RED ONE camera gets wrangled into Super 8 telecine system

As if the much-hyped RED ONE camera didn't have enough going for it already, it looks like it could soon be put to use for a slightly unexpected but most welcome task: capturing Super 8 film. That's apparently possible thanks to what's described as a "pre-prototype" rig that employs a RED ONE camera and a Moviestuff Workprinter XP system which, thanks to a direct interface to the RED's GPI input, should allow you to do up 30 single frame captures per second in the RED's 4K mode. As the On Super 8 blog points out, however, there's still some "optical wizardry" needed to sit between the RED and the workprinter, but we're guessing those Super 8 die-hards should be able to take care of that little detail before too long.

[Mat @ Mar 24th 2008 5:05PM]

"Scanning" 8mm at 4k? most 35mm films only get 2K! 8mm could be done on a dv50 camera...

[David Hildreth @ Mar 24th 2008 7:16PM]

and most digital movies shot at 1080p... so why do people seem care about the RED again?

[Mat @ Mar 24th 2008 11:15PM]

Uh no they aren't, most digital movies are shot at 2k, or 4k. 35mm film is about the equivalent to shooting 4k. Movies when played at home in high def can be played up to 1080p. It's only prosumer + consumer HD cameras that record 1080p.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Mar 24th 2008 5:05PM]

So basically bootlegs with quality ?

[Brian @ Mar 24th 2008 5:05PM]

Nice...

[hypereric @ Mar 24th 2008 5:05PM]

Super 8? Feh. PixelVision by Fisher-Price FTW!

[CharlieX @ Mar 24th 2008 5:09PM]

Uh...overkill? There are labs which can transfer your super 8 to Digibeta or HD or whatever... for a *lot* less than a RED package.

[vileta2 @ Mar 24th 2008 6:41PM]

In the spirit of Oakley, there is no such thing as overkill.

That's "Mad Science".

[ReggieXuk @ Mar 24th 2008 5:20PM]

someone explain to me what this is all about.

[cory3218 @ Mar 24th 2008 11:50PM]

A camera that is replacing film for many film makers yet is relatively in expensive...$17500 for the camera body compared to over $100,000 cameras made by sony. The red is less expensive yet technologically superior. Big names like Stephen Soderberg (director/cinematographer ocean 11,12,13) and peter Jackson(lord of the rings director) have fallen in love with the camera. It records in 4k resolution using a full sized image sensor meaning it gets great depth of field. there is a lot to be said about this camera but i wont bore you with all the details.

[cory3218 @ Mar 24th 2008 5:21PM]

i own a red one, and i would love a cheep way to get a good quality transfer of my old 8mm films from film school. i sent them off to be transfered and they cane back looking horrible.

By the way the red one is not hype, its really really nice.

[OneLove @ Mar 24th 2008 5:42PM]

only people that can spell can own a red one. lol

[craig @ Mar 24th 2008 5:56PM]

Considering the definition of "hype", I don't see the RED ONE being hyped at all. Where has its capabilities been exaggerated?

[David Hildreth @ Mar 24th 2008 5:58PM]

In all actually this is probably a more practical application of this silly camera.

[Nick Gold @ Mar 24th 2008 6:00PM]

This is not a silly camera, it is the bomb and is actually pretty revolutionary. But if you don't know why, you are probably not even close to the intended audience.

[HD-DVDsucsmyballs @ Mar 24th 2008 6:09PM]

I hate to be the nay-sayer here, but, content not resolution sells DVD's(and BD's) - Which, I might also add is the only area where the money is being made right now. Not box office hits - as many would tend to think. And 1080p is an Filmmakers dream come true! Most producers are so stuck on film they don't even realize what 1080p (or 1080i 24p) means. Good for HDTV, BD's and downgraded for DVD!

[Charlie Taylor @ Mar 24th 2008 6:21PM]

A lot of films go through a digital intermediate process for color-correction, tonal effects, exposure adjustment, etc... The higher res your base is the higher quality your final product will be, so this does have an application in the industry. I've seen final footage from a RED One and it blows film and 2/3 chips out of the water.

[Jesse S @ Mar 25th 2008 4:04PM]

You can lay the effects over the film. (Kind of like putting one transparency over another on an overhead projector in school.) You don't need to go completely digital.

[Wolfgame @ Mar 25th 2008 9:32PM]

what the hell? "1080i 24p"?? Since when do progressive scan and interlaced video co-exist outside of a short-sighted, technically uneducated workflow (can you tell I have to deal with producers?) Next thing you're gonna tell me up is down, left is right, black is white, green is purple, red is blue, and the red sox are gonna win again.

[HD-DVDsucsmyballs @ Mar 25th 2008 10:14PM]

For anyone that wants to know how your 1080i HDTV signal can display 1080p - This might only be true with images captured by the latest Sony 1080 24p equipment since that is all I use!(Things your TV sales people just don't understand!)

