Critical Focus on the LCD?

[Clayton Harper]

Sadly, I did not get the focus assist demonstration or see the LCD working on the camera while in the RED booth this week.

Is the resolution of the LCD aided by the focus assist sufficient to see if things are in focus? If it's mainly good for framing, I may forgo the LCD for the time being and just grab the EVF.

Anyone who has seen the LCD and focus system at work feel free to chime in.

[Gabriel C.]

I had the same experience and was wondering the same thing. It also makes me wonder if the LCD's are in any way fragile?

[Brook Willard]

It's sharp, but it won't be suitable for critical focus in 4K. Nothing will be...

The focus assist will help, but I'm hoping that parts of the frame can be enlarged to a 1:1 pixel ratio to confirm critical focus.

The LCD is but a tool. You still need an AC with top-notch skills.

As for fragility, well... it's an LCD. Treat it like one.

[casey warren]

what would be the best techniques / skills to learn if you dont have a top notch AC aiding in the focusing?

[Brook Willard]

Running a measuring tape, putting down marks, learning to gauge distance, riding the appropriate part of the depth of field, knowing when a shot goes soft, predicting actor's movements, rehearsing, you name it.

You must remember that I come from a very cine-oriented background. I'm that guy who'll give my AC 6 inches of DOF. At the same time, if he asks for more... he gets more. A gorgeous shallow-DOF shot is no longer gorgeous if focus is soft.

Turn to your left and look at the wall. How many feet away is it? Mine is 10 feet, maybe a touch under. How far is yours? Learn to gauge distance. If you're pulling for yourself, it's going to be tough... but it's possible.

I just got out a measuring tape. The wall was 115 inches... 9.58 feet. Close enough.

[Joel Kaye]

what would be the best techniques / skills to learn if you dont have a top notch AC aiding in the focusing?

Memorize distance to objects and DOF charts. When someone leans in is it 6 or 12 inches etc.

The cool thing about RED is you'll have it so you could put many hours into the skills in a short amount of time. You'll learn what good focus looks like in the viewfinder IMHO. Hopefully the magic assist will really help. I'm personally going to pass on the LCD and get the EVF to start out. I may add a bigger monitor to the mix.

[casey warren]

I think I just need to start really focusing on how to gauge distance...I hate when shots go soft, and I am used to shooting with Digital SLR's that make all of the focusing guess work easy.

[casey warren]

The job of an AC must be incredibly difficult I imagine.


Applause for any AC's on these boards, your skills are extremely admirable

[Billy Summers]

Hey Brook, when using a measuring tape with the RED, does the tape measure exactly from the Sensor's position like when measuring from the film plane or does it measure from a different position (like when shooting digitally)?

thanks,

[Joel Kaye]

Hey Brook, when using a measuring tape with the RED, does the tape measure exactly from the Sensor's position like when measuring from the film plane or does it measure from a different position (like when shooting digitally)?

thanks,

Yeah - there should be a focal plane mark on the RED camera that will be in line with the sensor. If you guys could add a hook for the tape measure to grab onto that would be nice.

[Brook Willard]

Focal distance is calibrated to the sensor. There will be a witness mark and presumably a tapped screw hole to add a focus tape hook. It seems like a given. Matt... are you reading?

[mike70]

As a doc shooter, I was particularly concerned about the evf and lcd focus, so I played with them for a long time in the booth. Although it was hard to do a thorough investigation (it took a long time for the guys to agree to move the cable so I could see the lcd on a tiltable camera), I was very impressed with how well you could see focus in that dark room, both in the evf and lcd. Not having the luxury of tape measuring, it's going to boil down to my eyes, and REd seems to have put a lot of work into making both viewfinders responsive.

[Andy Taplin]

I'm coming from a video and stills background and find it strange you guys are still talking about judging distance and tape measures in the 21st century with technology like RED.

Is there any reason why RED can't incorporate a laser range finder to give you the precise distance to an object?

Or what about using a laser tape measure like the Leica Disto?

