Can you pull your own focus?

[combatentropy]

With the depth of field of Super 35 mm,
just how hard is it to work the camera completely by yourself?

Granted, I am not a soccer mom.
I'm like one of those kids in the Scarlet forum,
15 years later.
In school I made 40 short movies.
Afterward, I ran my own video production business
for four years.

I've always done everything myself.
The largest format that I have shot moving pictures with is 2/3".
And of course I've shot some 35mm stills
(which is even shallower than Super 35).

In fact, I never would have doubted
that I could keep on being a one-man crew,
even with Super 35 depth of field,
until someone raked me over the coals about it (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=129056).

[peter roehsler]

you can pull your own focus, if you `learn´ your lens. do not use follow focus, use a lever. `learn´ the position of the lever for each distance by heart, train this and check focus every time after `guesstimating´ at the longest focal length of your zoom lens. (you will be surprised at the number of misses, btw.) stopping down the lens of course will give you extra depth of field. don´t rely on visual info only (efv or lcd) - get to know the lens. you could - somehow - manage to handle one lens reasonably well. if you change lenses, you may find it hard to use this technique, as they may have different positions (turns) for the same distance.

[Cail Young]

Coming from an EFP operating background I generally have no problem staying sharp if the end product is no higher than 720p. Once you get to 1080p/2K/4K critical focus steps out from behind simple downsampling sharpness and it's way more obvious if you're off by a bit.

This is handheld, by the way, if you're in a funky tripod situation you might have trouble pulling easily due to ergonomics.

[Shawn Booth]

Pulling focus is hard. Especially if your subject is moving. It's a skill, period.

The 1st AC allows the operator to focus on what they're doing.

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

I'd say it all depends of what you're shooting...
You can of course pull focus yourself on documentary style (looks like Jim - a real reduser-aholic :-) - does agree it is doable most of the time) on short films, also when you're producing and shooting on your own film... As soon as you're in more challenging environement with talents etc it is quite delicate to ask for a new take everytime you missed the focus because lead role did or did not stop right in his mark.
A good focus puller is like a perfect auto-focus system, and much more :-)

[Martin Weiss]

As a former focus puller, who now operates mostly without one, I would say it is just like with a soundman. When you have one, your pictures become better, because you can concentrate on your job, rather than doing somebody else's.

Of course you can help yourself a bit by choosing a somewhat conservative f-stop — with the added benefit that most lenses behave best when stopped down.

If shallow depth-of-field is crucial to your story, and you do not have the time for endless re-takes, then do spend some money on an experienced Focus Puller. They are worth their bits in gold.

[Andreas Höhn]

- pay attention to framing and pulling focus simultaneously
- focus with one eye the viewfinder image, with the other the subject to pull focus
- start the camera on Q
- pan + tilt
- listen to the director

I cannot, under no circumstances. I have stress just to thinking on that.
But iam not a Dop.

[Michael Brennan]

This subject has been covered here in depth to excuse the pun.

Depth of field wide open on 2/3 inch HD is hard enough to track focus, on longer lenses with subject more than 50ft away it is guesswork/craft/witchcraft =$$$$ if you get it right!

But 35mm format with a lens @ F2.8, with the subject or camera moving is more difficult. With one eye (presumably) in the viewfinder that leaves one eye to judge camera subject distance. Alternatively you can guess the distance the subject is moving through the viewfinder. If you are hand holding you can judge the distance you are moving.

Long lens is difficult as it is hard to judge how much subject is moving.
Remember that the audience will see the shot go soft before you since at the moment we only have 720p res viewfinder.


Regular use and harsh self criticism referring to a 4K image would improve above skills.

Perhaps a combination of the above inputs is what most doc cameramen use.

To state the obvious if you really want the full benefits of REDone @ 4K then the picture should be in focus.
Significant % of HD sports and even 35mm motion pictures have soft shots.
So a certain amount of fudge is allowed with current distribution and viewing resolutions, just make sure production team understand that if you or the subject is moving shot could be soft and without checking the shot back you can't be sure. I do this with HD if self pulling.



Mike Brennan

[diskojerk]

Accurate focus pulls while moving the camera can't really be achieved while simultaneously operating the camera. Timing camera moves with focus pulls requires a minimum of two people if you want to do it right. I was 2nd ACing on a shoot and we did a focus pull on a dolly through a doorway where we had to pass the baton so to speak in the middle of the shot as the camera went through the doorway.

If you're just racking focus between subjects in a fixed frame without a camera move and you absolutely can not find another person to help you, it wouldn't be unheard of to take your eye off the view finder and just pull focus. If your distances are measured accurately and marked then you should get a clean focus pull. Of course you won't be 100% sure until you see the footage, but you get the idea.

Hand held, forget it.

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Stopped down on a tripod with a stationary subject, wide angle: Absolutly.

Wide open handheld with a moving subject, tele: Absolutly not.

(Especially because the Focus Overlay is no help with that)

Jochen

[Uli Plank]

Just as Jochen says.
But if you want to train yourself, definitely use a long lever. There's a good reason why fighter pilots for example use the clock as an indicator for direction (as in: "your enemy is approaching at 9 o'clock"): humans seem to have a better mental image for angular positions than just a number on a dial.

My two cents,

Uli

[Stephen Williams]

Wide open handheld with a moving subject, tele: Absolutly not.

Jochen

Hi,

It can sometimes work as it's so obvious where the focus actually is.

Stephen

[Lewis-M Soucy]

One has to have "tricks"... With smaller cams, in that situation where I didn't want to have the auto-focus "pumping", I'd set the lens really wide (wide=less focus incident) and set the focus manually to a certain distance. I'd just shoot like that, follow the subject at that distance, etc... My shots would always come pretty clean. I also did it with film cameras a few times and it did the joke...

[JD Holloway]

Hi,

It can sometimes work as it's so obvious where the focus actually is.

Stephen

Very good point. Often a stopped down lens is very difficult to find critical focus on without ruining a shot. It can seem like mush everywhere and you start hunting. Just make sure you hide your hunt with a camera/actor/prop move or its obvious.

-Projection size is critical. 720/1080/K whatever. What is your "relative" viewing distance/angle of output material. 10' off 40' screen/1 foot off 4 foot screen? Watch out!

-Certain lenses are much easier to focus at distance. Stills glass (manual) should be very difficult I think (although I think somebody should invent a "cammed" gear system. Berger mount may help by spreading out the distances electronically on the focus dial. Cine glass can do this physically with milled out barrels with variable pitch threading.

-Thank God for 24p frame motion blur. It hides focus like nobodies business. But you may have to land on a mark when actors land on theirs...and you cant be searching for focus at the mark or the shot is on the cutting room floor (or electronic equivalent).

-Whats your subject matter? Some subjects don't need or warrant technical perfection. Some are better "a little loose"; its a creative choice.

-Shoot Lots. Shoot Lots. Shoot Lots.

-"6 Ps" Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

my 0.02$

[Matt Gottshalk]

I met a DP from NFL films that had a rifle scope (low power) rigged up to his 16mm high speed camera. He was in the endzone for the "qb throws the ball to the WR for the TD catch" shot you see in the NFL films. He could track the football all the way in and it was TACK SHARP.

[Steve Gibby]

I’ve been shooting extensively with RED ONE for almost eight months now – with a number of crew sizes, in multiple styles and genres, and with a wide array of lenses and accessories. I cast my vote along with those who voted in the category of: “If you’re experienced and alert, it’s doable most of the time”. Here’s why:

Convergence of shooting styles
With cameras like RED, there is a synthesis of shooting styles possible, and in fact being used in the real world. REDs technology is closely related to DSLR, moderately related to TV/video, and least related to film. Users of RED are now converging from all three of those backgrounds, and some people like me come from all three. With the technology being convergent, and the mix of people using RED being convergent, its no surprise that especially in non-union, mid to small crew productions, shooters with RED are free to push the camera and how they use it to modified paradigms. General categories of shooting style with RED may be traditional cine style, hybrid cine/EFP style, and EFP style. Traditional cine style will generally be using cine lenses, MB, FF, ACs, measuring tapes, hand held meters, etc. Hybrid cine/EFP style may be using various lens types (cine, 35mm still, B4), may or may not be using MB/FF/ACs, and may be using in-camera electronic aids for focus and exposure. EFP style will generally be using EFP lenses (but may also use cine, 35mm still), almost never a MB/FF/ACs. All these approaches to using RED ONE are valid, as are varying flavors and modifications between the general categories I listed. Whatever style most effectively achieves the images, and is also cost-effective (producer in me speaking now), is perfectly valid with RED.

Genres of Production and Focusing Needs
Except for some b-camera shooting, narrative cinema will almost always use a traditional crew, including an AC for pulling focus. But narrative cinema is but a narrow slice of the overall motion media production worldwide, and a commensurately narrow slice of the potential usage of RED ONE (and EPIC and Scarlet in the future). There is a vast universe of RED-capable production genres and sub-genres beyond narrative cinema. Even in narrative cinema, where shallow DOF gets a lot of press, and some newbies feel they have to use it on every shot, medium to deep DOF is used widely when shots and effectively telling the story call for it. Sidelight: a few nights ago on an HDTV movie channel I watched the multiple Oscar-winning film “The Sting” (1973 – Newman, Redford). There was not a single shallow DOF shot used in the entire movie – all DOF was medium to deep. And yet the telling of the story was very effective – witness the Oscars. Vast numbers of genres and individual productions shot on RED simply call for medium to deep DOF, and except for shallow DOF montage shots, use mostly apertures between f5.6 and F11 – where sight focusing by the shooter, using the EVF, LCD, 2x magnification, and false color, is in fact a very viable option - and in fact for many crew/genre situations may be the best focusing workflow choice.

Focusing with RED
Fact: the vast majority of productions worldwide each year are either Hybrid cine/EFP style or EFP style. Almost all of those productions are shot by sight focusers working either alone, or in medium to small non-union crews. I see some confusion on this thread about sight focusing. There are two types of focusing that fit that term: 1) An AC/focus puller, or single shooter visually estimating distance to the subject and focusing according to that estimate 2) A shooter or single operator using their eyesight to use electronic aids (EVF, LCD, or other monitor) and the focus aids (2x magnification, false color) in an electronic camera (like RED) to sight focus. Some shooters routinely use both methods of sight focusing. I am mostly a sight focuser, who works in medium to small crews, doing high profile international and national work. In almost eight months of heavy use of my RED cameras, I’ve found RED’s focus tools to be accurate and very quick and easy to use – even for very shallow DOF critical focus. Professional sight focusing with RED ONE is a reality folks. That’s not to cast doubt on others choice to go a more traditional way, with measuring tapes/lens scales/ACs, etc. If it fits their workflow and crew requirements, fine.

