Red: not for indie film makers
- Thread starter finegrain
- Start date
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
taubkin
Veteran
I won't argue that viewing through the optical viewfinder is delicious! It's organic, and it's the way we're used to operate. besides, Everytime I shoot film and look through the viewfinder, it's like magic being made, Instantly!
The Digital still cameras have that because it is what the public wanted (to view the image the way they're used to, view it in full res - well, it's not applicable, but you get the drill - it makes it possible to evaluate the image and make judgement from the same type of data they are used to) and because it's not really that much trouble. Besides, still photographers focus by eye, while we only do that for extreme shallow shots, since for the most part, the eye is not accurate enough for our COC.
The optical viewfinder would be a dream, but unfortunately, they had to do the tradeoff a shutter sync mechanism that turns 24 times a second, and all the prisms that makes the reflected image the correct orientation was too expensive. And they did.
The thing is, even it being a tradeoff, it's not that bad. Because we're shooting video, and making an electronic image, it's more useful to be able to see the electronic artifacts, than a theoretical image.
Of course my argument goes down the drain if the monitoring solutions are not able to display the picture full rez, or at least, with enough resolution for most normal use. (AT LEAST 1080P)
The Digital still cameras have that because it is what the public wanted (to view the image the way they're used to, view it in full res - well, it's not applicable, but you get the drill - it makes it possible to evaluate the image and make judgement from the same type of data they are used to) and because it's not really that much trouble. Besides, still photographers focus by eye, while we only do that for extreme shallow shots, since for the most part, the eye is not accurate enough for our COC.
The optical viewfinder would be a dream, but unfortunately, they had to do the tradeoff a shutter sync mechanism that turns 24 times a second, and all the prisms that makes the reflected image the correct orientation was too expensive. And they did.
The thing is, even it being a tradeoff, it's not that bad. Because we're shooting video, and making an electronic image, it's more useful to be able to see the electronic artifacts, than a theoretical image.
Of course my argument goes down the drain if the monitoring solutions are not able to display the picture full rez, or at least, with enough resolution for most normal use. (AT LEAST 1080P)
toke lahti
Well-known member
Today the only option would be to connect 17" laptop to the camera.taubkin said:
Not very handy in many cases. Smallest standalone 1080p displays are 23". Not very handy either. So down the drain now, but lets see what they can pull off...
taubkin
Veteran
Hey, Toke, I'm not trying to get into some petty argument here. So don't take it the wrong way:
Well, until yesterday, 4K capable camcorders didn't cost 17,5K. So maybe it's a little to early to throw me down the drain just yet
.
Sure, we'll have to wait and see. But honestly, I have some high hopes for this. But maybe you're right. If a good monitor is not going to be possible in a camera in this price point, we will surely miss the optical viewfinder. Maybe they should already change the desing and incorporate it. I know I'd love it! And it would be a cool argument for the sake of monitoring: You shoot like film, and only get to see the footage later...
Well, until yesterday, 4K capable camcorders didn't cost 17,5K. So maybe it's a little to early to throw me down the drain just yet
.Sure, we'll have to wait and see. But honestly, I have some high hopes for this. But maybe you're right. If a good monitor is not going to be possible in a camera in this price point, we will surely miss the optical viewfinder. Maybe they should already change the desing and incorporate it. I know I'd love it! And it would be a cool argument for the sake of monitoring: You shoot like film, and only get to see the footage later...
craigbowman
Veteran
toke lahti said:
No. It's not the only option. Its the only option you can think of based on your personal level of knowledge and experience. This is not a slight in any way, but a basic truth for all of us. There all kinds of camera assist monitors. Marshall has a bunch of monitors that attach to cameras right now which would work as an attachment.
This isn't difficult at all. There are four issues:
1. Framing
2. Color
3. Exposure
4. Focus
The first three work already with existing monitor technology. Focus is achieved with mapping. You map a small portion of the sensor to the equivalent mapped size on full screen or window in screen. (Yawn!)