1080p/24 is the same frame displayed every 24th of a second (standard motion picture film frame rate),

The Key is in the Processing!

1080p processing can be done at the source, such as on a Upscaling DVD Player, Blu-ray Disc Player, or HD-DVD player - or it can be done by the HDTV itself.

Depending on the actual video processors used, there may or may not be a difference in having the TV do the final processing (referred to as deinterlacing) step of converting 1080i to 1080p.

For instance, if the TV is utilizing a Faroudja Genesis, DVDO, Silicon Optix HQV, or homegrown processors, such as the ones used in higher-end Sony, Pioneer, Hitachi, and Panasonic sets for example, may be equal to the processors used in many source components - so the results displayed on screen should be equivalent, or very close. Any differences would be more noticable on larger screen sizes.
From: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/1080ivs1080p.htm

[Shaocaholica @ Mar 24th 2008 6:14PM]

At first I was skeptical of why you would want to do this over traditional film scanning but I realized just how "open" the RED system is especially compared to other much more costly and closed systems. I mean, the RED is essentially an image capturing device with variable framerate and resolution. Theres no reason to use this ability for more than just its main purpose. Something other camera makers tend to shun as their products so locked into their roles even if they don't have to be.

[Yash @ Mar 24th 2008 8:12PM]

RED has received hype to be fair - there are certainly some unrealistic expectations out there, but for the most part, it really is a spectacular camera, from everything that I've read and heard. I know of ones that are in the field, I have seen some incredible footage and it is in use by people like Steven Soderberg, Petere Jackson, and many others. What's amazing about the camera is that it approaches if not surpasses (depends on who you speak to and what you're comparing I guess) the quality of film at a price that makes it incredibly affordable to somebody with a great idea but not much in the way of cash. I live in Toronto and we have a new, all digital AMC 24 meaning no film prints required. In the future, most theaters will be like this and expensive film prints will not be required, saving substantial money in the end.

[gamedude420 @ Mar 24th 2008 8:59PM]

Yash
it depends on th film stock you are using an exposure among other issues. film can get 4k and over 8k from the original negative. digital still has a ways to go though. maybe another decade it will top film fully though. the red one is awesome, i have shot footage using it. prob one of the best digital cameras i ever used. i pla on getting my own next year, since its pretty affordable . total package only cost around 50-60k or so. plus thats cheaper than most cameras alone.

only issue is solid state hard drive capacity. i hope we ca get some realy fast high capacity ones. the 64 gb ones arent enough. 4k is nearly 2 gb a min for video footage shot in 24fps.. granted its cheaprt than film of course. but it doesnt replace film yet.

many big productions shoot on film and go digital for green screen work for special effects.

but its all about the look you are going for though.

[Allen @ Mar 24th 2008 7:12PM]

4k res cameras are alright by me, but please god, let this not turn into a new mad dash for higher res TVs. Most people don't even get a benefit from 1080p yet (too far from screen and/or too small of screen), we don't need the few mindless prosumers out there picking up 4X TVs and such.

Most of the prosumer base is intelligent, but not always.

[Yash @ Mar 24th 2008 8:14PM]

You're right - it is arguable that 4K would be useless for the home - for the cinema and production it certainly has it's uses but in the home, 1080p is I think more than good enough. It's pretty stunning in my opinion. Most people probably couldn't tell the difference between HD and 4K on say a 50 inch TV, which is about the top of the market, anything above and you have a pretty small market.

[Michael Scrip @ Mar 25th 2008 1:10AM]

Red isn't only about 4k resolution... it's about capturing the most data in a digital format. Film will still give you the highest quality... but some directors prefer a digital workflow. So, they want the best image they can get.

Star Wars Ep II and III were shot digitally, but delivered to you on a DVD. That doesn't mean they should have shot it on MiniDV. You always wanna shoot with the highest quality capture. And for now, for the money, Red is that camera.

[cory3218 @ Mar 24th 2008 8:48PM]

there is soo much more to the red one than resolution. It has excellent dynamic range, and is far easier to work with than film. Peter Jackson (lord of the rings) bought 6 of them. Its not a camera for recording your kid learning to ride their bike. Its for professionals that would normally be using at least 16mm film(or wishing they could afford film). Granted the low cost will make it more accessible for others as well. Not long ago someone rented my red one to shoot some commercials. they will never be seen at anything higher than broadcast standard definition. They rented the camera because the image quality as far as colors and dynamic range is amazing. The camera cut the costs down for their shoot because they didnt have to pay to transfer their film..Also making color adjustments to a RAW image leaves them flexibility.