Reactive versus Anticipatory Focusing
Professional fast-action followers (sports, nature, etc.) who have good aptitude, who continually keep their skills sharpened, and have mastered the equipment they use, move largely from being reactive focusers, exposers, framers, and followers, to be much more anticipatory camera manipulators in near real time. In following fast action by yourself there is no time to think - you must anticipate and react very quickly to nail the shots. By the time you stop to think about a shot its already gone - along with the two or three quick shots that happened right after it. When you've shot fast moving subjects a lot which are very familiar to you, you develop a 6th sense in the back of your head about where the subject is going to move next. It has to be like automatic radar in order to have a high percentage of usable footage. Those same shooters must also have the skill sets to shoot many other styles besides action following for those projects: interviews, talent, creative b-roll with very shallow DOF, very good at hand held, etc. The challenges to shooting skills in these programs are both varied and intense.

Final Thoughts
I see the need at times, in certain genres, for the traditional film/cine style focusing methods - AC. tape measures, practiced scenes, hitting marks, etc. I'm not against that when it’s the best choice for what's being shot, and/or clients/execs are expecting to see that workflow. I have deep respect for the good DPs, cinematogaphers, and ACs I've worked with over the years who practice traditional methods. I use some of those methods myself frequently. But I don't hesitate to experiment with my shooting and incorporate sight focusing when I feel it works best for a project.

My point is to encourage people here to open their minds to maximize RED ONE's potential in terms of the diversity of ways to shoot with RED (and equipment setups) that enable acquiring good footage. The RED ONE camera combines DSLR, TV/Video and traditional film technology, so to me there is no reason we can't combine shooting techniques from all those industries when a project determines it is warranted.

[Joel Kaye]

I think Gibby's got the answer but I'll just add that with RED you can learn to ease a shot into focus once you learn how the focus assist lights things up.

For me, having someone else pull focus is preferable for some shots but not all all shots. I think I can be much more intimate and personal with some shots pulling my focus.

There was a recent podcast I heard where the crew was shooting RED the first time and they were shooting little kids (they couldn't plan the actor's motions). They ended up sight focusing via a monitor and the director thought they got better shots and it was easier to direct the AC.

To me it's just a step from there to focusing yourself in any situation where the ergonomics of the camera allows. BUT it's definitely an eye hand coordination drill. Practice.

I know this is going to sound trite - but since I just went through this I think it's a perfect metaphor. Recently I got a first person shooter video game. I hadn't played a video game in years. You have to use your left hand to move your character, run, jump, switch weapons, talk via voice over IP. You use your right hand to look up/down/left/right, you right click to bring up your gunsights and aim with your mouse. Your left hand, right hand, fingers and brain all are doing they're own thing. It's friggin' tough. But after maybe 100 hours of practice under pressure I could do all that stuff well and very fast (subconsciously).

When I first began I actually got killed 27 times in a row without killing anyone. If focus pulling was as tough as a video game I bet a lot of focus pullers would have given up. But tons of people are good at really complicated video games where things happen in 3D via a 2D interface. Just like focusing by eye. I personally don't think there's a need to learn to stand aside a camera to judge focus. That's a by product of how film cameras work. Focusing by eye is more accurate (on a digital camera like RED) and more intuitive IMHO. The more shallow the DOF the more obvious what's out of focus. That's easier than focusing a 24mm at 11 feet where it's a pretty subtle difference between what's sharp and isn't. But with RED's focus assist in the EVF you can see even that.

IF YOU HAVE GOOD EYE HAND COORDINATION you can do it if you put in the hours. Be your own judge. People who can't do it can't do it. But that doesn't mean no one can. A lot of people suck at table tennis and video games. They probably wouldn't be good focus pullers either.

[Alex Fostvedt]

I shoot different action sports, mostly mountainbiking, and a few snow sports when I can. I find that when a subject is coming at you at 40k it can be tough to not buzz here and there.
I had an idea on a recent shoot where I was pulling focus like a mad man. The idea was to attach a small ring on either side of the lens barrel. One ring is on the focus side of the lens, the part that turns, and the other on the static side of the lens that has the marker. The idea is to have a hard start and stop point between the two markers, two slide type brackets, that you could position as a marker. So you set up a shot, find your start focus, set your lens bracket stop, find your end focus mark, and set your end stop. You still have to pull focus through the shot, but at least you would not be going past your end mark, and you would be able to set your start mark after each take. This would be useful for camera people that do not have an AC. I think it would work for any setup shot, but it would be tough for any run and gun stuff, then you are back to using your eye and instincts.
Any companies out there that make a device like this?

[Rudi Herbert]

three things I want to add to this,

First, my original background is still photography, where you HAVE to focus by eye, and you have to do it through a pretty small viewfinder. I found myself shooting for large poster assingments, the kind you see 40 feet tall on the side of a building, where focus was critical, and as many others have said, eye focusing is not as difficult and elusive an art as might seem. But yes, there are times and situations, mostly studio/large cine style setups, where you'll need an AC to pull focus for you.

A while ago I had the privilege of working with a very talented and famous DP, who told me a couple of things that made a lot of sense. First, he said that focus racking as a tool to direct viewers' attention to different parts of the scene is one of the golden tricks of cinema, but it is a little overused today, far too many scenes where the dynamics of the action and the characters are fast and/or strong enough to dictate a logical, easy to follow rythm do not need as much focus changing as most directors seem intent on nowadays. Whatever happened to the Sergio Leone or even Orson Welles' movies, did you find it difficult to follow the story or the characters in those everything-in-sharp-focus classics?

Then, if you really have to do it, and your story really neccessitates the isolation/differentiation of characters against their backgrounds, do yourself a favor and use/design sets where you can stage your motion in a way that the charatcers always end up relatively far from the area to be blurred out and/or against a strong light source so that changing focus is very easy and almost intuitive. Look at all the interior scenes in the mansion in "Atonement" where most dialogues are shot with drastically short DOF, and how there's always a physical separation between the characters and the backgrounds, even in relatively small rooms. Remember, the more distance between the in-focus subject and the out-of-focus one the easier it is to pull a good focus rack. He claims it is far easier to re-arrange a set or stage a scene so that the focal plains are far enough from each other than to depend on an AC having to guesstimate focus, however good they are, while precariously hanging by the side of the camera, trying to match his movements to those of the operator and without much to go by. AC's are the most important people on the set, in that if they screw the focus, everybody else's jobs are ruined. So don't burden them with unneccessarily complex focus racks, switching focus by inches just to attain that much more "excellence"...

Lastly, he mentioned that most good DP's and AC's are too old fashioned for their own good and their understandable, but ilogical, resistance to technology becomes their worst enemy at times. He says that it is also the operator's job to check for focus, as he is the one looking through the viewfinder, NOT the AC, and that for this to happen better, the operator is beteer served by a nice, HD monitor than an optical viewfinder. He says he starts planning set ups with a viewfinder, but the minute the camera is powered up, he switches to an 8'' monitor and never looks back. He furthermore insists that his AC carry a second monitor from a shoulder harness they've made for him, thethered to the camera so that they both see the same thing at the same time. Lastly, they now use EXCLUSIVELY a remote FF system, where his AC is actually at a distance from the camera, and he can look at the scene from a different angle where ascertaining DOF is easier AND the operator can move easier. They rehearse the scenes carefully for every focus pull and have a numerical system where, for example, for short throws, he counts up to 5, and up to 10 for longer pulls, and as he goes "ok, and 1,2,3.....10" the AC racks the focus accordingly, at an agreed upon speed, from a distance. This DP swears by this technique and says he can't understand why most people still only use remote FF systems just for steadycam work and other complex stuff, where it can be used for everything...For what is worth, this French DP is really top notch and most of you have seen one or several of his films.

Hope this contributes something to this interesting topic,

[michael zaletel]

Gibby, Joelnet and Rubi (among others), thanks for the incredible dialog here. Real-life, real-world technical discussion by people out doing it for a living everyday. Better than any book. Thanks a million for taking the time.

-shooter

[Jonas Nyström]

I’ve been shooting extensively with RED ONE for almost eight months now – with a number of crew sizes, in multiple styles and genres, and with a wide array of lenses and accessories. I cast my vote along with those who voted in the category of: “If you’re experienced and alert, it’s doable most of the time”. Here’s why:

Convergence of shooting styles
With cameras like RED, there is a synthesis of shooting styles possible, and in fact being used in the real world. REDs technology is closely related to DSLR, moderately related to TV/video, and least related to film. Users of RED are now converging from all three of those backgrounds, and some people like me come from all three. With the technology being convergent, and the mix of people using RED being convergent, its no surprise that especially in non-union, mid to small crew productions, shooters with RED are free to push the camera and how they use it to modified paradigms. General categories of shooting style with RED may be traditional cine style, hybrid cine/EFP style, and EFP style. Traditional cine style will generally be using cine lenses, MB, FF, ACs, measuring tapes, hand held meters, etc. Hybrid cine/EFP style may be using various lens types (cine, 35mm still, B4), may or may not be using MB/FF/ACs, and may be using in-camera electronic aids for focus and exposure. EFP style will generally be using EFP lenses (but may also use cine, 35mm still), almost never a MB/FF/ACs. All these approaches to using RED ONE are valid, as are varying flavors and modifications between the general categories I listed. Whatever style most effectively achieves the images, and is also cost-effective (producer in me speaking now), is perfectly valid with RED.

Genres of Production and Focusing Needs
Except for some b-camera shooting, narrative cinema will almost always use a traditional crew, including an AC for pulling focus. But narrative cinema is but a narrow slice of the overall motion media production worldwide, and a commensurately narrow slice of the potential usage of RED ONE (and EPIC and Scarlet in the future). There is a vast universe of RED-capable production genres and sub-genres beyond narrative cinema. Even in narrative cinema, where shallow DOF gets a lot of press, and some newbies feel they have to use it on every shot, medium to deep DOF is used widely when shots and effectively telling the story call for it. Sidelight: a few nights ago on an HDTV movie channel I watched the multiple Oscar-winning film “The Sting” (1973 – Newman, Redford). There was not a single shallow DOF shot used in the entire movie – all DOF was medium to deep. And yet the telling of the story was very effective – witness the Oscars. Vast numbers of genres and individual productions shot on RED simply call for medium to deep DOF, and except for shallow DOF montage shots, use mostly apertures between f5.6 and F11 – where sight focusing by the shooter, using the EVF, LCD, 2x magnification, and false color, is in fact a very viable option - and in fact for many crew/genre situations may be the best focusing workflow choice.