Instant detail for focusing. A couple of circuits and some software. Photoshop has been mapping images at different percentages of size to a screen for over 15 years.
video shooters have it pretty easy ..
one can use monitors , waveforms etc but bottom line is experience and knowing your tools .. film shoots do not have monitors to judge color , focus, ligthing .. you use a light meter, color temp meter ... you know what your film stocks can and can not do, what a half cto does etc = you pre visualize the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience.. you test film stock before each project , test out lighting etc YOU do not rely on a monitor ... focus is measured .. you do have to have a view finder that shows 100 percent or more of the frame ...
each will have to know their RED camera because there will be many times all the test gear wll not be there
one can use monitors , waveforms etc but bottom line is experience and knowing your tools .. film shoots do not have monitors to judge color , focus, ligthing .. you use a light meter, color temp meter ... you know what your film stocks can and can not do, what a half cto does etc = you pre visualize the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience.. you test film stock before each project , test out lighting etc YOU do not rely on a monitor ... focus is measured .. you do have to have a view finder that shows 100 percent or more of the frame ...
each will have to know their RED camera because there will be many times all the test gear wll not be there
toke lahti
Well-known member
Yep, I'm familiar with these focus assist systems having used hvx a bit now and I don't find these zoom windows very comfortable with documentary situations. You loose the feeling of overall composition for the time of focusing and you'll have to point the middle of the frame to focusing point.craigbowman said:
For slow paced work it's just fine.
I think all these attachment monitors (even Marshalls, their best 7" is 800x480) are just for framing aid, they usually have very low resolution and colors are what they are.
Monitoring seems to be one of the key issues with hd. Sd productions need only sd monitors. I don't believe that there have been many film productions where nobody looks through viewfinder and everybody is just happy with the pictures in monitors from videotap.
So if there is a optical viewfinder in a hd camera, I'm sure it would be used.
So in a way hd cameras are just like film cameras, the operator can't see what is really getting recorded.
And this thing just multiplies with something like 4.5k and not having even optical viewfinder.
I hope we are getting some small sized full hd rez monitors by the time RED ships...
Blain - based on your other posts it doesn't seem you have anything to add but being critical of others post. Just because you don't agree with what someone says doesn't mean they should just go off into the sunset. Do you even own a camera?
The funny thing is that if you go and read the comments from Jim Jannard regarding the viewfinder you will see that they WANT to have an optical viewfinder but it's just no looking like a realistic targer for their FIRST camera. Why do you think he would give it so much condiseration if it wasn't an idea with merit?
Why do you think the D20 has this type of viewfineder? Because ARRI has no idea what the film makers of today want? I guess all those thousands of films made with ARRI equipment gives them zero experience on how to create the proper camera viewfinder.
The funny thing is that if you go and read the comments from Jim Jannard regarding the viewfinder you will see that they WANT to have an optical viewfinder but it's just no looking like a realistic targer for their FIRST camera. Why do you think he would give it so much condiseration if it wasn't an idea with merit?
Why do you think the D20 has this type of viewfineder? Because ARRI has no idea what the film makers of today want? I guess all those thousands of films made with ARRI equipment gives them zero experience on how to create the proper camera viewfinder.
Travis Cooper
New member
finegrain said:
It sure would be nice to have cheaper P2 cards, but if I look at my $5K HVX and then add on everything else it came to just over $15K.
For new equipment I have always factored 3X for my package.
So in my case the RED is not going to be $17,500. Its going to be $52,500.
But to me the RED is the coolest thing since I first grazed my paws across the Video Toaster 4000.
Considering a $50k+ price tag, and despite prices go down, I will be very happy with my HVX, 3 P2 cards and that wonderful P2 store for quite a while.
- Have a great day!
Blaine said:
Mature. Really.
Those of us that have shot more projects than we can count on film, video, and high definition know what we like. We've been doing this for years. If we say that optical viewfinding is "better" for us it isn't because we can't use the alternatives, it is because we *have* used them and found them insufficient. It isn't my place to tell anyone that one or another is better for them; I can speak only for me. And I *know* that my job is easier and I'm more productive when I'm looking at the actual light from the actual scene through the actual lens. That's not how you like to work? Fine. You're different from me and countless others here. Congratulations. In the meantime, the rest of us are waiting for technology on these cameras to catch up to 1937 viewfinder standards.
