Greg Lowry said:
Greg just pointed out the most important point of all....
Any AUTO-FUNCTIONs on RED? Focus or Exposure?
- Thread starter Greg Voevodsky
- Start date
Greg just pointed out the most important point of all....
macgregor
Veteran
There has always been a demand of more precise focusing system than using a meter and measure the distance between the focal plane of the camera and the face of the actor.
And yet, nothing better has been invented, even when sometimes this "method" seems not to work properly. ;D
But as you said, pro film cameras have never need it because you would never use it. In an environment with controlled light (any studio), auto exposure would give you a different measure than what you are looking for (I would not say wrong, since the lightmeter will search for that 18% grey card).
But, would you say the same about SLRs, or even medium format cameras? When you are outdoors and running you need that auto-exposure.
http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/
How many of those pictures do you think were shot with a histogram/waveform/hand lightmeter? and how many using the auto exposure (and either following, braketing or sub/over exposing what the camera was thinking was the best compromise for that moment?).
And yet, nothing better has been invented, even when sometimes this "method" seems not to work properly. ;D
But as you said, pro film cameras have never need it because you would never use it. In an environment with controlled light (any studio), auto exposure would give you a different measure than what you are looking for (I would not say wrong, since the lightmeter will search for that 18% grey card).
But, would you say the same about SLRs, or even medium format cameras? When you are outdoors and running you need that auto-exposure.
http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/
How many of those pictures do you think were shot with a histogram/waveform/hand lightmeter? and how many using the auto exposure (and either following, braketing or sub/over exposing what the camera was thinking was the best compromise for that moment?).
Anders Holck
Well-known member
Well, don't know if those comments were pointed at me but I sure didn't mean that I was more PRO than any of you guys.
Surely the best possible camera is the one you don't have to adapt to and the one that offers the broadest range of options.
What I intended to say was that without spending engineering time and camera CPU to get auto exposure and lens commumication, you could get a long way by just delivering power to to a B4 lens connector. I think you could even get OIS to work in canon's range by just supplying power.
On B4 lenses Iris control is done by supplying an variable analog voltage to the lens, and the lens sending back an analog feedback voltage of the iris position, so additional analog electronics would be needed for this.
Which is why I had my idea to maybe make this as a part of the B4 mount, and make it translate LDS commands into B4 compatible analog signals, If of cause LDS will be part of the RED camera.
Surely the best possible camera is the one you don't have to adapt to and the one that offers the broadest range of options.
What I intended to say was that without spending engineering time and camera CPU to get auto exposure and lens commumication, you could get a long way by just delivering power to to a B4 lens connector. I think you could even get OIS to work in canon's range by just supplying power.
On B4 lenses Iris control is done by supplying an variable analog voltage to the lens, and the lens sending back an analog feedback voltage of the iris position, so additional analog electronics would be needed for this.
Which is why I had my idea to maybe make this as a part of the B4 mount, and make it translate LDS commands into B4 compatible analog signals, If of cause LDS will be part of the RED camera.
Gibby
Red Savant
Greg Lowry said:
A very good point Greg, and there are probably many reasons for that: mechanical roots of film production, comfort zone resistance to change, unions, workflow requirements, and many more. The buzz about the Cooke S4/i “smart lens” is a sign that traditional cine-style shooters attitudes are starting to evolve. But I think it should be considered that there is and has been a solid demand for some auto features in pro video cameras used for network television and high end business media - two very lucrative revenue streams and workspaces for those of us who don't just do cine-style production, but also do ENG-style production. Its about earning potential of a camera. With a name like RED Digital Cinema, and an S35 sensor, RED is obviously aimed squarely at the cine-style production market. The days of separate "film camps" and "TV/video camps" are long gone. A huge part of the present and future of motion media production is/will be done by crossover directors/DPs/shooters who can gracefully and seamlessly apply their crossover skill sets to whatever the project calls for - whether that be cine-style or ENG-style. RED One has the potential to be a good tool for those crossover people. RED One can't be all things for all people, but rather potentially the central heart of a flexible and adaptable system that can be accessorized for use in about any genre of motion media production. The proposed image formats and lens formats point to that, but to finish the equation, RED, or 3rd party accessory developers, need to add in a few simple features. I think many of the features that enable crossover capabilities with RED will be 3rd party accessories, a concept that RED has embraced. That said, a small, but important feature like a lens power bus in RED would help enable a multitude of ENG-style revenue streams to us crossover directors/shooters.