Focusing with RED
Fact: the vast majority of productions worldwide each year are either Hybrid cine/EFP style or EFP style. Almost all of those productions are shot by sight focusers working either alone, or in medium to small non-union crews. I see some confusion on this thread about sight focusing. There are two types of focusing that fit that term: 1) An AC/focus puller, or single shooter visually estimating distance to the subject and focusing according to that estimate 2) A shooter or single operator using their eyesight to use electronic aids (EVF, LCD, or other monitor) and the focus aids (2x magnification, false color) in an electronic camera (like RED) to sight focus. Some shooters routinely use both methods of sight focusing. I am mostly a sight focuser, who works in medium to small crews, doing high profile international and national work. In almost eight months of heavy use of my RED cameras, I’ve found RED’s focus tools to be accurate and very quick and easy to use – even for very shallow DOF critical focus. Professional sight focusing with RED ONE is a reality folks. That’s not to cast doubt on others choice to go a more traditional way, with measuring tapes/lens scales/ACs, etc. If it fits their workflow and crew requirements, fine.

Reactive versus Anticipatory Focusing
Professional fast-action followers (sports, nature, etc.) who have good aptitude, who continually keep their skills sharpened, and have mastered the equipment they use, move largely from being reactive focusers, exposers, framers, and followers, to be much more anticipatory camera manipulators in near real time. In following fast action by yourself there is no time to think - you must anticipate and react very quickly to nail the shots. By the time you stop to think about a shot its already gone - along with the two or three quick shots that happened right after it. When you've shot fast moving subjects a lot which are very familiar to you, you develop a 6th sense in the back of your head about where the subject is going to move next. It has to be like automatic radar in order to have a high percentage of usable footage. Those same shooters must also have the skill sets to shoot many other styles besides action following for those projects: interviews, talent, creative b-roll with very shallow DOF, very good at hand held, etc. The challenges to shooting skills in these programs are both varied and intense.

Final Thoughts
I see the need at times, in certain genres, for the traditional film/cine style focusing methods - AC. tape measures, practiced scenes, hitting marks, etc. I'm not against that when it’s the best choice for what's being shot, and/or clients/execs are expecting to see that workflow. I have deep respect for the good DPs, cinematogaphers, and ACs I've worked with over the years who practice traditional methods. I use some of those methods myself frequently. But I don't hesitate to experiment with my shooting and incorporate sight focusing when I feel it works best for a project.

My point is to encourage people here to open their minds to maximize RED ONE's potential in terms of the diversity of ways to shoot with RED (and equipment setups) that enable acquiring good footage. The RED ONE camera combines DSLR, TV/Video and traditional film technology, so to me there is no reason we can't combine shooting techniques from all those industries when a project determines it is warranted.

Thanks Gibby, always great posts from you!!!!

[combatentropy]

Thank you all for your comments.

Moderator, I see that you moved my post from the RED One forum to Off Topic. Can you please at least move it to Cinematography?

[sbcooler]

Does the RedOne have an auto focus? If you use the auto focus, how good is it compared to someone manually doing it (focus puller)?

I've seen camera guys filming rock concerts with 2/3" chip on their shoulder on stage shooting the show...up to HD screens so the audience can see close ups...now I see them moving the focus ring a little bit here and there...they did a good job of keeping everything in focus as far as I could tell.

But of course it wasn't a 35mm RED that would be harder to focus...and maybe it was only being shown in 720p...not sure about the resolution on the video screen.

But in these live spontaneous situations where you are shooting maybe a live event...you have to take care of focus on your own or let the cam do in in auto mode.

I wonder when they shot U2 3D if they used the auto focus on the HD CAM's or was everything manually focused during each shot?

Anyone know that?

[Steve Gibby]

Does the RedOne have an auto focus? If you use the auto focus, how good is it compared to someone manually doing it (focus puller)?

I've seen camera guys filming rock concerts with 2/3" chip on their shoulder on stage shooting the show...up to HD screens so the audience can see close ups...now I see them moving the focus ring a little bit here and there...they did a good job of keeping everything in focus as far as I could tell.

But of course it wasn't a 35mm RED that would be harder to focus...and maybe it was only being shown in 720p...not sure about the resolution on the video screen.

But in these live spontaneous situations where you are shooting maybe a live event...you have to take care of focus on your own or let the cam do in in auto mode.

I wonder when they shot U2 3D if they used the auto focus on the HD CAM's or was everything manually focused during each shot?

Anyone know that?

No, RED ONE does not have auto-focus. Digital cinema and high-end EFP cameras don't have auto-focus. B4 2/3" HD EFP/ENG zooms have the capability of auto-iris or manual iris, but focus is manual. The guys you saw racking focus by themselves while shooting the concerts were using B4 2/3" HD EFP/ENG zooms, and racking focus manually. Experienced music, sports, and nature shooters rack their own focus regularly - even while tracking action. Is that more difficult when using RED ONE? It depends. In 2k, using the RED B4 adaptor and a B4 2/3" HD EFP/ENG zoom, and the B4 to RS232/12v cable to RED ONE, the answer is no, it's not more difficult than on a B4 2/3" camera.

In 4k on RED ONE, using 35mm cine or 35mm still lenses at apertures of f4 and wider, yes it becomes more difficult to sight focus. But I've been primarily sight focusing for about eight months now with RED ONE, using 35mm cine, 35mm still, and B4 2/3" lenses, as have many of the others I'm associated with. We don't shoot narrative cinema, but we shoot about every other genre of production you could name. The vast majority of motion media projects shot each year, excluding narrative cinema, are primarily shot at apertures of between f5.6 and f11. When shooting 4k on RED ONE, at those apertures, an experienced shooter is quite capable of sight focusing RED ONE by themselves. We also shoot creative montages and b-roll at wide open apertures - pulling our own focus.

IMO RED User is over-weighted with narrative cinema hopefuls, who generally don't know, or don't acknowledge that there is a broad spectrum of motion media genres beyond narrative cinema, most of which RED ONE can be, and has been, used for - and many of those genres enable alternative field workflows and techniques with RED ONE.

I deeply respect professionals who work in narrative cinema. Unfortunately IMO that respect isn't always sent from narrative cinema professionals outward to professionals working in the myriad of other genres of production.

[Ed Watkins]

IMO RED User is over-weighted with narrative cinema hopefuls, who generally don't know, or don't acknowledge that there is a broad spectrum of motion media genres beyond narrative cinema, most of which RED ONE can be, and has been, used for - and many of those genres enable alternative field workflows and techniques with RED ONE.

I deeply respect professionals who work in narrative cinema. Unfortunately IMO that respect isn't always sent from narrative cinema professionals outward to professionals working in the myriad of other genres of production.

Amen to that.

[sbcooler]

Gibby thanks..learning a lot from you. I should be paying you an hourly rate.

A couple more questions if you don't mind. Why wouldn't RED have auto focus. Is it just not a good way of doing things...not as accurate? I mean as an option would it take away from the camera?

Also, when you see someone shooting the rock concert on stage and again using the focus dial at the end of the camera periodically to adjust focus...are they in manual modes on exposure, white balance and shutter speed would you guess. I mean it would seem like in a live even you need to be mostly auto so you can focus on framing the shot and getting in good positions to capture an event?

Am I incorrect hear on high level professional event shooting? I'm mostly thinking of live rock shows where the band wants you to capture there show and not get in the way of the audience.

But certainly interviews after a ballgame and that kind of documentary stuff as well...filming where there is no exact script but trying to capture people in every day real life unscripted where you never know when you will get that "moment".

Thx again-

[Gunleik Groven]

None of the PL lenses I know of have any auto-function, so a PL cam with it does not make much sense...

My guess, is that you'd be in as manual as totally possible setup. Auto stuff gets confused. You may, too - but then we all know who's responsible... But I may be wrong.

[johannperry]

I’ve been shooting extensively with RED ONE for almost eight months now – with a number of crew sizes, in multiple styles and genres, and with a wide array of lenses and accessories.
Hi Gibby,
could you tell me what, if any, your experiences have been using a b4 adaptor with 2/3in HD zoom lenses.

[Steve Gibby]

Hi Gibby,
could you tell me what, if any, your experiences have been using a b4 adaptor with 2/3in HD zoom lenses.

Yes, today I made a long summary of my experiences with that that on another RED User thread

Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12546&page=2

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby thanks..learning a lot from you. I should be paying you an hourly rate.

A couple more questions if you don't mind. Why wouldn't RED have auto focus. Is it just not a good way of doing things...not as accurate? I mean as an option would it take away from the camera?

Also, when you see someone shooting the rock concert on stage and again using the focus dial at the end of the camera periodically to adjust focus...are they in manual modes on exposure, white balance and shutter speed would you guess. I mean it would seem like in a live even you need to be mostly auto so you can focus on framing the shot and getting in good positions to capture an event?

Am I incorrect hear on high level professional event shooting? I'm mostly thinking of live rock shows where the band wants you to capture there show and not get in the way of the audience.

But certainly interviews after a ballgame and that kind of documentary stuff as well...filming where there is no exact script but trying to capture people in every day real life unscripted where you never know when you will get that "moment".

Thx again-

Glad to help...

This morning I also posted some answers to these questions on another RED User thread.

Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12333&page=2

[Johan Pabon]

I've seen camera guys filming rock concerts with 2/3" chip on their shoulder on stage shooting the show...up to HD screens so the audience can see close ups...now I see them moving the focus ring a little bit here and there...they did a good job of keeping everything in focus as far as I could tell.

But of course it wasn't a 35mm RED that would be harder to focus...and maybe it was only being shown in 720p...not sure about the resolution on the video screen.

But in these live spontaneous situations where you are shooting maybe a live event...you have to take care of focus on your own or let the cam do in in auto mode.

I wonder when they shot U2 3D if they used the auto focus on the HD CAM's or was everything manually focused during each shot?

Anyone know that?

I saw U2 some weeks ago and I think they used a great deph of field there..., so they were out of risk for two reasons: another camera and smaller stops.

