Any AUTO-FUNCTIONs on RED? Focus or Exposure?
- Thread starter Greg Voevodsky
- Start date
Gibby said:
Lol
I was speaking about the technology, not the shooter. It's mostly moot anyway since Jim has said - no AF and no AE. At least not in the first version.
Keep lobbying for the bus for a 2/3" lens though. I can see how it's useful in some situations. I like choice as much as anyone, as long as it doesn't compromise quality. If RED can do it, then great. They are aiming for a wide "prosumer" market too. :beer:
I can only imagine how 4K or even 2K surfing would look. Perhaps, you may get a call to shoot some secret footage...
:happy: The fact I've been considering stepping outside the box with RED footage is down to you Gibby. Your versatility and experience is always welcome ...
RED# wish I was higher
Muttondraw
Well-known member
Gibby said:
I don't think this should be a deal breaker, B4 lenses don't have particularly fancy powering requirements. 12V ish to pin 6 and 0V to pin 3 so you don't specifically have to have a lens connector on the body, you could power the lens from an accessory connector, or even take a tap straight from the battery.
Martin
Doc Holliday
Member
ENG I don't know, but I shoot Doc and Reality stuff all the time and never use manual exp or focus. I do however use the heck out of zebras, and hope they are included.
Lowkus
Active member
Auto functions aren't so complex that they should be kept out of the camera, and regardless of what Jannard has said in the past he can always change his mind and go forth adding auto funtions.
If Red leaves out auto functions I can just imagine all the reviews it'll get: "Great camera, but doesn't meet the needs of the largest segment of the video industry", "ENGtirely unusable", "A long perfect shot into the wrong goal", "Hold on tight, Because this camera won't work if you only hold it with one hand.", "Good for features, but is missing features".
If Red leaves out auto functions I can just imagine all the reviews it'll get: "Great camera, but doesn't meet the needs of the largest segment of the video industry", "ENGtirely unusable", "A long perfect shot into the wrong goal", "Hold on tight, Because this camera won't work if you only hold it with one hand.", "Good for features, but is missing features".
expand ones review imagination !!!
4k/2k/1090/720p unbelievable Digital cinema camera, beautiful images ...Digital cinema has come into it's own -- for those ENG'ers that want to advance their images may have to learn some new tricks etc ...
1st - it's a digital cinema camera ...
time will tell how much it has for ENG'ers but as of now it doesn't look like auto focus, auto exposure ... for those that only do ENG sony & panasonic have camera's that suit your needs .. those that do combination of ENG and other types probably will adapt using the RED to each of those ...
i have never shot ENG but from where i sit i have to ask how did the camerperson end up doing it all ??
before there was ENG they shot on film ... cameraman , ass't of somekind, soundman , lighting when needed .. then "video" came in and you had a cameraman , soundman ,and when needed a lighting persons ... then over the years it became only the cameraperson doing it all ... i would guess that the largest employers of ENG are discussing ways to get rid of the cameraperson and have the interviewer or PA set up a auto everything camera and turn it on then stand in front and give their report and persons back at company will operate ( zoom, iris, pan/tilt using motor head) camera from there ??
4k/2k/1090/720p unbelievable Digital cinema camera, beautiful images ...Digital cinema has come into it's own -- for those ENG'ers that want to advance their images may have to learn some new tricks etc ...
1st - it's a digital cinema camera ...
time will tell how much it has for ENG'ers but as of now it doesn't look like auto focus, auto exposure ... for those that only do ENG sony & panasonic have camera's that suit your needs .. those that do combination of ENG and other types probably will adapt using the RED to each of those ...
i have never shot ENG but from where i sit i have to ask how did the camerperson end up doing it all ??
before there was ENG they shot on film ... cameraman , ass't of somekind, soundman , lighting when needed .. then "video" came in and you had a cameraman , soundman ,and when needed a lighting persons ... then over the years it became only the cameraperson doing it all ... i would guess that the largest employers of ENG are discussing ways to get rid of the cameraperson and have the interviewer or PA set up a auto everything camera and turn it on then stand in front and give their report and persons back at company will operate ( zoom, iris, pan/tilt using motor head) camera from there ??
acehole111
Well-known member
Lowkus said:
This stuff writes itself! But seriously, REDs first endeavour into this new exciting realm has been "digital cinema".. the fact that wer'e having all these expectations from the camera is a testament to its success already. But who knows yknow...the red camera is based on upgradablitiy bljhah.. So they might leave a "hole" to fit in power for lenses down the track. Definately wouldnt be a bad idea.
sarmoti@hotmail.com
New member
Auto functions
Auto functions
I have to disagree that a WFM or Histogram is a full replacement for a light meter. If you're just trying to expose within the medium's capabilities it comes in handy but when it comes to achieving any kind of lighting consistency like matching the intensity of a backlight or getting a consistent key to fill ratios from shot to shot in serious dramatic work a light meter is a must.