Maybe I'm missing some trick that tape measures have...?

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Or a tiny rotating radar dish on top of the cage?

;-)

No seriously, I did not have much luck with a laser distance meter and soft round objects (like, people).

Jochen

[Jason Murphy]

A someone else pointed out on a similar thread, actors tend to not respond well to an eyeful of laser; it's definitely a mood killer on the set.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Focus is not a technical problem. It's like aperture and focal length an important tool for setting up a picture. Focus pulling is a craft which as any other craft has it's own beauty. A great focus puller is the cameraman's best friend. Not just an assistant. The nice thing about RED is that these kind of skills (like lighting) are still vital for achieving good work. I love teamwork.

Hans

[Andy Taplin]

Focus is not a technical problem. It's like aperture and focal length an important tool for setting up a picture. Focus pulling is a craft which as any other craft has it's own beauty. A great focus puller is the cameraman's best friend. Not just an assistant. The nice thing about RED is that these kind of skills (like lighting) are still vital for achieving good work. I love teamwork.

Hans

Focus is not a technical problem? Can't say I agree with you. If a shots soft it's a problem...I don't think focus pulling is a craft either even though there are those who are better at it than others. Currently it's a technical requirement that is delegated to humans because there is no viable alternative - I'd rather have a Robopuller that was always on the money!

This is another one of those areas where there needs to be a paradigm shift away from what's always been done in the past. It should be possible for an operator to get focus accurately. I do agree though that if the subject is moving it's a lot easier with a puller.

[Steve Gibby]

It's sharp, but it won't be suitable for critical focus in 4K. Nothing will be...

The focus assist will help, but I'm hoping that parts of the frame can be enlarged to a 1:1 pixel ratio to confirm critical focus.

The LCD is but a tool. You still need an AC with top-notch skills.

LOL!!!…I was looking at the end of your post for a “cine style/4k/shallow DOF-only/more answers shortly” disclaimer like the following and couldn’t seem to find it:

"Disclaimer: I’m only speaking of shallow DOF shots in a 4k cine style workflow. I realize that RED One can and will be used in 4k for multiple cine style and EFP style workflows, that shallow DOF is only one of the DOF requirements for acquisition, that a vast amount of RED One shots in natural light will be at apertures ranging from f5.6 to f11, thus enabling the desired medium to deep DOF, thus enabling single operator focusing with the combination of the EVF + focus assist or LCD + focus assist - even in 4k. So you aren’t confused, I also must note that with RED One having the capability to shoot in S16mm and B4 2/3” lens formats that the inherent DOF in those formats will be deeper, thus enabling single operator focusing with the combination of LCD + focus assist or EVF + focus assist. I don’t want you to mistakenly assume that an AC is a necessary part of your crew for all genres, sub-genres, formats, resolutions, and environments that RED One is capable of shooting in. You mobile sports, travel, and nature EFP shooters that work alone with RED One in 4k, don’t worry, since you’re working in daylight, at medium to small apertures, thus medium to deep DOF, you won’t have to have an AC stretch out a tape measure to that grizzly bear, girl walking down the beach, or surfer on a wave and ask them to freeze while the crew stretches out a tape measure to them and takes time to focus – you’ll actually be able to focus yourself in 4k and let the natural action continue! Also, since the exact details, capabilities, and limitations of RED’s Magic Focus haven’t been unveiled and demonstrated, I want you to know that my saying that nothing is suitable for achieving critical focus in 4k, that an AC is mandatory, and in my further posts that a tape measure will be necessary, is not based on tested parameters of RED One at 4k in actual use, and as outlined above is stated as only one possibility for 4k cine-style, shallow DOF shots. In summary, I realize that RED One will be used for a vast array of genres and environments in 4k (and lower resolutions), that my post only addresses one possible scenario, and once RED One ships, since I’m on the testing crew for RED #8, that we will have a lot more answers for you, including the multi-genre performance of the combination of the Focus Assist, LCD, and EVF.”