I would never prefer autofocus, especially not with concerts. Sometimes it can be nice to be out of focus for a liitle while, it contributes to the "live experience" and it can create more intimacy. In the past many good rockfilms have been made that way. I like those ones better than the overproduced technically perfect ones...

[Häakon]

While obviously it's technically possible that one could turn a focus knob while shooting a subject at the same time, I don't know why anyone would want to do it. Give yourself the freedom as an operator to concentrate on framing and blocking and capturing beautiful shots in the moment and let the ACs do the (extremely difficult) job they are hired for.

[Harry Clark]

Sticky question...
I think it depends on the project. Modern narrative filmmaking has become so polished and technically perfect that having larger crews with specialized crafts is a necessity. On docs, ENG and EFP shoots, the line blurs a little. Usually on a doc, content is king and it matters little if the focus buzzes here and there. The smart EFP or corporate cameraman working without an AC can set up shots that will make focusing easier. Sports and nature cameramen are usually far away from the action on a very long lens where very little adjustment is necessary. Remember, the barrel twists MORE as the subject comes closer! ;) Live concert shoots are usually live-switched so there is a TD talking the operators through it and cutting to their camera only when it's framed up and in focus. And ENG B4 lenses have very little "throw" so that little twisting is necessary (and focus is a little less accurate technically but likely OK for the resolution)
Each situation sets a different bar and methodology for clearing it.
In the case of single-sensor 35mm sized cine cameras like Red, I have come to believe that there is little room for error in focus. The thickness of a film emulsion, however slight, seems to increase the depth of acceptable focus a bit. With a digital sensor, it's either sharp on the photosite or not (maybe it's time for a revised circle of confusion guideline for 35mm-sized digital imagers?) I would venture to say that pulling focus on the Red One is more demanding than 35mm.
Having said that, experienced doc cameramen like Gibby will likely have few troubles at the narrower apertures, even when following action. They have been doing it for years and have developed a distinctive style of shooting that lets them frame and focus at the same time. If you're shooting a narrative project, or a higher-end project like a commercial, corporate film, or a stylized doc (like Errol Morris', or my pal Jeff Feuerzeig's work) then I would say it's foolish NOT to have an AC. But then again, I'm "old-skool"...
And Gibby, speaking as someone who floats back and forth between the worlds of narrative and EFP, you indeed have my respect.
Cheers,
Harry

[JohnF]

Can you pull your own focus?

Yep but the wider the aperture the more difficult it becomes.
That said I was originally a 35mm stills shooter and I specialised in low light level shooting , often working at 3200ISO at f1.4 with no flash and using manual focus. Under these conditions I noticed two things.

1. That manual focus was faster than auto focus (the low contrasts involved in low-light shooting made using autofocus a noticeably slower operation)

2. That the practise of regularly shooting under these condition makes one really good at getting sharp focus quickly and improves ones ability to anticipate focus points. (the moral - practise makes perfect!)

I might be telling some how to suck eggs here but one can focus manually, even with lower resolution viewfinders by judging the point of maximum contrast (one doesn't actually need to see the detail whilst shooting only the recording medium needs to see that!). The classic example is pick a glint of light in the eyes and when that appears brightest you're in focus.
Oh and get to know your kit. Knowing where your lens is at by just putting your hand on it comes in really useful.

As Gibby has already mentioned at f4 and higher it becomes much easier. There was even an old press photographers rule of shoot at f8 if you were uncertain or that things might change in a hurry!

And I might also mention that some of the greatest narrative films ever have "soft shots" in them - some surprisingly bad at that. Look out for them...

JohnF

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I pulled focus professionally for over 10 years. Once I even did a Steadicam shot, on a 50mm lens at T1.3... no marks. I thought there was no way it would be in focus but it was. I had been pulling focus for several years at that point and I had "gotten it".

There is a reason why first camera assistants are in demand and get paid the rates they do. They have mastered the art of focus. And they still do it by looking at the focus scale on the lens, and looking at the subject with their peripheral vision.

When you are looking at the image to judge focus on a moving object you are REACTING. When you pull focus by distance estimation and looking at the scale on the lens you are ANTICIPATING, therefore leading. I've tried it both ways. When you look at the image you will always get moments of softness because that's what's telling you that you need to move the focus - reacting.

For really simple stuff you might just pull it off. OR, if you reach a level of mastery - like NFL Films shooters - you can pull your own focus on incredibly difficult shots, such as the laces on a football in flight.

Sorry guys, but the RED One is not just another HDV PHD camera (Push Here Dummy) with higher resolution. It's a very reasonably price professional DIGITAL CINEMA camera. If you want to take full advantage of it, you must learn to shoot "film style".

BTW, for circle of confusion on the RED 4k sensor, I would use 0.006 mm for the best results. It will be very restrictive, but there will be no surprises.

[Jason Ing]

BTW, for circle of confusion on the RED 4k sensor, I would use 0.006 mm for the best results. It will be very restrictive, but there will be no surprises.
What do you mean "use" 0.0006? How do you "use" it? What am I missing? :)

[Steve Gibby]

I pulled focus professionally for over 10 years.

So you know the background of who’s writing this post, I shot my first 35mm stills in 1968, my first film in 1974, my first video in 1978, and my first television program in 1980. I’ve worked extensively in EFP-style, cine-style, and still photo (film & DSLR) workflows. I still work in all three imaging disciplines: TV/video, film, digital stills. For specific RED ONE experience, me and my company own seven RED ONE cameras, some of which we’ve owned for eight months now. We’ve used them widely in a plethora of genres, cine-style and EFP style.


There is a reason why first camera assistants are in demand and get paid the rates they do. They have mastered the art of focus. And they still do it by looking at the focus scale on the lens, and looking at the subject with their peripheral vision.

In my Post #16 of this thread I acknowledged the need in certain workflows and genres of production for traditional film-style focusing. That said, unions, tradition, peer pressure, resistance to progression in workflow, resistance to emerging technology, bias, and elitism are also among the many reasons that traditional camera operation and focusing are still practiced widely – specifically in narrative cinema work. Having learned decades ago how to focus in that traditional manner, I have deep respect for it, which I also expressed in my Post #16 of this thread. But I also believe in maximizing each available technology that emerges – and the electronic features of RED ONE, specifically the EVF, LCD, 2x image magnification, and false color clearly enable alternate an focusing option – sight focusing. Traditional film-style crews bristle at that, but that simply doesn’t change the reality that it is being done widely with RED ONE, and will continue to be done in certain genres of production.


When you are looking at the image to judge focus on a moving object you are REACTING. When you pull focus by distance estimation and looking at the scale on the lens you are ANTICIPATING, therefore leading. I've tried it both ways. When you look at the image you will always get moments of softness because that's what's telling you that you need to move the focus - reacting.

No need for caps (shouting) and bold print. I also addressed the difference between reactive and anticipatory focusing in my Post #16. Legions of pro-level sight focusers have the aptitude and experience to sight focus while tracking fast moving objects. I’m one of them. With good aptitude and practice, our focusing becomes overwhelmingly anticipatory – focus is rarely buzzed. You might say “Yeah, but that’s with 2/3” depth of field”, but the reality is that it is also in 35mm and with S35mm imaging systems like RED ONE, huge amounts of this footage is shot at apertures between f5.6 and f11 - and medium to deep DOF is normal. Creative B-roll is also shot wide open at times – while sight focusing. Sight focusing RED ONE in 4k is a reality. Myself and many others have been doing it for over eight months now.


For really simple stuff you might just pull it off. OR, if you reach a level of mastery - like NFL Films shooters - you can pull your own focus on incredibly difficult shots, such as the laces on a football in flight.

See above. Again, I am one of those veterans who long ago reached that level of sight focusing mastery. Is this “Holy Grail of Sight Focusing” unreachable by others who have aptitude, practice their craft, have open minds to alternate focusing methods, and maximize available new technology? Absolutely not. Anyone who has those qualities and learns how, can sight focus RED ONE.


Sorry guys, but the RED One is not just another HDV PHD camera (Push Here Dummy) with higher resolution. It's a very reasonably price professional DIGITAL CINEMA camera. If you want to take full advantage of it, you must learn to shoot "film style".

RED camera owners/users, and members of RED User, come from a diverse array of backgrounds: film, TV/video, and still photography. Your “HDV PHD camera (Push Here Dummy)” comment, goes way beyond opinion, and is clearly an attempt to slander and belittle members here who come from a TV/video background – something that Jared has specifically mentioned as wouldn’t be tolerated here on RED User. Frankly I’m surprised Jared or the mods haven’t censured that particular comment. I’ve seen others here get banned for comments like that. Respect is a two way street. As someone who has deep experience in EFP-style and cine-style production, and a wide background in TV/video, film, and still photography, I give all of those disciplines my respect – as I did in my Post #16 of this thread.

RED ONE is a digital cinema camera that was also specifically designed for extensive EFP-style use – witness the inclusion of EVF, zebras, 2k, B4 adaptor made by RED specifically for use of B4 2/3” HD lenses, and a wide array of other features on the camera. RED’s own web site mentions the EFP possibilities with the camera. EFP is not just shot with B4 lenses though. In many cases cine and adapted 35mm still lenses are used in EFP production – and yet an AC is rarely used in EFP production, and operators almost always focus their cameras themselves.

It runs deeper. I was an invited attendee to the very first RED ONE camera specifications meeting, where attendees submitted their recommendations for the tech features that should be included in the camera. Believe me, the suggestions submitted that day included both cine-style and EFP-style features. In early 2006 I did the first published interview with Jim Jannard about the new RED ONE camera (Studio Monthly, March 2006). In that interview, Jim specifically addressed RED ONE’s intended EFP-style usage. Stuart English of RED comes from a deep EFP-style production background. There’s an entire “EFP/ENG with RED” forum here on RED USER – and it’s there for a reason – because RED intends their RED ONE camera to also be used also by EFP-style users – almost all of who sight focus themselves when doing their work.

If you analyze the poll at the front of this thread, currently 76.4% of voters believe ”If you’re experienced and alert, it’s do-able most of the time”. If you rollover and click the total number for that category you can see the names/handles for who voted that way. I did, I see you did, and as no surprise to me, Jim Jannard, the founder of RED also voted that way.


------------------------------------

I can appreciate that you’re enthusiastic about your work and believe strongly that the way you focus is the “right way” – and if it works for you, and for the genres you work in it is the best choice, I say fine. I span all three disciplines (film, TV/video, photo). But RED User is a board of tolerance, progression, and respect for everyone’s workflow choices – and RED ONE is a camera whose technology pedigree is closest to a DSLR, relatively like a TV/video camera, and least like a film camera – thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that alternate ways of using the camera will be widespread.