There are a few devices which are meant for film work which act as digital tape measures giving a distance readout to the focus puller during a shot. One of them is a visible red laser that you aim at your subject and flickers in sync with the camera shutter so it is never exposed on film. I have yet to see one in use on set. Full auto tracking focus? There's a subtle art to pulling focus that a machine that tracks an actor just can't understand. Could have it's uses in certain applications but it sure ain't going to replace a human focus puller on a dramatic production.
Auto functions have their place in some situations like where you're too busy trying to avoid getting shot to man the iris. I think a handycam type camera is better suited there for a number of reasons. I can't see a wide appeal for these functions on a product of this type from the market it's targeted at. 4K digital cinema camera with auto focus/iris? I think that it would be an immediate turnoff for anyone who crafts their images. Let 3rd parties handle that if they think there's a market for it.
Auto functions
I have to disagree that a WFM or Histogram is a full replacement for a light meter. If you're just trying to expose within the medium's capabilities it comes in handy but when it comes to achieving any kind of lighting consistency like matching the intensity of a backlight or getting a consistent key to fill ratios from shot to shot in serious dramatic work a light meter is a must.
There are a few devices which are meant for film work which act as digital tape measures giving a distance readout to the focus puller during a shot. One of them is a visible red laser that you aim at your subject and flickers in sync with the camera shutter so it is never exposed on film. I have yet to see one in use on set. Full auto tracking focus? There's a subtle art to pulling focus that a machine that tracks an actor just can't understand. Could have it's uses in certain applications but it sure ain't going to replace a human focus puller on a dramatic production.
Auto functions have their place in some situations like where you're too busy trying to avoid getting shot to man the iris. I think a handycam type camera is better suited there for a number of reasons. I can't see a wide appeal for these functions on a product of this type from the market it's targeted at. 4K digital cinema camera with auto focus/iris? I think that it would be an immediate turnoff for anyone who crafts their images. Let 3rd parties handle that if they think there's a market for it.
Lowkus
Active member
acehole111 said:
This is one of those things that I'm thinking makes the Red1 not a fully upgradeable camera. If the power and data lines aren't placed properly in the housing then there won't be any option to upgrade the camera short of rebuilding the entire camera housing ($$$$). And if the power and data lines are in place when the camera ships, then it's just a baby step away from having all the auto functions. It doesn't make sense not to take that last little step to make the camera a great leap better.
Gibby
Red Savant
Muttondraw said:
Definitely...I referenced this workaround power option in the last paragraph of my Post #54, on page 6 of this thread, with this remarK:
"There is a workaround if RED has no lens power, and that is to attach a separate battery power unit to the tripod handle or shoulder mount, that is a dedicated lens servo power source. Having power from the camera would be preferable."
None of the proposed specifications for RED One are a dealbreaker for me. That said, there are simple additions to the specs that would help enable a broader range of production possibilities and field workflows for those of us who routinely work in multiple genres of cine-style and ENG/EFP-style.
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Muttondraw
Well-known member
Gibby said:
You mentioned that the lens could be separately powered from a dedicated source, my point was that with any accessory power out on the camera or the camera battery you could power the lens, so the lens wouldn't need it's own dedicated supply. I would like to see a number of accessory power points on the camera, maybe one could be by the lens and it would make a lot of sense if that was a standard 12-pin lens connector.
I have to say that I would prefer to see some auto functionality too, not because I would necessarily use it, but because I think it would significantly widen the appeal of the camera. As long as auto can be turned off I don't see the problem. The primary arguments against auto seem to be a bit elitist. Having said that I suppose there could be some merit in eschewing auto as a brand positioning statement.
Martin
Gibby
Red Savant
sarmoti@hotmail.com said:
Auto focus/auto iris combination - agreed, no wide appeal. Auto iris by itself, though, has a much wider appeal base. Who? Hundreds of thousands of 2/3" B4 shooters who occasionally find the need for intermittent auto iris use. My Post #54, on Page 6 of this thread illustrates that need and an example of professional auto iris use.