Brook, to avoid confusing people who may actually use RED One in it's full range of applications, genres, formats, environments, and workflows, please put this disclaimer in your signature block for all future focus posts…thank you!!

:biggrin:

[Shawn Nelson]

Lol Gibby, I love it!

[Brook Willard]

Yeah Gibby... I wrote that post a few weeks ago... before it occurred to me via feedback from all sides that putting such disclaimers on my post was important. I have a different definition of 'critical focus' than some, and that is clear. While I don't think you needed to call me out with a lengthy paragraph like that, I do appreciate your point and it is important for people to understand my perspective as well as yours and others.

It's important for everybody to realize that I am but another poster on these forums... with but another opinion.

[Steve Gibby]

Smile Brook...just messin' with ya... :biggrin:

Seriously, IMO you're doing a great job as a moderator...

[Andy Taplin]

It seems to me that RED has the potential to be a replacement for every full size professional SD and HD camera currently on the market. To achieve this though they need to make sure that it's possible to configure the camera for everything from a solo handheld doco to a feature. It does seem that this is what they are trying to achieve - it's just not that clear at the moment.

[Clayton Harper]

Brook,

I think Gibby was teasing. Your paragraph is the moby dick of qualifying statements. I don't think anyone could be confused as to your intentions or clarity of thought on any Red-related subjects after viewing it. :)

[Brook Willard]

I know, I know... teasing goes both ways. :tongue:

[Finner]

I don't think focus pulling is a craft either even though there are those who are better at it than others. Currently it's a technical requirement that is delegated to humans because there is no viable alternative - I'd rather have a Robopuller that was always on the money!

This is another one of those areas where there needs to be a paradigm shift away from what's always been done in the past. It should be possible for an operator to get focus accurately. I do agree though that if the subject is moving it's a lot easier with a puller.

This statement shows you have a big lack of experience. I no longer pull focus but I did for quite a few years and it is the hardest most pressure filled job on set. No "robopuller" can come even close to achiving what a focus puller can do. You need a person good at the craft that can also make judgement calls of when to rack focus. You also need someone that can judge distances when you are on a crane floating different for every shot and have the actors on horses moving at different speeds and not hitting their marks as the sun is going down and you only have one shot at it, Some positions will be replaced over time by "robo-whatever" but a focus puller should not be one of them.

[Andy Taplin]

This statement shows you have a big lack of experience. I no longer pull focus but I did for quite a few years and it is the hardest most pressure filled job on set. No "robopuller" can come even close to achiving what a focus puller can do. You need a person good at the craft that can also make judgement calls of when to rack focus. You also need someone that can judge distances when you are on a crane floating different for every shot and have the actors on horses moving at different speeds and not hitting their marks as the sun is going down and you only have one shot at it, Some positions will be replaced over time by "robo-whatever" but a focus puller should not be one of them.

I did not mean to denigrate your skills, despite my lack of experience (only 27 years of professional image making) but I still maintain that achieving focus for the most part should eventually be a technical issue solved technically.

I know what you guys do is difficult and pressured, I've had to follow focus on a guy running towards me on a wide/long lens for example and it's hard.

It's still not a craft - like good lighting or carving beautiful furniture from lumps of wood for example, IMO.

[Finner]

It's still not a craft - like good lighting or carving beautiful furniture from lumps of wood for example, IMO.

FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY
craft
Pronunciation:
\?kraft\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, strength, skill, from Old English cræft; akin to Old High German kraft strength
Date:
before 12th century
1:*skill in planning, making, or executing :*dexterity

2 a :*an occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill <the carpenter's craft ><the craft of writing plays> <craft ssuch as pottery, carpentry, and sewing> bplural :*articles made by craftspeople <a store selling craft s><a craft sfair>

3:*skill in deceiving to gain an end <used craft and guile to close the deal>

4:*the members of a trade or trade association

5plural usually craft a:*a boat especially of small size b:*aircraft c:*spacecraft

Andy this is the definition of a craft.
A focus puller does desription 1. all day.