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Greg Lowry
Carbonite Member
News reportage has its own requirments and tools. Auto exposure and auto focus can be useful, but they're hardly a necessity for anyone who knows their craft.
For cinematography, the selection of a specific f-stop/T-stop is as much a creative choice as it is a technical one. The same is true for still photography.
I spent a decade shooting 16mm documentary films in a vast range of environments and situations. I never once used an auto camera. My Spectra light meter was (and remains) my best friend.
For cinematography, the selection of a specific f-stop/T-stop is as much a creative choice as it is a technical one. The same is true for still photography.
I spent a decade shooting 16mm documentary films in a vast range of environments and situations. I never once used an auto camera. My Spectra light meter was (and remains) my best friend.
Greg Lowry
Carbonite Member
Steve, as always you make great points (and with far greater patience). I suppose some of my reaction to the auto-feature requests is that they're mostly coming from those who are relatively inexperienced and perhaps a little fearful of a completely manual camera. The best thing for them would be to learn how to use a manual camera because it will make them better at their craft and teach them more than they'll ever learn from pushing a few buttons. In the end, what we do is all about light. Taking time to understand it is pivotal.
Last edited:
Gibby
Red Savant
Greg, as always you make very valid and accurate points. My post #55 summarizes the ENG-style zoom lens workflow. As I stated there, pro ENG-style shooters know when to use each combination of lens setup, and there are some shooting scenarios where some auto functions are the best choice. ENG-style goes way beyond news, but also includes sports, reality, some styles of documentaries, events, and many other sub-genres.
The 16mm documentary workflow is markedly different from the 2/3" B4 ENG zoom workflow in ENG-style production, so I'm not surprised that you never used an auto camera. Pro level ENG-shooters workflow occasionally demands some auto functions. They regularly shoot in all the combinations I illustrated in my post #55. They have to shoot full manual, and combinations of manual/auto, so they also need commensurately different skill sets than someone who shoots solely in a manual world. I work in both cine-style and ENG-style workflows and have a healthy respect for both.
I'm with you Greg - as the cine-style and ENG-style production worlds converge, we need to re-assess our skill sets and attitudes. It doesn't bother me a bit if someone chooses to stay in cine-style or ENG-style production their whole career. They should do what feels right for them - and what's best for their bank account.
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
The 16mm documentary workflow is markedly different from the 2/3" B4 ENG zoom workflow in ENG-style production, so I'm not surprised that you never used an auto camera. Pro level ENG-shooters workflow occasionally demands some auto functions. They regularly shoot in all the combinations I illustrated in my post #55. They have to shoot full manual, and combinations of manual/auto, so they also need commensurately different skill sets than someone who shoots solely in a manual world. I work in both cine-style and ENG-style workflows and have a healthy respect for both.
I'm with you Greg - as the cine-style and ENG-style production worlds converge, we need to re-assess our skill sets and attitudes. It doesn't bother me a bit if someone chooses to stay in cine-style or ENG-style production their whole career. They should do what feels right for them - and what's best for their bank account.
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
mike the beginner
Well-known member
Well put Steve.:thumbsup:
Do i sense some form of one upmanship by cine style users quite happy to see red fully manual in every way since it probably suits cine style filming. Maybe there are people within the cine style who would rather not see red in the hands of run and gun type shooters and ENG USERS.
I was somewhat disillusioned when i read both Barry Greens post and Jarrod's aggreeing post straight after it! with regard Red not being for for everyone and so forth. From two people i greatly respect i thought their views were somewhat narrow minded.
True it is likely to be a brilliant camera for cine use, but it can also be a great camera for many other uses.
The problem with the "other uses" is that there has to be a sufficient number of other uses for the purchase of red plus all the extras to be justified! Let me explain what i see as a beginner filled with theory but little practice.
Low light qualities: In really bad low light conditions, Red with a prime 35mm wide angle lens. Probably on a tripod possibly on red rails.
Underwater filming (particularly in Scottish waters being less clear) An underwater unit with same prime wide angle 35mm lens.
Landscapes on a tripod with 35mm lenses. More detail from red than probably any other camera. Beatiful pictures to die for compared to a small 1/3rd format (all other things being equal).
I can list a few more that would add to my particular projects. BUT in addition to this i really dont need/want shallow DOF other than some close ups and specific situations. I require deeper DOF and i can only get that by either trying to go down a couple of stops with 35mm type lenses, which will only work on some occasions or ideally go for either s16mm zoom lenses or 2/3rds zoom lenses. The s16mm i have looked at are damn well expensive and fairly heavy. That leaves me with a 2/3rds lens with a b4 mount. Steve has coverd what we need for that and others say it is not in demand?