Again…respect is a two way street…

[Steve Gibby]

harryclark,

Thank you for the kind words...much appreciated...

Yes sir, "the best way" is only relative to the unique needs and demands of the particular task at hand. "The best way" is always dynamic, never static.

Fun time to be in this industry for sure...

[Finner]

I haven't voted on this because for me the answer I would choose is not listed.

Here's my thoughts on pulling focus by yourself:

Can it be done? Yes

Please note Maverick can also fly his F-14 without Goose. Most likely Maverick will end up in flames without him though.

Moral of the story if you get a good focus puller it is a good idea not to kill them like Tom Cruise did to goose.

[Curran Giddens]

I haven't voted on this because for me the answer I would choose is not listed.

Here's my thoughts on pulling focus by yourself:

Can it be done? Yes

Please note Maverick can also fly his F-14 without Goose. Most likely Maverick will end up in flames without him though.

Moral of the story if you get a good focus puller it is a good idea not to kill them like Tom Cruise did to goose.

Never seen anyone use Top Gun for an analogy before. I like it.

I didn't vote since my answer isn't listed either.


Can it be done?
Yes. But only on the second or third pass from my VFS MoCo rig after I've already done the camera move....

[Steve Gibby]

LOL - it's not a case of "Can it be done". Single operator sight focusing has been done for eight months now with RED ONE by multiple owners and users, and is continually being done with RED ONE in certain genres and crew compositions. The more appropriate thread title question would be "Are your skill sets and attitude broad enough to maximize what the technology of RED ONE enables, including pulling your own focus?"

[Joe D'Arcy]

LOL - it's not a case of "Can it be done". It has been done for eight months now with RED ONE by multiple owners and users, and is continually being done with RED ONE in certain genres and crew compositions. The more appropriate thread title question would be "Are your skill sets and attitude broad enough to maximize the technology of RED ONE, including pulling your own focus?"

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

[Steve Gibby]

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

Thank you for the kind words...

I'm very mobile right now, and just accessed the Internet briefly in transit. I will be remote for a few days, but on Tuesday when I get back to civilization I'll make a point of posting here my take on the questions you asked.

Cheers!

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Your “HDV PHD camera (Push Here Dummy)” comment, goes way beyond opinion, and is clearly an attempt to slander and belittle members here who come from a TV/video background – something that Jared has specifically mentioned as wouldn’t be tolerated here on RED User. Frankly I’m surprised Jared or the mods haven’t censured that particular comment.

Steve,

That's a good point. I came up through the ranks of the "film only" crowd, although I did work with some good DP's that worked well with both film and video (before there was HD). I am well aware of the "film snob" attitude, and also of the anti-film bias that a some people in the "video world" had as a reaction to the film snobs.

I didn't mean to slander and belittle anyone here. Obviously that was a bad choice of words to convey the idea that I wanted to communicate. And it seems my P.H.D. joke bombed too... So I apologize to anyone that was offended by that.

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera. I was told that during the early days of this forum some confused members had asked about the RED One (before any cameras shipped) "How is the autofocus going to work?" People are shooting with this camera because they want quality they can't get from broadcast style cameras. If the attitude prevails that you don't need a focus puller (for cine-style quality), obviously producers will want to eliminate the crew position.

I'm going to have to put this all to the practical test. I will be working on a feature using a RED One starting tomorrow. I will be in charge of focus for A-Camera unless I am operating B-Cam. Focusing by sight using the monitor is analogous to using the viewfinder for eye focus on a film camera. Back in my 1st AC days I always used eye focus and considered it more accurate. I was never one of the "tape only" guys.

I also plan to use the focus assist, although having tested it during prep on Saturday, I'm not sure how useful it's going to be with normal subjects. With high contrast test targets it seemed to help.

I should have remembered when writing that post that it's harder to eye focus a film camera when it's running (especially 16mm). The viewfinder brightness is reduced by 50%, there is flicker, and some degree of mirror "tumble". This may be another reason that eye focus will be more useful on RED than on a film camera.

I still think that to get feature quality results with RED One you're going to want to have an AC. I'm not saying that to save my job, since I had considered myself retired as an AC since 2003, and I'm sort of coming out of retirement in terms of focus pulling to do this job. I had thought that I would never want to AC again. That's how enthusiastic I am to work with the RED One. That's also how much I want to avoid becoming a dinosaur.

Ironically the title of the feature I will be working on is "Mea Culpa". Poetic justice?

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Jason,

You use a Circle of Confusion to calculate depth of field limits. Normal for 35mm film (as per ASC manual) is .001 inch .025 mm, and for 16mm .0006 inch .015 mm.

Using a .006 mm CoC would be incredibly restrictive, but everything within that DoF window would be 4K res. I'm going to think about this some more and experiment on the set. I think .01 mm might be practical for RED. I can't see it going past .015 mm. The higher the ultimate resolution of the imaging system, the shallower the depth of field.

[Häakon]

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera.
That's how I interpreted it. :-)

[chuck colburn]

Jason,

You use a Circle of Confusion to calculate depth of field limits. Normal for 35mm film (as per ASC manual) is .001 inch .025 mm, and for 16mm .0006 inch .015 mm.

Using a .006 mm CoC would be incredibly restrictive, but everything within that DoF window would be 4K res. I'm going to think about this some more and experiment on the set. I think .01 mm might be practical for RED. I can't see it going past .015 mm. The higher the ultimate resolution of the imaging system, the shallower the depth of field.

I agree. .006mm is pointless as the camera flange depth would vari more than that just by warming up.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you shoot closer than 4' away on a 50mm lens at f/2.8, a close-up basically, you have 2" of depth of field, or less. Certainly you can eye-focus such a shot but once everything starts moving -- the actor and the camera -- staying in sync with the focus is very difficult. For material that will only be shown on a 36" TV screen, you have some leeway compared to something to be shown on a 75' wide screen... but there are also philosophical differences regarding the nature of following focus in a documentary or reality show versus a narrative feature. Documentary footage tends to be reactive, so the viewer is not necessarily bothered by seeing the focus or the movement be a split-second late because you aren't trying to hide the fact that the scene is being shot by a camera crew -- but in most narrative projects, you are attempting some degree of invisibility of technique and want the focus to anticipate movement, not just react to it. That's very hard to do and do it well. I work with some decent professional focus-pullers on features and still there is a certain percentage of soft shots that sometimes make it into the final cut. If you have two inches of depth of field and the actor is moving and the camera is hand-held, you can quickly move out of focus, out of that two-inch range, often faster than the focus-puller can react.

I once did a feature with an experienced director who came out of documentary shooting and wanted to do his own operating and focus-pulling on an F900 HD camera, so I just did the lighting and watched the takes on an HD monitor and he was shocked when I told him how often he was out of focus. He said "but I shoot betacam all the time and don't have these focus problems!" "No, you had the same focus problems -- but now you can see them on an HD monitor..." Just to check, he once asked me to call out every time the focus was off during a rehearsal take, and I was constantly saying "soft... soft... soft... soft... " But you have to remember that my background was shooting for theatrical projection, so I was being quite critical about the focus, knowing what it would look like on a big screen.

Even Jannard has publically warned people here on this site about the need to be in sharp focus when shooting in 4K.

So certainly, you can treat a feature shoot like a documentary or ENG/EFP reality production and shoot it in that style and get that style of "reactive" focus while you also attempt to frame the shot, follow the action, etc. -- and it would be acceptable if you had decent skills at that. Some features have scenes shot that way, even on conventional movies. I've done many films where I have climbed into a car seat with a handheld 35mm or HD camera and shot an actor driving around town, with just me focusing by eye, or chased after an actor in an action scene outdoors and just grabbing the wheel or focus ring and eyeballing the focus, knowing that the depth of field would cover some mistakes.

But if you have very low skills in pulling your own focus, or if you want to shoot in a more classical narrative style with actors hitting (or not hitting) marks that have been tape-measured and double-checked by eye-focusing, while the camera moves on a dolly and actors move into tight shots and then away from the lens (especially a long lens at a wide f/stop)... I'd suggest separating the operating from the focus-pulling so the operator can concentrate on operating while someone else concentrates on the focus-pulling.

I've shot over thirty features and there is one thing I can tell you: focusing 35mm is hard work and not to be taken lightly. And even when you and your crew work their collective asses off trying to get good focus, there is still a certain percentage of mistakes. So I don't care how some of you plan on handling that problem, whether you want to learn to pull your own focus or not, just take the problem seriously. The RED camera isn't a DV camera with 5 extra stops of depth of field and auto-focusing to help you out. And filming actors moving around in close-up for an image to go on a giant theater screen is not the same thing as shooting still life objects or wide shots of mountains, or test charts. (And I see occasional focusing mistakes on some of the RED footage posted here on this site, just shooting a test of someone sitting in a chair or moving the camera through a room...)

This isn't a RED versus 35mm issue, because they both have similar depth of field issues. You can follow your own focus on any camera, even an IMAX one, if you are careful and train yourself, so I don't want people saying that I said that you couldn't pull your own focus on the RED... Just be honest to yourself about the challenges and don't soft-pedal the problem because you hoping to save money by not hiring a trained focus-puller. Someone has to be good at it, whether it is yourself or someone you hire.

[Joe D'Arcy]

Thank you for the kind words...

I'm very mobile right now, and just accessed the Internet briefly in transit. I will be remote for a few days, but on Tuesday when I get back to civilization I'll make a point of posting here my take on the questions you asked.

Cheers!

Thanks Gibby. Looking forward to your post.




. So I don't care how some of you plan on handling that problem, whether you want to learn to pull your own focus or not, just take the problem seriously. The RED camera isn't a DV camera with 5 extra stops of depth of field and auto-focusing to help you out. And filming actors moving around in close-up for an image to go on a giant theater screen is not the same thing as shooting still life objects or wide shots of mountains, or test charts. (And I see occasional focusing mistakes on some of the RED footage posted here on this site, just shooting a test of someone sitting in a chair or moving the camera through a room...)

This isn't a RED versus 35mm issue, because they both have similar depth of field issues. You can follow your own focus on any camera, even an IMAX one, if you are careful and train yourself, so I don't want people saying that I said that you couldn't pull your own focus on the RED... Just be honest to yourself about the challenges and don't soft-pedal the problem because you hoping to save money by not hiring a trained focus-puller. Someone has to be good at it, whether it is yourself or someone you hire.