A focus puller does description 2. with manual dexterity and the odd artistic choices of when to rack.

A focus puller does description 3 sometimes by gaining themselves a stop or the odd time smuggling out a ND to gain a stop.

A focus puller often belongs to IATSE or other film unions and guilds so that answers 4.

I have not seen a focus puller be number 5.


Simply you are wrong. I would think someone who has been in the industry for 27 years would of learned this, but hey some are slow learners and as far as 27 years slow well I would have to lump that up near the top.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think there's a craft & art to focus-pulling -- I've had to talk to the focus puller a couple of times about how fast they were racking because it was too mechanical-looking (too robotic); I needed something more timed to the feeling and meaning of the shot ("you wait half a beat after he finishes his line and then pull to the foreground object, but not a quick rack, it has to sort of roll into focus...")

And so often you talk though a dialogue scene with a focus puller about which lines of dialogue to rack on and who to rack to, but when you do the scene, every take is slightly different -- the focus-puller might say to me "On that last take, he never turned around enough for me to see his eyes, so I left the focus on her instead, but on this next take if he turns around more, do you want me to rack to him, and then rack back to her for that one line, or leave it on him?"

That's the sort of complicated discussions you have on set, with the focus puller making instant decisions on where to focus when the actors do something unexpected. Often the focus-puller has to have a set of sides for the scene, and maybe even their own headset, so they can really follow the dialogue and time the focusing properly.

So there's definitely a dramatic/emotional aspect to the job that is beyond a robot's capability to understand. It's one of the qualities that makes one focus puller better than another, not just the simple mechanical ability to keep a moving subject in focus. I mean, if you have a two-shot and one person is talking but the other person is doing all the emoting while reacting, it becomes a big question as to who should be in focus or when you should rack, or whether to rack back and forth, etc. A focus puller with no feeling for acting and dramatic intent of a scene would be a liability.

[Justin Kirchhoff]

gah, if you put a laser on the camera you'll have a lot more problems trying to get through airports....

[Marcus Irvin]

Based on the last year of watching 1080i 65" DLP HD, there are way too many missed focus shots appearing in features and shows of all types. Since these include major projects with talented crews, I can only assume the current tools for pulling focus are inadequate to the task in many situations. One could argue that we've been doing it that way for a 100 years, so it must be the best way to do it. In my self-appointed role of lazy futurist, I think this is a ridiculous argument.

Since talk is cheap and easy, how about taking the LCD feed and overlaying some data in addition to the "magic focus". I'm thinking about the AC selecting focus marks in the shot setup in camera. The camera places a focus distance bar across the top, bottom or middle of the LCD. This focus distance bar has tick marks corresponding to rehearsal marks or known physical marks and a moving focus distance icon delivered live by the i technology lens data. The point of furthest focus is at one end of the bar and closest focus is at the other end. This superimposed progress bar layered over real world focus view plus the "magic focus" should provide some improvement in tools and results.

This completely eliminates the measuring tape during shot setup by using focus targets at critical points marking each with i tech lens data by pressing a user programmable button on the RED as each target is test focused. The live display takes care of fine adjusting live thin DOF closeups where measuring is not as helpful. No tape is needed and the AC just does his job with faster, better, easier tools.

Our other benefit is no longer being pulled out of the story by distracting poorly focused images.

If you really want to make this fancy, add in a focus motor with timed focus moves which can be slowed or advanced with a pot control in the AC's hands. This means moco and other precision shots can be near perfect focus with the AC's eye pushing them to fully perfect.

[Jannard]

It's sharp, but it won't be suitable for critical focus in 4K. Nothing will be...

The focus assist will help, but I'm hoping that parts of the frame can be enlarged to a 1:1 pixel ratio to confirm critical focus.

The LCD is but a tool. You still need an AC with top-notch skills.

As for fragility, well... it's an LCD. Treat it like one.