If Red do not intend to have "something" that will allow a 2/3rds lens of the type that Steve has mentioned to work properly then surely it is about time red came out and commented on this aspect. I dont think it is fair for Red to infer the camera is everything to everybody in terms of its use truly modular etc and mention of light ENG style etc if that is clearly not the case. Both Barry and Jarrad appear to hold the view Red is not for ENG or run and gun type work. If thats not the case please say otherwise. If red feel they would rather fully concentrate on developing the camera exclusively at this present time for cine use then fine. We would all know were we stand. No one would complain if red take that line as it is a unique camera, just don't advertise it as something else if it totally relies on a third party to make it suit other uses.
Does red know yet one way or the other if there are going to be problems using only part of the sensor with windowed mode using cheaper 35mm photo lens? Or by using 16mm or s16mm lenses. or 2/3rds lenses particularly the latter for those who know the problems that might occur when using that type of lens. If red don't know how then can they advertise that Red is suitable for ENG lightweight style of use?
I have been a solid supporter of red and what they have achieved so far. Either way i know we will all benefit whether we purchase a red or not.
On the question of using the camera for run and gun quick action shooting surely red can at least comment that the camera will have tools to enable that style to be shot in ENG lightweight style without being a top notch cameraman.
On the question of auto anything i understand why cine guys don't want things THEY might not have a use for. BUT i have mentioned this before on another thread somewhere. Present day auto focusing is far from perfect. What if it improves in the next year or two to standards thought impossible by many of you, What then. What red has done with the sensor was regarded by many as impossible, yet it appears to have just become possible.
Just like the film cameraman who "believes" he is exclusive and skilled because he uses film, what will happen to the "MANUAL" man when everyone else is using auto in the future.
Can we not have a brilliant red cine camera AND a great run and gun red as well. Price wise the alternatives are far from enticing.
Sorry for the long post guys. I really felt i was getting somewhere with all this then Barrys post through a fox into the chicken shed.
Michael
Do i sense some form of one upmanship by cine style users quite happy to see red fully manual in every way since it probably suits cine style filming. Maybe there are people within the cine style who would rather not see red in the hands of run and gun type shooters and ENG USERS.
I was somewhat disillusioned when i read both Barry Greens post and Jarrod's aggreeing post straight after it! with regard Red not being for for everyone and so forth. From two people i greatly respect i thought their views were somewhat narrow minded.
True it is likely to be a brilliant camera for cine use, but it can also be a great camera for many other uses.
The problem with the "other uses" is that there has to be a sufficient number of other uses for the purchase of red plus all the extras to be justified! Let me explain what i see as a beginner filled with theory but little practice.
Low light qualities: In really bad low light conditions, Red with a prime 35mm wide angle lens. Probably on a tripod possibly on red rails.
Underwater filming (particularly in Scottish waters being less clear) An underwater unit with same prime wide angle 35mm lens.
Landscapes on a tripod with 35mm lenses. More detail from red than probably any other camera. Beatiful pictures to die for compared to a small 1/3rd format (all other things being equal).
I can list a few more that would add to my particular projects. BUT in addition to this i really dont need/want shallow DOF other than some close ups and specific situations. I require deeper DOF and i can only get that by either trying to go down a couple of stops with 35mm type lenses, which will only work on some occasions or ideally go for either s16mm zoom lenses or 2/3rds zoom lenses. The s16mm i have looked at are damn well expensive and fairly heavy. That leaves me with a 2/3rds lens with a b4 mount. Steve has coverd what we need for that and others say it is not in demand?
If Red do not intend to have "something" that will allow a 2/3rds lens of the type that Steve has mentioned to work properly then surely it is about time red came out and commented on this aspect. I dont think it is fair for Red to infer the camera is everything to everybody in terms of its use truly modular etc and mention of light ENG style etc if that is clearly not the case. Both Barry and Jarrad appear to hold the view Red is not for ENG or run and gun type work. If thats not the case please say otherwise. If red feel they would rather fully concentrate on developing the camera exclusively at this present time for cine use then fine. We would all know were we stand. No one would complain if red take that line as it is a unique camera, just don't advertise it as something else if it totally relies on a third party to make it suit other uses.