And what market is RED One targeted at? RED One is named as a digital cinema camera, and 4k is its flagship format for marketing purposes, but in reality, 4k digital cinema will probably be a minority percentage of overall RED One use when compared to the combined use total percentages of 2k, 1080p, and 720p production. The markets that RED One is targeted at and should be useful for are evidenced by the wide range of image and lens formats on the proposed spec sheet: 2540p, 4k, 2k Scaled, 2K Windowed, 1080p, 720p, 1080i, S35, 35mm, S16, and 2/3" B4. Add to this the fact that the camera is small and flexible in form factor, depending on how you accessorize it, and its readily evident that that though the most prestigious stated use of RED One will be as a 4k digital cinema camera, it will be accessorized for broad use in every image format below 4k, and used across multiple non-4k and non-digital cinema genres of production.
Auto iris an immediate turnoff for anyone who crafts their images? I think the hundreds of thousands of 2/3" B4 using professionals who occasionally find use for auto iris also feel that they are crafting their images. For the combinations of iris/servo/focus using 2/3" B4 lenses, see my Post #54, on Page 6 of this thread. The notion that anyone who doesn't shoot 4k cine-style and uses any auto functions doesn't craft their images is inherently offensive to those of us who regularly create excellent images using 2/3” B4 lenses, occasionally using auto iris, and also work in multiple cine-style and ENG/EFP style production genres.
This is the age of convergence between traditional manual film style production and the mostly manual/occasionally auto, electronic style of TV/video. RED One typifies that convergence. Yeah, its highest profile use is 4k digital cinema, but in practical application, RED One will be used widely and extensively in formats below 4k, and in a huge array of cine-style and ENG/EFP style productions.
This lengthy thread covers the auto/manual and RED use in production genres questions quite thoroughly. It's worth reading the whole thread...
Gibby
RED #8, 2nd RED, RED 300mm, various primes, RED 18-85mm, 35mm still lenses, S16 lenses, and 2/3" B4 lenses
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
yeah.. although me thinks 4k will be the fav shooting format.. why less if we have more.. MORE comprehends less BUT less don't!..Gibby said:
"Add to this the fact that the camera is small and flexible in form factor, depending on how you accessorize it, and its readily evident that that though the most prestigious stated use of RED One will be as a 4k digital cinema camera, it will be accessorized for broad use in every image format below 4k, and used across multiple non-4k and non-digital cinema genres of production."
"This is the age of convergence between traditional manual film style production and the mostly manual/occasionally auto, electronic style of TV/video. RED One typifies that convergence. Yeah, its highest profile use is 4k digital cinema, but in practical application, RED One will be used widely and extensively in formats below 4k, and in a huge array of cine-style and ENG/EFP style productions."
in my idea, the best way will be the down-rez route.. but yeah, sure.. different shooters, several media and their applications!..
Gibby
Red Savant
You're entirely right Filmmaker1977! No doubt that 4k REDCODE at 28MB/s will be used extensively. For many productions it will make great sense to shoot 4k REDCODE, no matter what the final delivery format will be. That said, I also think a lot of people will be shooting in 1080p with 2/3" B4 lenses because they have the lenses, don't need 35mm DOF for their production, and they're convinced that 1080p is the highest format they'll ever need for the footage.
I'm out of here right now for 3 days to go on location for a project...
Gibby
RED #8, 2nd RED, RED 300mm, various primes, RED 18-85mm, 35mm still lenses, S16 lenses, and 2/3" B4 lenses
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
I'm out of here right now for 3 days to go on location for a project...
Gibby
RED #8, 2nd RED, RED 300mm, various primes, RED 18-85mm, 35mm still lenses, S16 lenses, and 2/3" B4 lenses
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
good luck!.. but come back as soon as possible.. your presence here is 100% necessary!Gibby said:
firewallet
Well-known member
Agreed filmmaker1977, Steve Gibby is a great guy. His input is always spot on from my experience.
Sarmoti
Active member
Gibby said:
Sorry, didn't really mean it that way, there is nothing wrong with the B4 mount and there is excellent glass available for that mount. I just meant that if you're going to control lighting and exposure in any way whatsoever, auto iris is just not a desired feature. For a quick shot setup the histogram or VFM will give you a much better idea of proper exposure than auto iris. I just don't get the reliance on auto exposure functions, they are inherently unintelligent in their exposure choices an more often than not end up ruining a shot.
On a side note where is RED's appeal for ENG people? It just seems to me that the idea of having to post process and taking the time to color correct and render out footage shot by shot before editing doesn't fit into their workflow nor to the workflow of a lot of people.