I don't agree with Brook here... I watched Peter Jackson focus much of "Crossing the Line" with an LCD. I also disagree that you would ever want/need a 1:1 pixel ratio. And since Brook has not seen Graeme's magic focus assit in action, it might be difficult to have an opinion this early on.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Based on the last year of watching 1080i 65" DLP HD, there are way too many missed focus shots appearing in features and shows of all types. Since these include major projects with talented crews, I can only assume the current tools for pulling focus are inadequate to the task in many situations.

Hi,

An editor will usually choose the best performance regardless of technical issues, cutting in SD, probably can't see focus properly in any case!

Stephen

[Finner]

Not bad ideas Marcus but what happens when the actor misses their marks(happens lots) or when the actor changes something and ab-libes a bit? For people who have not actually done the job of focus puller or worked closely with one I can see how it would be easy to undervalue them.

[Stephen Williams]

I don't agree with Brook here... I watched Peter Jackson focus much of "Crossing the Line" with an LCD. I also disagree that you would ever want/need a 1:1 pixel ratio. And since Brook has not seen Graeme's magic focus assit in action, it might be difficult to have an opinion this early on.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I have only seen a small part of "Crossing the Line", several shots had fairly deep focus. Should have been an issue pulling focus on an LCD.

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

I don't agree with Brook here... I watched Peter Jackson focus much of "Crossing the Line" with an LCD. I also disagree that you would ever want/need a 1:1 pixel ratio. And since Brook has not seen Graeme's magic focus assit in action, it might be difficult to have an opinion this early on.

Jim

I do want to apologize for that post. That was a thoroughly uninformed personal opinion and I apologize if I mislead anybody. When I made it a few weeks ago, I wasn't really thinking it all the way through If I'd remembered that I made that post, I would've edited it a long time ago. I also wasn't clear about my personal definition of critical focus or what I had in mind. So again... if I led anybody astray or made somebody think that what I was saying was fact instead of personal opinion, I do apologize. It was poorly phrased, uninformed and brash.

The RED guys would certainly know better than I! :)

[Jannard]

There are times when you cannot use the LCD to pull focus and need some type of assist (tape, Graeme's magic) but you can't dismiss the LCD for shots with greater DOF. Anyone shooting 35mm knows that multiple tricks and a trained professional are required much of the time.

Jim

[Hans von Sonntag]

Based on the last year of watching 1080i 65" DLP HD, there are way too many missed focus shots appearing in features and shows of all types. Since these include major projects with talented crews, I can only assume the current tools for pulling focus are inadequate to the task in many situations. One could argue that we've been doing it that way for a 100 years, so it must be the best way to do it. In my self-appointed role of lazy futurist, I think this is a ridiculous argument.


There are not only missed focus shots but also a lot of miss-lighted, miss-acted, miss-written etc. shots. Perhaps the crews were not that talented?

Do you want a computer to write your script?

Not every thing can be solved by technology. Especially focus pulling which is totally analogue. Since there is autofocus technology in still-photography available since 20 years or so and no proper autofocus system for this money-rich moving picture industry there might a reason for this. Good focus pulling is an art and craft and cannot be replaced my some chips.

Coming back to the actual topic: I highly suppose (very sure) the EFV as well as the LCD will give you a sufficient picture to evaluate the focus of your shot. But then the actor moves...

Hans

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't agree with Brook here... I watched Peter Jackson focus much of "Crossing the Line" with an LCD.
Jim

Well, to be fair... (1) there's no optical viewfinder on the RED so what choice does a camera operator have except to focus by his LCD viewfinder (other than a camera assistant getting measurements)? and (2) the DP told me that much of the shoot was in the f/5.6 to f/8 range where you have some workable depth of field to hide your mistakes in eye-focusing.

The truth is that some types of shots are easier to judge focus on that other types of shots, regardless of the type of viewfinder you are using. Often really tight shots with less depth of field are easier to judge focus on (but harder to hold in focus) and really wide shots are not particularly critical, focus-wise. So that sort of leaves the medium shots made with wider-angle lenses where it's hard to judge focus in a viewfinder.