Thanks for your comprehensive notes David.

[Harry Clark]

Well said, David.
Again, not a knock on the doc or EFP people (sometimes that includes me!), but narrative filmmaking normally informs a very polished and invisible camera technique. You can't expect traditional-looking results while pulling your own focus. Yes, some guys (Gibby?) are likely very good at anticipating motion and keeping things focused and framed, but, I think 9 times out of 10 you would be foolish to try to shoot a movie, commercial, or other narrative piece without an AC. And don't count on having T.4... many times you'll be shooting closer to a T.2 on interiors, unless you want to really burn up the actors. We can use 500-speed film on tungsten interiors, but our Red cameras are 320, plus I now believe that you really need at least an 80D filter for tungsten, so that's now 200 ASA. And anamorphic, it people start using Red this way, will make it even more critical at a given stop.
Now, if you were doing a more kinetic or "found" style, such as in "L'Enfant" or "Nil By Mouth" or "Bourne", then the reactive/anticipatory style of focusing might be appropriate, but then that's a conscious choice.
Also missing in this discussion is the role of the operator. The polished style of narrative filmmaking requires VERY precise framing, even when shooting in the "found" style. Operators are very busy while the camera is rolling. Just because you COULD operate and pull focus reasonably well is not a good reason to do it it you're seeking traditional, good craftsmanship.
But each situation is different, so I'll say it again: It's a sticky question.
And as David has said time and time again (regarding many things Red) the proof is not on a 36" HD monitor. It's when your movie is projected 4 stories high that you see the small differences in resolution, lensing, camera motion, and yes, focus.
Cheers,
Harry

[Ivan Cortazar]

How much easier do you guys think it will be to pull focus with the new 7 inches LCD compare to the 5.6? I was thinking more on the documentary style, because I guess that on the more controlled situations with marks and/or using the 2:1 or maybe in the future the 1:1 focus aid, maybe there won't be much difference in focus using 5.6 vs 7. I assume the 7 will be heavier and bulkier, so maybe for documentary the size might have a negative impact.

My background is mainly 16mm and 35 mm SRL still photo, so I am not so sure how much better results you can get with a 1.6 inches bigger LCD.

What do you guys think?

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I agree. .006mm is pointless as the camera flange depth would vari more than that just by warming up.

Chuck,

You are right on the money! Al 6061 expands 13 µ inch per ºF per inch. So the two inch deep mount in Al will expand 0.00026 in with a 10º F temp change = 0.006 mm! Incidentally, that's about the depth of focus of a 9.5mm @ T1.3.

It seems to me that you can't get more resolution out of a lens than you can accurately focus it. In other words, if you want a minimum detail size of 6 micron = 4k, then you are going to have to control the focus with a precision of 6 microns.

I once set up my 16SR with my flange gages in an unheated room (it was 20º outside, probably 30-40 inside). When I got back to Miami it was off by .025 mm. But since it was set up at near the temperature we were shooting, everything was tack sharp (they transfered to HD).

More variables to worry about. And to think that in less than 24 hours I will be in charge of making this work...

[chuck colburn]

Yep,

Use to be a lot easier when a fast lens was f1.8 and a very wide was 18mm.
Just set the flange depth a couple of tenths shy and life was good. lol

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I'm on the shoot now. Results from the camera are impressive. Pulling focus with a Marshall monitor via SDI. Need to use "punch in" mode to be sure of focus. I'm writing this using my iPod so I'll keep it short.

[Steve Gibby]

Here's my thoughts on pulling focus by yourself:

Can it be done? Yes

Please note Maverick can also fly his F-14 without Goose. Most likely Maverick will end up in flames without him though.

Moral of the story if you get a good focus puller it is a good idea not to kill them like Tom Cruise did to goose.

Hmmm…glad you used an aviation analogy! Let me expand on that a bit:

Overlapping my early still photography work, I was an air traffic controller for the USAF for four years at multiple air bases, then after that an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for six years (multiple international airports). I quit the FAA in 1978 and launched my motion media career.

Yes, the U.S. Navy used a few two-seat fighters, like the F14, where the pilot flew the plane, and the “back seater” operated the detection systems (radar, etc.). The USAF also did that up into the 1970’s (F4, etc.) with some of its fighters.

But with the advancements in avionics and electronics from the late ‘70’s onward, the USAF has opted to have the pilot also operate the advanced electronics – thus there are very few “two seater” fighters now days.

How accurate are pilots at the dual responsibilities of flying the plane and simultaneously operating the electronics of the new version “single seat” fighters? Extremely efficient – even in the fast moving environment of air war. The F16 Falcon (USAF), introduced in the late ‘70’s, is a total “fly-by-wire” aircraft – no mechanical control of anything – but rather electronic control of the entire aircraft – by the single person aboard. The F22 Raptor (USAF), is the latest single seat, fly-by-wire fighter, and the most advanced fighter in the world. Again, the F22 has a single person aboard who flies the plane and simultaneously uses the advanced avionics and electronics. Alphanumeric and electronic displays in both the F16 and F22 are “heads up” displays, where data is presented in real time to the pilot as characters on a clear shield across the canopy – that way he/she can fly the plane and operate the electronics without having to look away from the action.

Links:

F16 Falcon (USAF)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103

F22 Raptor (USAF)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

So…there’s an analogy and some parallels in all this:

The advances in the capabilities of electronics enabled a different way of operating a fighter – a single person doing everything. Advances in the capabilities of electronics have also enabled a different way of operating a digital cinema/EFP camera (RED ONE) – a single person doing everything, when the mission (production) determines it can be done effectively. If not, then in those instances, we still have the option of “flying” RED ONE as a “two-seater”, using an operator and an AC. RED ONE can be a single-seat or two-seat aircraft depending on the needs of the mission – the best of both worlds.

Postscript on the F14:

There are still a few F14’s flying, but the U.S. Navy has long ago phased in the F/A-18 Hornet as a replacement. There are multiple models of F/A-18 now used by the U.S. Navy: F/A-18 A/B (single seat), F/A-18 C (single seat) and D (dual seat), and F/A-18 E (single seat) and F (dual seat). All models are fly-by-wire, using advanced avionics and electronics – unlike the F14. The dual seat models were/are specifically made for certain bombing runs and reconnaissance, but the single seaters are very capable of all-around performance.

F/A-18
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm



----------------------------


Maverick and Goose were fictional characters in a feature movie. F14s are outdated technology, but some of them still fly, and their crews of two still get good performance from the F14. But electronics have also enabled a new way of operating a fighter (F22, F16, F/A-18 (single) – by a single person doing everything.

Bottom line: There is a time for “two-seaters” and “single seaters” with fighters - and with RED ONE. Both configurations can be very effective. It depends on the mission…

[Steve Gibby]

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

I have a little time today. PM me your email address and in the next few days I'll email you some suggestions for techniques of directing, shooting, and focusing which have been effective for me.

Cheers...

[Steve Gibby]

Steve,

That's a good point. I came up through the ranks of the "film only" crowd, although I did work with some good DP's that worked well with both film and video (before there was HD). I am well aware of the "film snob" attitude, and also of the anti-film bias that a some people in the "video world" had as a reaction to the film snobs.

I didn't mean to slander and belittle anyone here. Obviously that was a bad choice of words to convey the idea that I wanted to communicate. And it seems my P.H.D. joke bombed too... So I apologize to anyone that was offended by that.

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera. I was told that during the early days of this forum some confused members had asked about the RED One (before any cameras shipped) "How is the autofocus going to work?" People are shooting with this camera because they want quality they can't get from broadcast style cameras. If the attitude prevails that you don't need a focus puller (for cine-style quality), obviously producers will want to eliminate the crew position.

I'm going to have to put this all to the practical test. I will be working on a feature using a RED One starting tomorrow. I will be in charge of focus for A-Camera unless I am operating B-Cam. Focusing by sight using the monitor is analogous to using the viewfinder for eye focus on a film camera. Back in my 1st AC days I always used eye focus and considered it more accurate. I was never one of the "tape only" guys.

I also plan to use the focus assist, although having tested it during prep on Saturday, I'm not sure how useful it's going to be with normal subjects. With high contrast test targets it seemed to help.

I should have remembered when writing that post that it's harder to eye focus a film camera when it's running (especially 16mm). The viewfinder brightness is reduced by 50%, there is flicker, and some degree of mirror "tumble". This may be another reason that eye focus will be more useful on RED than on a film camera.

I still think that to get feature quality results with RED One you're going to want to have an AC. I'm not saying that to save my job, since I had considered myself retired as an AC since 2003, and I'm sort of coming out of retirement in terms of focus pulling to do this job. I had thought that I would never want to AC again. That's how enthusiastic I am to work with the RED One. That's also how much I want to avoid becoming a dinosaur.

Ironically the title of the feature I will be working on is "Mea Culpa". Poetic justice?

Thanks for that additional info. Oftentimes misunderstandings just need some more input. I understand you position much better now. Now that you've explained further, I think you raise some good points which we essentially agree on.

RED ONE is a "both ways" camera when it comes to focusing. Depending on the type and genre of production, style crew and equipment used, and DOF requirements, and whether the end result is destined for the big screen or small screen, RED ONE can be sight focused or traditionally focused. I use both methods, but whenever I can get away with it, I sight focus.

A suggestion when sight focusing RED ONE: I use the RED EVF in black and white mode. Throughout my career, when using an EVF on a higher-end EFP camera, it has always been in B&W. I find it easier to see contrast and subtleties of focus. The tandem of B&W, 2x image magnification, and false color, is quite effective when sight focusing RED ONE. I use both the RED EVF and RED LCD. I've also sight focused a lot with the RED LCD - at apertures from f4 to f16. The RED EVF is higher resolution (1280x848 vs 1024x600), has a very effective diopter, and is easier to sight focus RED ONE with than the RED LCD. But as I mentioned, especially from mid-apertures down to f16 the RED LCD can be used effectively.

Good luck with your production...have fun with RED ONE. I've really enjoyed my eight months using my RED ONE cameras...

[Steve Gibby]

Dave Mullen,

If you read and analyze my posts on this thread you'll find that we are essentially in agreement on most points. Far be it from me to minimize the challenges in working in the S35mm format - my approach is to explain that sight focusing can and is being done with RED ONE, what genres and workflows it is being done in, and answer questions about how it is being done.

That said, RED ONE can be shot in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and as we know each format has its own nuances and approach to shooting style and equipment. Then we add in the wide array of genres and sub-genres of production RED ONE has and is being used in, and wisdom dictates standing back before each production (or portion thereof) and asking ourselves: "What is the most effective (and cost-effective) way to generate the images I need?" DOF needs will naturally vary, and the end use of the footage will vary from the big screen down to the small screen.

Beyond working as a DP/cinematographer/videographer, I also produce and direct widely. As such, budgets must be met, thus questions like the one I wrote above are critical.

You do a lot of narrative cinema, commercials, and some TV. I do a lot of TV, some commercials, and some features, but not narrative cinema. That said, having been in on the ground floor of the development of the RED ONE camera, and working in a wide variety of genres, I make no qualms about maximizing the genre potential of the camera. Its also about revenue generation. If used to its widest potential of genres, the camera simply generates more revenue.

Yes, Jim Jannard has warned many times about the challenges focusing RED ONE in 4k. I've known Jim for a long time. He's an ace photographer, cinematographer, designer, and artist. If you go back and read Jim's posts about focusing RED ONE, they are specifically referencing shallow DOF situations - like are common in narrative cinema. But as Jim undoubtedly knows, shallow DOF and narrative cinema are but a small segment of the overall motion media production quotient worldwide each year - and a commensurately sized percentage of the practical usage of RED ONE in the production world.

Does Jim sight focus RED ONE, using the RED EVF and RED LCD when operating by himself? Yes he does. Examples: the excellent footage he posted here on RED User a few months ago of an eagle, and a plane landing. He shot those sequences by himself, sight focusing, using the RED 300 tele (eagle) and RED 50-150 zoom (plane). Would he use an AC if he was shooting a shallow DOF feature? IMO - yes. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the founder of RED voted in the middle category on the poll at the beginning of this thread. He practices what he preaches - and he knows his camera system.

I'm currently an Executive Producer, Director, DP, and cinematographer (yes all four positions) for multiple international and national HDTV programs (2008-09 release) and two feature movies (2009 general release). There are two other Executive Producers for these productions - both of which also direct and shoot. All of these productions are in the adventure travel and nature genres. We have large budgets, and in the case of the HDTV programs, they will be airing on a very high-profile cable network. Most of our shooting is hybrid cine/EFP style, with a significant amount of straight EFP style. Our crews are necessarily small and mobile. Our total field staff is under 15 individuals. We're shooting from helicopters, boats, underwater, and terrestrially, with a wide range of lens types (cine, 35mm still, B4) and focal lengths. Some examples of the lenses we're using: Arri 8R and RED 18-50 underwater, Canon FD 150-600 and RED 300 terrestrially, Fujinon B4 42x9.7 HD EFP/ENG zoom in our CineFlex gimbal system mounted on our boat and the helicopter. We're using the seven RED ONE cameras we own (mostly in 4k, but some 3k), and a sprinkling of dedicated EFP cameras in 1080p. Most shooting is at apertures between f4 and f16, although morning and evening, and creative b-roll is often shot wide open, or close to it. What we aren't using is ACs or focus pullers. Every single cinematographer or videographer working with us, including myself, are sight focusing 100% of the time. Are we getting a lot of footage with "buzzed" focus - even in 4k? Nope...but then again our shooters are highly experienced, and know how to sight focus with RED ONE and the 1080p cameras we're using. What we are definitely using are data wranglers - as you might expect.

BTW - we have our own editing facilities in California (Burbank and elsewhere), and out of state. The features and programs are being shot out of state.

I quote the above as prime examples of the broad utility of RED ONE and the resultant alternate crewing, equipment, and style of usage that RED ONE enables.

[Finner]

Bottom line: There is a time for “two-seaters” and “single seaters” with fighters - and with RED ONE. Both configurations can be very effective. It depends on the mission…

If the "mission" is a shoot with a T-stop of T16 or T22 (poorest capture quality of a lens) then sure, hit it solo hard. If the "mission" is T-2 to T-4 of anything more then a static shot and you are taking it on solo then a body bag is eminent.

[Steve Gibby]

If the "mission" is a shoot with a T-stop of T16 or T22 (poorest capture quality of a lens) then sure, hit it solo hard. If the "mission" is T-2 to T-4 of anything more then a static shot and you are taking it on solo then a body bag is eminent.

LOL - nope, the "mission" for sight focusing in 4k with RED ONE is usually between T5.6 and T11, with the medium to deep DOF so prevalent in a wide array of genres beyond narrative cinema. Shots are far from static, in fact tight-framed fast action following of people, objects, and animals with radar like accuracy, although wide-open static shots are also common for use in creative montages. It takes the ability and experience to constantly pan, tilt, compose on the fly, expose, and maintain framing, while racking focus - all by yourself. Many seasoned professionals have the talent and experience to do this in 4k with RED ONE, using the EVF or LCD, 2x image magnification, and false color.

The correct word is "imminent", not "eminent", and the only imminent need for body bags will be for the careers and bank accounts of those who feel they have all the answers, thus they refuse to learn new skills, and in the process program themselves for fiscal natural selection.

im·mi·nent
Pronunciation: \ˈi-mə-nənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminēre to project, threaten, from in- + -minēre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain)
Date: 1528
Meaning: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>

[David Mullen ASC]

All I am saying is take focusing seriously, especially for anything to be seen on a theatrical screen. I use experienced professional focus-pullers on all my stuff in 35mm, and there are always some focus problems. A close-up at T/2.8 on the big screen is barely in focus even when it is in focus -- all it takes is a slight movement of an actor leaning forward and back to see the focus drift out of sync with the pulling.

Take follow-focusing seriously. It is hard work. It is not easy.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. Maybe it's because I see most of my stuff on 50' or 75' screens that I am quite convinced that it is not easy if you are shooting for that sort of presentation. But even now, don't take my word for it -- just watch some programming on HDTV shot in 35mm and notice how many soft shots there are. And these are professional productions with real budgets, experienced people shooting. They have the same problems I regularly have. It's just the nature of shooting actors moving around at wide apertures on long lenses in tight shots. There is no "secret" to it -- it's just really, really hard to keep that sort of stuff sharp all the time. It takes experience, it takes time, it takes the right equipment, it takes patience. Just watch an episode of CSI or Law and Order in some tight close-up that follows a character around a room. And that's not a knock against these focus pullers because they are doing top-notch work. It's just the reality of the depth of field of a moving close-ups shot in 35mm at T/2.8 on a 100mm lens, let's say.

Go see a movie in the theater -- for every ten missed-focus shots you catch, there were probably 100 edited out. Just the other day I was watching "Sleepy Hollow" again on DVD, and there is a tilt-up from Johnny Depp's hand holding a tea cup to a low-angle of his face in a medium close-up, not a tight close-up, and it's soft.

Focusing a shot is easy. It's following focus that is hard. Hard, hard, hard, hard. But I've only shot 30 features and a TV series, who knows, maybe it will suddenly get easy on the next show and I'll change my mind. But for now, I'm sticking to what I've learned over the years.

[Finner]

There are many highly skilled camera assistants and focus pullers that take an entire career to develop, learn and perfect pulling perfect fluent focus. The skill of professional focus puller is nothing to be laughed at, be-littled or underestimated. I find it very insulting hearing that a focus puller is not a needed or a useful member of the camera team. I guess it must be because all feature and TV IATSE operators suck so bad that they have to have a focus puller. Ask any experienced camera 600 professional what the hardest job on set is and they all will tell you the focus puller.

I was working on a large feature 6 years ago and had to pull focus on a 600 with a doubler 1 take stunt car shot. I held it sharp even after the front grill badge filled the entire frame. After the shot the EPK clown comments saying "I dont know why you guys need focus pullers. I kept it sharp all by myself.". All the while he is shooting it with a beta cam at f16, what I fucking joke. A bunch of us focus pullers on the 6 camera shot would have been insulted if the entire camera department wasn't laughing so hard. We all realized he had a bad case of headupass.

head·up·ass
Pronunciation: \ˈhəad-op-ass\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin: poop of finding
Date: 1973
Meaning: To be one that is so clueless that they have a better understanding of the inside of their colon then of what they speak.

[Nick Gardner]

Gibby,

I truly believe that you are good at pulling your own focus. However, as Finner points out, if you are doing anything with moving subject, close to the lens, god help you. I personaly try to shoot at a 2.8-4, maybe 5.6, but i don't like to stop the lens down more than that.

You have to remember that there is a lot of fantasy on this forum.

"I can use my Bogen tripod with the red, Nikon glass is the same thing they used on "Borne", Arri AKS are over priced because I don't have any money to use a $3k follow focus on a wedding video......"

I say all this because a lot of people that purchased this camera have no idea what they have gotten into. It does not serve the common good to say that, "I can do it and so can you."

You can do it because you have been doing it for 10 plus years. The best ACs I have worked with, can nail focus at a t-2 about 90-95 percent of the time. When thats their only job.

I have worked on movies where the 1st AC was fired for buzzing the lead for 15 frames. Surf videos, and major motion pictures are different things.

I respect your skill at what you do, I used to be able to do it myself. But like any thing that you wish to do at a top tier level, it has to be what you do all the time.

I am a very good camera operator. And by very good, I mean that I am evaluating my frame, planing my next move, paying attention to my position on the dolly, knowing that when the stunt guy jumps of the cliff it is 2 and a 1/4 turns on the tilt wheel before I see the air bag. If I had to pay attention to all this and more and pull focus, I would shoot myself in the face rather than deal with the stress of doing all the jobs at once.

I agree with most of what you have said in your posts. I get the impression that you have not done a lot of high end feature film/tv stuff (dramatic).

I just want those that have not been experienced in this to appreciate the level of difficulty in doing this job well, not to say, "Gibby said focus was easy!"

All that said, please understand that this is a friendly discourse, and I truly respect the type of shooting you do. I learned a tremendous amount from a guy who shot for NFL films, that I assisted for. He was the best Doc shooter I ever saw. Being able to do the left eye, right eye thing, and anticipate what was going to happen, made him extremely good. Just remember that those of you that have the gift are not the norm.

Good shooting,

Nick

[David Mullen ASC]

People who want a RED camera are going to buy one, 35mm depth of field or not (and more than likely, 35mm depth of field is one of the reasons they are buying the camera...)

So there's no reason to not warn people that using a RED camera for traditional narrative productions (that would normally use 35mm cameras) will require dealing with the same challenges in regards to focusing, and looking for solutions. Because simply lighting all your scenes to T/5.6 may not be practical for every type of production. Maybe you have a night-exterior-heavy story that will all be shot at T/2 to T/2.8 (like what I'm going through right now!)

I had to light a rural road the other night -- I had two 18K HMI's on full spot on a 125' condor... and I only got a T/1.4 at 640 ASA out of them because of the distance and area I was trying to light.

Sure you can pull your own focus. And maybe you'll be good at it. And maybe not. And maybe the time you missed it was a key take of a close-up on an actress who never repeated that moment in the other takes. That's the nature of making movies. It's hard work. It takes skill and experience to become good at it. I'm drained after every one of my productions... and I'm not even operating or pulling-focus. It's mentally and emotionally exhausting, totally demanding of everything you've ever learned, and even then, you're always pushing yourself to do something better and try something harder. There's nothing easy about it. There's nothing easy about lighting, or operating, or focusing, whatever, not in total over the course of a feature shoot. Sure, moments now and then aren't so hard, but the overall experience is taxing on every level.

Focusing is hard, so if you're going to do it yourself, you better take the time to get good at it.

[Steve Gibby]

David,

I don't think anyone is disputing your comments on focusing and follow focusing for narrative cinema in shallow DOF situations. Its good input...

That said, there is a myriad of genres besides narrative cinema that RED ONE is and has been used for - and many of them rarely use shallow DOF, are largely shot in medium to deep DOF, and thus enable relatively easy sight focusing in 4k. The operative word is "relatively". Like anything, practice makes perfect, and even then aptitude can't be learned.

There are certain genres destined for the big screen that are not narrative cinema. Just one example: both of the features I detailed in my previous post, for which I am an EP, director, DP, and cinematographer for, are in the adventure travel & nature genres, will be in theaters nationwide (and beyond), are largely shot in 4k with RED ONE, and except for a small percentage of shallow DOF creative b-roll, are almost entirely shot in medium to deep DOF - and we're using no ACs or focus pullers - all operators are focusing by themselves. We have about 400 hours of footage already, and buzzed focus has not been a problem because DOF needs are generally medium to deep for this genre, and we're using highly-experienced professionals. We own a Sony 4k projector and have a 24' screen at our primary editing facility, so we have a good handle of how the focusing went for each day's shooting.

You and me have been down this road before on some threads, at which point you remarked that you have to remember that you are almost always speaking about narrative cinema when you give advice here. That's fine, and narrative cinema is interesting, but the field procedures for large crew, union, narrative cinema are not directly relative for many of the other genres that RED ONE is now, and has been used in. I am an advocate for those other genres of production, with their alternate ways of using RED ONE.

Let me tie this all together:

Focusing in 4k (or for that matter 3k) should definitely be taken seriously.

Everyone should practice, practice, and practice. There is no substitute for time on camera.

Shooting narrative cinema in shallow DOF is a challenge, and one best suited for a traditional crew composition.

RED ONE is used in a wide array of genres and sub-genres that have little or nothing in common with narrative cinema.

RED ONE, in 4k, can be effectively sight focused by an experienced sole operator in medium to deep DOF situations, and certain shallow DOF situations.

The "right" focusing method is the one that produces in-focus shots for the production at hand. That can either be film-style focusing or sight focusing depending on the genre's DOF and production value needs.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think your summation is accurate.

I just want any novices out there to be clear in regards to the difference between focusing a shot and following or keeping focus during a shot where the distance to the subject is constantly changing.

There are many aspects to the job of focusing and many tools out there to help in that regards, and many techniques to learn in how to do it in the different shooting situations. One solution or tool does not fit all situations.

So the only answer to a broad question like "can I do my own focusing?" is really "it just depends."

[Joe D'Arcy]

I have a little time today. PM me your email address and in the next few days I'll email you some suggestions for techniques of directing, shooting, and focusing which have been effective for me.

Cheers...

Thanks Gibby. PM sent.

[Christoffer Glans]

Last production I directed I used a brevis35 with a canon 50mm 1.8 and a 17-35 4.0 lens. It's hard to direct, light, keep track of continuity, doing every aspect of cinematography and in the end try to do follow focusing while watching performances... no wonder I had a mental breakdown at the end of the week :)

Most shots were handheld so if I missed on the follow focus I'd move the camera a little. But it's really hard and I sincerely need a camera operator on the next production. Especially since I'll probably be using longer lenses then.

So, conclusion is that I think you can do your own focusing, but I think it's only possible and safe when working with wider lenses and maybe even handheld cameras.

But I sometimes like the "not so perfect" focus. That people sometimes gets out of focus and comes back in again. Of course it's always best if it's based on what the frame is telling storywise.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Focus errors will be very much more obvious when using the RED one.

Stephen


Last production I directed I used a brevis35 with a canon 50mm 1.8 and a 17-35 4.0 lens. It's hard to direct, light, keep track of continuity, doing every aspect of cinematography and in the end try to do follow focusing while watching performances... no wonder I had a mental breakdown at the end of the week :)

Most shots were handheld so if I missed on the follow focus I'd move the camera a little. But it's really hard and I sincerely need a camera operator on the next production. Especially since I'll probably be using longer lenses then.

So, conclusion is that I think you can do your own focusing, but I think it's only possible and safe when working with wider lenses and maybe even handheld cameras.

But I sometimes like the "not so perfect" focus. That people sometimes gets out of focus and comes back in again. Of course it's always best if it's based on what the frame is telling storywise.

[Jason Ing]

I have a little time today. PM me your email address and in the next few days I'll email you some suggestions for techniques of directing, shooting, and focusing which have been effective for me.

Cheers...

Gibby,

Can you share those suggestions on this thread? Thanks!

P.S. Does an evf or lcd factor in the success of pulling your own focus? (What do you use?)

[Johan Pabon]

There is a very nice testvideo on http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12931
Everything was shot pulling own focus with Nikon.

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby,

Can you share those suggestions on this thread? Thanks!

P.S. Does an evf or lcd factor in the success of pulling your own focus? (What do you use?)

In my RED ONE experience, 8 months using RED One with the RED LCD, and 41/2 months using the RED EVF, sight focusing RED ONE is easier with the EVF. The EVF is 1280x848 with a very good diopter. I use it in black and white mode. Professional EVFs are almost always B&W, because its easier to see gradients of contrast and the borders and transition areas of focus. 2x image magnification and false color (when there is time), complete the tool sets. I also use the RED LCD (1024x600) quite a bit for certain types of shooting, and many times have both the EVF and LCD mounted, using the EVF when it makes the best sense for shots, and the LCD for high angle, low angle, etc. With practice, sight focusing can be done using the LCD at mid to stopped down apertures, but the EVF, with its higher resolution and excellent diopter, is easier to sight focus RED ONE with.

[Binch]

Maybe not just the right post but anyways...did anyone actually perform a test if the DoF on Red is the same as with s35mm film?

I was told on several occasions from different focus pullers and cam assistans that one should be really carefull and exact with focus pulling on Red and since I'm doing a feature shortly I was thinking (just to be really really sure) to take a long lens at T2, calculate my DoF, put objects on all three marks (close, far and exact distance where I still have focus), record a few seconds and ses the results on a really big screen...just to be sure I can rely on my s35mm DoF calculations...

Do you have any other idea or any other info I should consider about that matter?

Thanks,
Sabina

[Steve Sherrick]

Pulling focus on your own is hard if you have not been shooting with 35mm depth of field for many years. I have mostly a background in video formats, shooting on cameras from the DVX100 through SDX900, with Betacam and other formats mixed in. I have shot with film cameras, but nothing worth mentioning. I have great eyesight, still pretty sharp. My coordination is pretty good, but not spectacular.

I have found in my time with the RED so far that there are some keys to having a shot at doing this by yourself.

1. Camera ergonomics. I'm still waiting on some components to finish my handheld configuration. Balance, EVF positioning, follow focus system etc will all need to be worked out to get it just right. Camera clunkiness will surely lead to focus clumsiness. I've been pulling focus directly from the lenses as I await my follow focus system. Talk about tough.

2. You'll need excellent to great hand eye coordination to pull off precise follow focus. This may seem obvious, but if you don't have it, it will take some time to develop it. Steve Gibby has it, as do many other experienced cameramen.

3. If you are coming from the 1/3" world this is going to be tough. Not always, but you really need to be prepared for everything. If you are shooting at wide open and trying to follow actors moving all over the frame, this could be a real challenge and probably one to not underestimate. I have found it quite challenging. It's okay when you have the ability to do a re-take, but not so good when you have to nail it the first time and you get it wrong. Even in documentary work, not finding focus quickly and accurately will get you in trouble. Yes, there is a bit more forgiveness than say a narrative film, but still you want to be able to nail it most of the time.

4. There's a lot more care that goes into making sure you're lenses are all working well, and your backfocus is dead-on. Again, if you are coming from a prosumer world, this will be something you'll need to keep on top of if you are doing your own camerawork and focus pulling i.e. there's no AC).

To me, when budget allows, it's a no-brainer to get an experienced focus puller. Not only will it keep you out of trouble with focus, it will allow you to concentrate on composition and lighting. Now, when budget doesn't allow for this position, then everyone needs to be on the same page in terms of what can and cannot be done. Careful planning should be done prior to the day of shooting so that you are not caught off guard trying to pull focus in a nearly impossible situation.

With all that RED offers in terms of resolution, RAW processing, interchangeable lenses, it is also challenging to work with if you don't have experience with 35mm gear. Having said that, as camera owners we are able to go out and get the experience and learn what works well in various circumstances.

I think Gibby, Finner, and David have all expressed a lot of reality in their posts. They are all very experienced at what they do, and the genres they work in, so there's a lot to learn there. Bottom line is, it's challenging, but the degree to which it is challenging depends on what you are doing with the camera. It all goes back to what Jim said early on, it's a professional camera and we should go into it with that mindset.

I look forward to working with and without a focus puller.

[sbcooler]

Steve thanks for your insightful post. I am coming from the 1/3" sensor prosumer world, so it is good to know that I'll need a ton of practice before expecting great results.

I'm starting to think a good compromise for me is a 2/3" sensor like the Scarlet...and or possibly a shoulder mounted 2/3" sensor cam.

I gotta believe if I go out a few times a week and practice in all different live situations and review my footage that evening...I gotta think I could get the hang of it in a month...that would be maybe 50-60 hours of doing it almost every day.

Well, I guess I'll never know till I try.

Thx again-