Does red know yet one way or the other if there are going to be problems using only part of the sensor with windowed mode using cheaper 35mm photo lens? Or by using 16mm or s16mm lenses. or 2/3rds lenses particularly the latter for those who know the problems that might occur when using that type of lens. If red don't know how then can they advertise that Red is suitable for ENG lightweight style of use?
I have been a solid supporter of red and what they have achieved so far. Either way i know we will all benefit whether we purchase a red or not.
On the question of using the camera for run and gun quick action shooting surely red can at least comment that the camera will have tools to enable that style to be shot in ENG lightweight style without being a top notch cameraman.
On the question of auto anything i understand why cine guys don't want things THEY might not have a use for. BUT i have mentioned this before on another thread somewhere. Present day auto focusing is far from perfect. What if it improves in the next year or two to standards thought impossible by many of you, What then. What red has done with the sensor was regarded by many as impossible, yet it appears to have just become possible.
Just like the film cameraman who "believes" he is exclusive and skilled because he uses film, what will happen to the "MANUAL" man when everyone else is using auto in the future.
Can we not have a brilliant red cine camera AND a great run and gun red as well. Price wise the alternatives are far from enticing.
Sorry for the long post guys. I really felt i was getting somewhere with all this then Barrys post through a fox into the chicken shed.
Michael
Last edited:
Greg Lowry
Carbonite Member
Michael,
I think it's up to the prospective user to determine the desirability or otherwise of the RED camera for their intended production applications. There are just too many variables to make unequivocal declarations that RED is perfect for everyone. I think RED is likely to cover about 90% of all potential shooting applications, and I'm not sure what the other 10% are.
As for what will happen to the "MANUAL" man when everyone else is using auto in the future, his/her work will be unique and unlike "everyone else's" homogenous, factory pre-set pretty pictures.
Greg
I think it's up to the prospective user to determine the desirability or otherwise of the RED camera for their intended production applications. There are just too many variables to make unequivocal declarations that RED is perfect for everyone. I think RED is likely to cover about 90% of all potential shooting applications, and I'm not sure what the other 10% are.
As for what will happen to the "MANUAL" man when everyone else is using auto in the future, his/her work will be unique and unlike "everyone else's" homogenous, factory pre-set pretty pictures.
Greg
Last edited:
"As for what will happen to the "MANUAL" man when everyone else is using auto in the future, his/her work will be unique and unlike "everyone else's" homogenous, factory pre-set pretty pictures."
Nice post Greg. Good to see you back in action on this forum. You always bring a valuable perspective.
Adam
Nice post Greg. Good to see you back in action on this forum. You always bring a valuable perspective.
Adam
Gibby
Red Savant
Greg Lowry said:
I think there will be progressively fewer and fewer fully manual shooters as we move into the future. They will evolve into or be replaced by "occasionally fully manual by choice" shooters who make their real living as "partially auto/partially manual" shooters, and they will comprise the gigantic majority of the shooting professionals. I don't believe we will ever see a completely auto workflow, because chips and lenses don't have the intangibles like aesthetic judgment, production experience, and a feel for the marketplace. Speaking of marketplace, we are all in a business here. The extinction of a species is very Darwinian, in nature and business. Natural history and business history are littered with examples of species that couldn't evolve, and thus went extinct. The bottom line is determined by how cost effectively we bring our product to market and how well it is received and used by our end users. It's OK to be aesthetic purists and sentimentalists, and I certainly share those traits with all proven motion media veterans, but at some point I also had to temper my aesthetic sentimentalism with fiscal and technological realism in order to avoid going extinct as a business species. Often times I do low-aesthetic video projects to pay the bills, and then turn around and get my manual aesthetic urges out in the very next project, or some footage or stills I shoot in my "time off".
I had a friend ask me recently what I did on my day off, and when I told him that I took a HD camera and a DSLR up to Big Sur to shoot all day, his response was "Isn't that like a mailman taking a walk on his day off?" I just smiled and said "No offense, but if you understood how much I enjoy shooting good images, you wouldn't have made that statement!"
Peace...
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Last edited:
Is there an OIS included in the Arri D20 or Viper ? I don't know.macgregor said:
Coming from S16, where OIS, auto exposure, focus isn't a necessity, I don't really see the need for it, but then again I'm not an ENG shooter. I fully agree with people asking for features to be included that they will want/need in their line of work. And if the features have enough demand and fit in with the cameras production profit ratio, then it'll probably be included. If not, there are third party add ons that could probably cover some of the features.