[chuck colburn]

There are not only missed focus shots but also a lot of miss-lighted, miss-acted, miss-written etc. shots. Perhaps the crews were not that talented?

Do you want a computer to write your script?

Not every thing can be solved by technology. Especially focus pulling which is totally analogue. Since there is autofocus technology in still-photography available since 20 years or so and no proper autofocus system for this money-rich moving picture industry there might a reason for this. Good focus pulling is an art and craft and cannot be replaced my some chips.

Hans

Not to mentioned trusting the eye of your operator.

[David Mullen ASC]

Focus pullers are certainly the most interested people in new focusing technology that makes their lives easier -- "Cinetapes", for example (or "Panatapes") have become quite common on film sets. If there was a fast, reliable way for focus pullers to get the info they need, they'd use it. But you also have to recognize that things change quickly on a film set - cameras get moved over, a new shot gets lined-up, a focus puller has a few seconds to run their tape measure out to grab a few reference marks, and the actors start acting. Focus pullers have gotten fired for taking more than a minute to get all their focus marks on some sets, so setting up some sort of grid system relative to camera position, etc. is great when you have the time, but sometimes you don't have the time.

But they have also gotten fired for mistiming a focus rack on an important dialogue scene, which is why trusting and then blaming some auto-focusing device is not going to cut it for most of them. There is constant human decision-making when pulling focus on the scene.

As for the soft shots that you see in 1080i broadcast, now you know why focus-pulling with 35mm-style depth of field is not as easy as some people here seem to want to make it out to be!

You can be sure that any decent focusing-assist device is going to be employed by any professional camera assistant that can afford to buy it. There is absolutely no fear of technology on their part -- camera assistants tend to be the most technology-saavy crew people on the set.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Coming back to the actual topic: I highly suppose (very sure) the EFV as well as the LCD will give you a sufficient picture to evaluate the focus of your shot. But then the actor moves...

Hans

There is one big advantage for the focus control over the LCD: at least you don't have to deal with the shutter of a 16/35 camera. Which means: the image will be fearly clear, no disturbing by the flickering of a running shutter.

[Hans von Sonntag]

There is one big advantage for the focus control over the LCD: at least you don't have to deal with the shutter of a 16/35 camera. Which means: the image will be fearly clear, no disturbing by the flickering of a running shutter.

Right, a cool feature film cameras don't have!

But what happens when you see your picture getting softer and you try to correct this by pulling the focus? The sequence was on a certain point out of focus or at least soft. Bummer. That's ok for some applications, ENG for instance where the content counts. But for many it is not.

A focus has to be pulled in advance. The subject/object almost runs into the focus. Therefore the EFV has the advantage of a clean, flicker-free picture which is great but this does not help you that much keeping things in focus.

Hans (who knows the value of an underpaid AC)

Edit: There were lots of difficult shots we had to deal with where the AC had only focus control with a monitor (crane and remote head, Kenworthy Nettman Snorkel, etc...) Not funny. Tape gives you a more confident feeling. Side note: Modern video assists don`t flicker... Although they are not 720p of course.

[Stephen Williams]

Right, a cool feature film cameras don't have!



Hi,

FWIW Panavision offered a beam splitter option instead of a spinning mirror on several cameras. Very popular before flicker free video assists.

Stephen

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Agree. Focus is a suspect to change ;-)

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Oh, by the way, great showreel Mr. Sonntag...

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Hi Stephen, have a reservation on the MoCohead of Curt. At least one in Switzerland...

[Marcus Irvin]

Not bad ideas Marcus but what happens when the actor misses their marks(happens lots) or when the actor changes something and ab-libes a bit? For people who have not actually done the job of focus puller or worked closely with one I can see how it would be easy to undervalue them.

I don't think technology will or should replace the focus puller in most 35mm DOF shoots. Often choosing a point of focus is just as much an asthetic issue as a technical need.

All I'm saying is the current focus assist tools clearly are a long way from perfect and that has to be the primary reason for so many misses. I realize other types of errors can be fixed in post, ADR, etc., but I refuse to believe there is no feasible way to move beyond a measuring tape for accurate focus. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hi Stephen, have a reservation on the MoCohead of Curt. At least one in Switzerland...

