bitrate and file size into over-the-top resolution.

[odie]

Not the Oscars, but a lot of good movies being shot on the Red, such as  Lone Survivor, Robocop, 300 Rise of the Empire, etc. 

 

I think Red is used for more special effects movies…??

[Sean Cunningham]

I think Red is used for more special effects movies…??

 

This is likely the reason.  They'll get ultra-rez plates with really good green resolution (in the case of keying).  Even if the film is going to be 2K finish, which is still the majority, VFX facilities are going to be most interested in sharp plates, not the best look, not the most photographic.  

 

None of the films listed look terribly great, 300 especially looks like ass.  Say what you will about Michael Bay, he cares more about how his films look photographically (even if that's all they have going for them) than pretty much any other director making big FX films, even if, when you shut the sound off, they're kind of a mess.

[Rolf Silber]

I would hope guitarists won't base their decision to use a Gibson or a Fender or a whatever on "this is the best" but on "this one fits my needs or the situation best". Including personal preferences for a certain sound. Different but same for cameras, I believe.

[Guest]

I would hope guitarists won't base their decision to use a Gibson or a Fender or a whatever on "this is the best" but on "this one fits my needs or the situation best". Including personal preferences for a certain sound. Different but same for cameras, I believe.

No you are wrong. With cameras and filmmaking there's just wrong and right, bad and good. Haven't you been to this forum before?

[Rolf Silber]

No you are wrong. With cameras and filmmaking there's just wrong and right, bad and good. Haven't you been to this forum before?

I think we all have been to much, much darker places than this one... ;-)

[Guest]

I think we all have been to much, much darker places than this one... ;-)

Yes indeed  :)

[bzpop]

I have.

 

And he's right.

well, me too,

and he's wrong :)

[Policar]

well, me too,

and he's wrong :)

 

Then:

 

Explain to him how he's wrong about the ugly noise texture in all MX footage, especially tungsten-balanced, making the image look cheap and chunky and digital.

 

Explain to him why the shadows get so chunky and blue in any tungsten-balanced Red scene, whereas Alexas can be shot under any lighting condition. And then go on and add why the Alexa's superior low light ability is irrelevant.

 

Explain to him why it's irrelevant that the Alexa has a smoother noise texture, much more like film.

 

Explain to him why, despite the Red's 13.5 stops of DR being is a total lie (in fact the camera has no more DR than the C300, less than the F5, and a magenta-tinted highlight rolloff), it's still better than the 14.5+ stops smoothly handled in the Alexa.

 

Explain why the Alexa's superior midrange tonality isn't significant.

 

Explain why red code botching details in skin and foliage (again, some of the most emotionally resonant subject matter...) is irrelevant, whereas ArriRAW is fine and even prores handles these details well.

 

Explain to him why the color science of the Alexa matches 5219 almost exactly and offers smooth creamy flesh tones and beautiful green foliage, whereas the red totally botches memory colors, but that's ok.

 

Explain to him how he's wrong that the OLPF of the Red offers ugly internal reflections and color cast over highlights, whereas the Alexa rolls off smoothly like film.

 

I'm curious. Explain how an ugly image with good specs looks better than a beautiful one with somewhat lesser specs.

 

Personally I would shoot a C300 or F5 over an Epic; the Epic has a stranglehold on summer blockbusters for the resolution advantage, but the look is just so... ugly and the workflow so damn shitty.

 

Yes there is beautiful content shot on red. But Prometheus, for instance, required a lot of CGI lipstick to dress up that pig.

 

I do find the character of the Monochrome sensor to be superior.

[Andrew Reid]

I think you not only hit the nail on the head there Policar, but several at once, with one hammer :)