« on: December 20, 2011, 01:17:04 PM »
I told my wife I wanted a c300, and she replied, " you mean that shitty movie with Gerard Butler?".
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera
If someone had showed me this thrown into a random flickr account of someones ametuer photography I wouldn't have blinked an eye. Rich people are assholes and must be stopped at all costs.
Yup, Peter Jackson's latest blog on the Hobbit says the same - OTT colours on the scenery in Mirkwood, additional red on the actors faces because the Red Epic doesn't do colour in the same way...
There is so much misinformation on this site, it's ridiculous. I don't want to correct anyone though because then you'll all go buy Scarlets and oversaturate my market share. But. . .I can't help to correct someone when they're wrong.
Regarding the makeup in LOTR: the extra red makeup has nothing to do with the camera color science... the mirrors in the 3D rig desaturate magenta from one eye ( tints green ) so instead of boosting back saturation in just one eye in post, they prefer to lift both eyes in saturation then remove it as necessary. The exact same thing would happen to any camera through the 3D rig beamsplitter. one eye goes green , one eye goes magenta. Many ways to compensate for that, this is just one.
Regarding the "reject" processors from Epics being used in Scarlets: each and every camera gets a high quality sensor. Just because you buy a Scarlet doesn't mean your sensor is any less worthy than if you bought an Epic. What is different on the Scarlet is the processing speed of the ASICs. That limits functionality (high fps, high redcode), not sensor image quality. All else being equal, you will get the exact same quality images from Scarlet; it just can't make as many of them each second. Hence the same resolutions, but lower frame rates. Slower processor doesn't mean degraded image.
The internet is a vast and wonderful place to do research, so. . .do it.
You think wrong then...
As I said on another thread. Compare the "Social Network"(RED) to "Fight Club"(FILM).
It's the same Director, and same DP on both. The Social Network looks like sh*t in comparison.
That's a bit of a simplistic comparison is it not? Just looking at production costs alone, the Fight Club when adjusted for inflation in 1999 cost close to 30 million dollars more than the price tag to put out the Social Network.
Which one is the most disappointing? I think RED ONE is already almost 30% of mainstream productions.
I don't know who Canon is competing with a $20K price range, the Sony F3? It certainly isn't the Scarlet-X. Why pay more for a video system that performs poorly against its cheaper rival? Only an idiot would do that.Here's an article from Canon Digital Learning Center that, I think, gives a nice explanation of what exactly were the people at Canon smoking when they designed the C300 and who they think they're selling this thing to. What they're basically claming is that this camera performs well enough for most people potentially interested in buying one and it's way easier and faster to work with than any of the current 4K cameras. It would appear that they've done their research and discovered that there's plenty of "idiots" out there to justify the R&D costs.
So the difference between Red and Canon is?