And the argument that a viewfinder more accurately conveys what you're recording is incredibly flawed. A well-calibrated broadcast monitor will do that, and I'm glad that technology has progressed to the point where we have that tool. But when I'm operating, I can't watch *that* monitor, and the monitor on the camera or in the viewfinder is simply dreadful. Make it 100 times better than it is on the F900 and you're still nowhere near the optical viewfinder on an old Arri 16SR2, let alone the bright, beautiful view from a modern 35mm camera.That's just the way it is, and that's why the entire digital process will remain flawed until we have optical viewfinding. Not flawed beyond its usefulness, obviously, but flawed all the same.
Will
Could be, but as I stated elsewhere, your carefullness with light, etc is all for naught once Peter J. gets it to Post.Wiyum said:
(not saying not to properly light stuff, etc...but colors rarely stay the same. I always changed stuff in Post that the camera man gave.
peace
dalen
Gibby
Red Savant
I think it's important to keep in mind that the RED One camera is positioned as a media convergence camera. Professionals whose experience has developed in the film world have a comfort zone for equipment and accessories. Professionals whose career has developed in the TV/video world also have a comfort zone for equipment and accessories. If you analyze the proposed RED One camera specs, it is truly a convergence camera that, depending what tape of accessories and lens is attached, can be a cine-style camera or an ENG-style camera. A lot of us now shoot in both styles regularly. It makes great economic and professional sense to be versatile enough to be able to shoot both styles. The RED camera will enable that. Depending on what you accessorize the camera with, it essentially morphs into a tool for that application - whether that be a feature "film" or a run 'n gun ENG-style production.
RED is well aware of the desire of traditional film shooters to have features like an optical viewfinder. If you read my interview with Jim Jannard, we talk about that. It appears that there will not be an optical viewfinder option on the RED One camera, but they are leaving the door open for the possibility of an optical viewfinder in the future that would simply be an add-on upgrade to your existing RED One camera. The electronic viewfinder that is currently planned for the RED One camera sees outside the framed area and will have a to be announced focus assist function.
A stationary, traditional, large film crew style use of the RED One camera is obviously a viable workflow. A mobile TV/video small crew style use of the RED One camera is also a viable workflow for the RED One camera, and that's where an electronic viewfinder, with focus assist comes into its own. Down the road, if RED does indeed produce an optical viewfinder for the RED One camera, we'll then have the option to use the optical viewfinder and full cine-style accessories for a feature shoot in the morning, and then simple switch to the electronic viewfinder and ENG-style accessories in the same day for a mobile TV/video style shoot.
This should be a real versatile camera system!
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
RED is well aware of the desire of traditional film shooters to have features like an optical viewfinder. If you read my interview with Jim Jannard, we talk about that. It appears that there will not be an optical viewfinder option on the RED One camera, but they are leaving the door open for the possibility of an optical viewfinder in the future that would simply be an add-on upgrade to your existing RED One camera. The electronic viewfinder that is currently planned for the RED One camera sees outside the framed area and will have a to be announced focus assist function.
A stationary, traditional, large film crew style use of the RED One camera is obviously a viable workflow. A mobile TV/video small crew style use of the RED One camera is also a viable workflow for the RED One camera, and that's where an electronic viewfinder, with focus assist comes into its own. Down the road, if RED does indeed produce an optical viewfinder for the RED One camera, we'll then have the option to use the optical viewfinder and full cine-style accessories for a feature shoot in the morning, and then simple switch to the electronic viewfinder and ENG-style accessories in the same day for a mobile TV/video style shoot.
This should be a real versatile camera system!
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
taubkin
Veteran
An Eng Run/Gun shoot might be a real pain in the ass, when shooting on Super 35 depht of field. Whatever solution they come up with, the focus assist will have to be good, very good. Otherwise, this camera will be unworkable without an AC, and that kind of blows the purpose of the media convergence camera...
Gibby
Red Savant
Good point Taubkin. RED hasn't released the details of the focus assist function, other than to say that they feel it will be real good and a somewhat different approach than ha spreviously been used. With their attention to detail on the rest of the camera, I'd expect it will be a well thought out feature that will enable good focusing even with the on-board monitor. In my interview with Jim Jannard, he didn't specify what type of monitor technology would be used for the on-board screen (LCD, OLED, LCoS), but whatever they choose, I'm sure it will be a good choice for mobile focus assist with the on-board screen.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
toke lahti
Well-known member
One solution for this is cropping the image to eg. S16 or 2/3" size and all of a sudden DoF is much much easier. All we need then is quite a wide angle lens.taubkin said: