Things Not Shown that I'm hoping for

[SF Geek]

I know this has been discussed before, but here it is again.

This I'd like:
Waveform, luminance and RGB channels
Histogram, luminance and RGB channels
Spot IRE meter, zoomable

Also, is it confirmed that the focus assist that we saw at NAB was not Graeme's secret one?

As far as the new lenses go, I'm sure that the 18-50 is a great lens, but what I'm looking for is a price saving way to get a full set. That's why I had the 18-85 reserved. If you guys could offer a longer zoom to go with the 18-50 and keep the combined price of the two to around 10k I would be interested again. I have a feeling that there are a lot of people who agree.

Can we all agree not to compare RED to film. It's not film. It's digital. I saw the short at the booth. I have never seen so much clarity in a projected image, although it's been a while since I've seen large format film projected.

[jbeale]

Can we all agree not to compare RED to film. It's not film. It's digital.

Like it or not, film is the reigning champion in the cinema world and has been for the entire lifetime of the industry so far. Digital is the new kid on the block. I don't think you can avoid the comparison.

[Brook Willard]

RED is RED. That's all you can compare it to without some personal opinions getting caught up in the mix.

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Can we maybe switch from the pointless "looks like film - doesn´t look like film" to "Works like film"?

Somebody here posted how he really had to concentrate on the technical aspects of the PJ short - and failed, because he was always being pulled back into the movie. Thats a very good sign.

Some of the digital films in the last couple of years worked, others didn´t. Even some DV projects worked. Most did not, but often not because they were not film-ish enought, but because the image quality sucked too much.

So IMHO there will be another new esthetic (among the 50++ of 2006/2007 already - like 300, MV, Almodovar, Tykwer, (Yes, I´m european) etc., etc..
and it will be red-ish, grainless, not totally like film.

Most of its pic´s will be rubbish as usual, but not because of a camera limitation.

Jochen

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Yes, RED is RED, RED is digital, RED is first pure clarity and can second change to anything you like. From now on, it is a question of talent and passion, technic has to stand back to the line, technic is here to use it, to bend it in a manner your phantasy guides you.

[Alexander Black]

Agreed about the lens - another $6500 85-200 zoom would be just killer - that, or if they would sell individual primes one could combine the 18-50 and an 85 to get a pretty good range and rent longer glass when needed.

[Greg Voevodsky]

"another $6500 85-200 zoom" - now that is a great idea. I'll second that!!
Another question? - How fast can you switch from a nikon lense to the standard RED lense? Can I leave the adapter on my Nikon lense and then just swap out the lenses in 30 seconds?

[Brook Willard]

No. Swapping lens mounts will be an involved process that requires a clean space and collimation tools. It won't be a simple on-set swap.

[Stephen Williams]

No. Swapping lens mounts will be an involved process that requires a clean space and collimation tools. It won't be a simple on-set swap.

Hi Brook,

Sounds realistic to me.

Stephen

[Alexander Nikishin]

I know this has been discussed before, but here it is again.

This I'd like:
Waveform, luminance and RGB channels
Histogram, luminance and RGB channels

There was a waveform on display. It had three seperate lines; one for the toe, one for mids, and one for highlights. Looked very promising.

There was also an RGB parade and a color histogram so you're partially in luck.

[Volker Ehlers]

Hi Brook,

Have failed to find the thread where Jim mentioned something about back focus adjustment. He said they used a unique simple design for mechanical adjustment on the body. But he also mentioned that getting a messure wouldn't be simple. What did he refer too? That one needs to collimate or that collimation will be special?
I certainly wouldn't stick a distance gauge into the mount but a collimation with Chrosziel should do the job? Any info on how to get the body to 52mm zero?

Volker

[Justin Anderson]

Can we all agree not to compare RED to film. It's not film.

It's not film. It's better. :clown2: :clown2:

[Brook Willard]

A good AC should have collimation tools at his disposal. I suppose it could happen on set... it just doesn't seem like a job suited to on-the-fly changes to me. I don't have any specifics on the process with regards to the RED ONE, so things may be different.

As for back focus issues, once it's in alignment it should stay that way - the lens mount is made of invar.

[Jiri Bakala]

Since we are talking about lenses again; as a documentary producer I am looking for a practical and flexible solution, suitable for a small and very mobile crew. A set of primes or the very short Red zooms don't work very well for this application. Any suggestions for a longer zoom (more of an equivalent to 15-18x broadcast lens)? Any existing lenses that could be converted to a PL mount?

[Brook Willard]

Could be a B4 lens, shoot 2K. Check the lens forum.

[Jiri Bakala]

Could be a B4 lens, shoot 2K. Check the lens forum.

I know of that option, I was more curious if there are any 35mm cinema zooms that might work. Or even s16.

[Brook Willard]

As I said, check the lens forum.

[SF Geek]

No one's answered about the focus assist. Is Graeme's focus assist still unseen by the public?

[Brook Willard]

In a working state, it remains unseen. A thread on the focus assist and people's impressions of the mockup has been made and is probably still on the front page. Just look around.

[SF Geek]

That's what I wanted to know. The mockup was from Graeme's design.