[HD-DVDsucsmyballs @ Mar 24th 2008 11:00PM]

Standard Definition Commercial with a Red One????
OK, This Is A Great Example of Someone Having Way Money Than Brains.
And Too Think - I Was Feeling Bad About Down Converting 1080p to DVD For A
Commercial! Yea, Better Not Tell Them How A $4000 HDV Cam Actually Would Of Fit Their Needs Better - And Saved Them Some $$$. Oh, And I Bet They Had A Easy Time Getting Accustomed To It's Finicky RAW Acquisition Characteristics! 4K(4096) Down To 1/2 A K (480)SD! Thanks For Given Me a Laugh!

[cory3218 @ Mar 24th 2008 11:36PM]

HDDVDsucks---They loved the raw characteristics and have scheduled more rentals. These were not idiots renting from me to film a wedding. They have been in the industry long enough to appreciate what the red has to offer, and they own their own hdv cameras. they know how much hdv sucks. You would be surprised at how much is filmed on extremely expensive 35mm film and shown in sd. Most car and food comercials are done that way.

You obviously don't understand anything about professional cameras. Resolution is a very small part of the Red's abilities. Do you know anything about the importance image sensor size has on depth of field? Hdv have tiny image sensors meaning its very hard to have a short depth of field. hdv cameras have inferior color representation.Hdv sucks at dynamic range. hdv cameras suck for keying off of a green screen because of their compression. hdv cameras cannot record at 120 frames per second. the list of what you don't know could go on for a long time.

if you want to see a sample of what red can do check out :

http://www.redrelay.net/

much better than hdv

[Sean O @ Mar 25th 2008 2:47AM]

HD-DVDsucks (nice name),

Definitely one of the most uninformed comments in this article (and that says a lot). Ask yourself this. Why is it that for the past 40 years, MOST commercials (car commercials, beer, whatever) are shot on 35mm film? Even though High-Def television didn't even exist? I'll give you a few minutes to figure that one out.

Obviously you're a amateur. HDV is probably the WORST format to shoot on for standard def. The compression ratio is through the roof, and most of the cameras suck. They're not pro cameras with real lenses. Digibeta, BetaSP, or DV50 is a thousand times better as far as color and depth of field. HDV is only good for when it has to be HD, and you need to spend as little money as humanly possible.

The RED is without question the most revolutionary camera in terms of what you get for your money. Nothing comes even remotely close to it. It's not about 4k resolution. It's basically a frickin film camera with the convenience of digital workflow that costs 1/10th of what a film camera costs.

[Eric @ Mar 25th 2008 10:49AM]

Makes me think maybe I could transfer that Disc film to digital using a 16.7 megapixel 1Ds Mark II I use at work!

Y'all remember disc film, right? I worked at a photo lab for a year and processed 100,000 rolls of the stuff before going to grad school. :-P

[Yash @ Mar 25th 2008 11:35AM]

HD-DVDsucksmyballs,

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Shooting RED 4K for distribution in standard def makes perfect sense for a few reasons.

1. Downconverting from a higher res file results in better image quality than if originally shot in lower res. Thus shooting 1080p for standard is better than just shooting standard and shooting 4K for distribution in standard or HD makes a lot of sense.

2. RED has qualities that are very much like film, meaning the image doesn't look like video crap like HDV would produce. However, you are spending far less than film and you have a digital workflow, making this a very viable option.

3. HDV just sucks. It has its uses, but anything beyond super low budget should not be shot on it. As mentioned, it blows for any keying (it's as bad if not worse than miniDV) and it has no dynamic range.

4. Oh yes, RED has support for full 35mm lenses as well as many others, without needing an adapter, such as a super 35 (I think that's the name) for use on a F900.

I think I've made my point.

[Herr Liebe @ Apr 10th 2008 11:04AM]

I'd love to see some results from this actually. The optics will be a nightmare to get set because of the large RED sensor are picking up a small super-8 frame. Even more difficult is the acquisition of 4k images from the RED since the Workprinter triggers software on a PC/Mac to grab a frame from a live camera feed.

The pic has started a nice little conversation though.

[joe @ Feb 6th 2009 12:29AM]

Transferring film to digital with out a dedicated high end machine is hard.
I can see how the red could make it much easier to make the transfer look good.

1.Raw capture; allows for a lot more fine tuning in post. Color correcting on the fly is stressful, limits you to reel time techniques and often requires running the film through the machine multiple times.

2. Resolution: 4k is probably over kill for a super 8. So I guess you probably don't need to fill the senser. You wouldn't need to spend hours lineing up the gate to the senser perfectly. You could over shoot the film and crop into your red image in post pretty easily untill you have it right where you want it and still have plenty of pixels to down scale from to 1080.

I'd rather down scale than up scale my digital image.

It seems like a swing shift lens system could come in handy.

[jamworks @ Jul 29th 2009 10:04PM]

CharlieX, you wrote, "There are labs which can transfer your super 8 to Digibeta or HD . . .". Please tell me who, where, is transferring Super 8mm to HD.