But in my limited experience, manual controls will be around a long time, and rightfully so. Making them more intuitive and easy to implement is the real question, IMHO. BTW - a good documentarian only needs his artistic judgement an incident and spot meter, and a quick hand. Whether he or she be in Iraq or in Tokyo... experience is always going to beat auto anything, everytime.
Now, digital film people in one corner and ENG people in the other. When I ring the bell... :beer::laugh:
RED# wish I was higher
Gibby
Red Savant
D_and_G said:
LOL...and those who do both, please just proceed directly to the bank!
I do both so I'll volunteer to referee the fight...on second thought, that's what I've been doing!
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
mike the beginner
Well-known member
That is quite likely to be true. In the near future IF they do get the auto right and with many cheaper shoots there is a choice to choose someone cheaply that uses auto or someone more expensive then who will most choose?
I liked your posts though
. If everyone agrees that red is suitable for run and gun work then i know it is just a matter of getting stuck in and learning. But if there are experienced users saying it is not suitable then doubt creeps in that the camera may simply not be suitable, thats all.Michael
Haha.
Competing and converging interests. Ain't it peculiar.
It's good to get the ideas and comparisons out there, though. Better to tup it out, then not say a thing.
My only concern (a minor one) is that with all these feature requests that the camera may fall into the jack of all trades, master of none philosophy. And that can be a concern when your talking about modularity - maybe overlooking when specialization is preferable.
Then again if you can get your features in the camera without sacrificing any other development, or quality, then good on ya '. Luck mate. Who knows, I may need the ENG-type capabilities some time. Certainly, filming (digital shooting ?) surfing in Hawaii is something I'd be chuffed to do:beer: :beer:
RED # wish I was higher
"My only concern (a minor one) is that with all these feature requests that the camera may fall into the jack of all trades, master of none philosophy. And that can be a concern when your talking about modularity - maybe overlooking when specialization is preferable."
Seems like RED is avoiding that peril by becoming a cine camera first and foremost, and meeting other demands as long as they don't dilute that. At least that's my impression.
Seems like RED is avoiding that peril by becoming a cine camera first and foremost, and meeting other demands as long as they don't dilute that. At least that's my impression.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Miguel, Steve and Greg, I only can't understand why it isn't possible to have the two options there as one-in-two device: auto & manual offer. Both.
C'mon we live in a democracy but if the offer will be just one feature it won't be a free choice.
That's why I subscribe this POV:
Nobody can impose to the other side our own perspective or method.
Different people, different needs.
And I'd like and want a cine style as well a ENG multiple choice RED ONE digital camera.
C'mon we live in a democracy but if the offer will be just one feature it won't be a free choice.
That's why I subscribe this POV:
So, be auto or manual following your needs. But for this it's necessary to have both possibilities. So, it's natural to ask it.Gibby said:
Nobody can impose to the other side our own perspective or method.
Different people, different needs.
And I'd like and want a cine style as well a ENG multiple choice RED ONE digital camera.
Last edited:
Greg Lowry
Carbonite Member
Auto focus/iris for S35 format shooting is unlikely. For smaller formats it could be implemented if the demand is there. But keep in mind, it's not just a camera function. Lenses need to have the appropriate capability too.
Gibby
Red Savant
D_and_G said:
The 7lb body of RED will be packed with possibilities, based on the range of image formats and lens formats it is projected to have. Outward from there it will simply morph into whatever we want it to be, based on the type of accessories we attached to it, and the output buses included in the camera. REDCODE and REDCINE are loaded with possibilities and options for cine-style and ENG-style acquisition and processing. The variety of genres possible are then directly enabled by the accessories attached and the skill sets and attitude of the user. All to often a specialist is some who learns more and more about less and less - until they know everything about nothing. I never aspired to that.
D_and_G said:
I spent most of every winter in Hawaii from 1987 to 2001, directing and shooting, among lots of other things, surfing for network television (ESPN, Fox Sports Net, & others). I'm salivating at the chance to go back to Hawaii to use the new RED 300mm prime, and a 2/3" B4 HD ENG zoom (with 2x) to shoot some more surfing. I'll also have RED with a small prime lens in a custom aluminum housing for those in-water angle shots. Then for creative montages for the shows I'll use the RED 18-85mm zoom in full cine-style mode. I'm a true crossover guy. I shift gears between styles quickly and easily when I'm on location. I need a camera that can do the same thing...
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com