Thanks a lot, (showreel-wise) and back!

Switzerland is not that far (6 hours), please let me know when you got the MoCohead. My motion control experience is disastrous...

Hans

[Daniel Reichenbach]

I will, delivery around October... Have some great ideas on that, first I'll start with a ski commercial, that will be fun with this lightweight tool.

[Steve Gibby]

The RED Focus Assist was not rolled out or fully demonstrated at NAB. The EVF has been confirmed as 1280 x 720. The LCD has been confirmed as 1024 x 600. Lets examine in chronological order what members of the RED Team have posted about the EVF, LCD, and Focus Assist:

Note: All specs subject to change until they are stated as finalized by RED, thus what was said in the RED Team posts below could have changed or be subject to change. That said, logic would dictate that it’s late in the development process to be significantly changing the EVF, LCD or Magic Focus, although being software, IMO the Magic Focus would be the one that could receive changes up to relatively the last minute.


RED EVF and LCD

“Perhaps for the first time on a professional camera, the RED-EVF has been designed from the perspective of an integrated monitoring component, rather than a stand alone device. Although it uses a broadcast standard Hirose connector, its has a custom digital interface based around DVI, which allows advanced signal processing in the camera body, and a high level of communications between camera and viewfinder.

The RED-EVF can't be used with other cameras. Its simply the worlds highest performance electronic viewfinder, specific to the RED ONE.”

Stuart English
3/12/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=900&page=2



“Yes, showing you what's happening outside of the recorded area (just like an optical viewfinder does) is one of the key differences between the RED-EVF and any other electronic viewfnding systems. We call that feature SurroundView. This feature is also supported on the RED-LCD and both the HDMI and HD-SDI based HD Preview outputs.”

Stuart English
3/12/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=900&page=2



“The RED-EVF and RED-LCD are close cousins. They are driven by a common output from the camera that is expressed on two independent DVI based digital video, power and control interfaces. You could think of them both as viewfinders, one in a tube and one flat. You can use one, or the other, or both at the same time.

The RED-EVF has one or two additional capabilities I can discuss later, but essentially either one of them would be fine for camera operation. Both show Surround View, Histograms, Focus Assist, Frame Guides and Camera menus / status. As an example, if you were shooting underwater or on steadicam the RED-LCD would be the best choice.”

Stuart English
3/13/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=900&page=4




“Viewfinder - not optical, but many of the same characteristics of an optical - including SurroundView(tm) the ability to see around the outside of the frame recorded, and also being a true HD viewfinder, provides accurate focus.”

Stuart English
11/21/06
DVi
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80097




RED Focus Assist

“Pulling focus will be the big surprise to those moving up from 1/3" or 2/3" sensors. It is a whole new ballgame. Standard LCD's won't cut it. It will take a new "trick" not seen before to help the shooter focus accurately without an optical finder (which many will tell you is still a challenge in lower light conditions). I think we have one.

Jim Jannard
DV Info Net
5/1/06
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66038&page=2

(Gibby note: this post was way back in May 2006. I believe Jim’s reference in the last line was to the Focus Assist)



“Yes, it's on a line by line basis, not an average of that column, so it's pretty useful in most situations. And because you can see when the graph bit you're interested in peaks (a new meaning to the word peaking!) you know it's not just in focus, but in maximal focus. Traditional techniques just say that you're sorta-sharp, not maximally sharp....”

Graeme Nattress
4/19/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1540&page=5



“Remember the focus graph sees the entire image and displays a graph that gets built up from all those lines across, meaning you'll see when the other objects come into or out of focus whether they're arranged vertically or horizontally or not.”

Graeme Nattress
4/20/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1540&page=7




“It's in the list of things to get turned on in camera. When that will be is something that is effected by a large number of factors, so no predictions. The test footage I used to prototype it seemed to show that everything would work good, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm pretty confident though that this will be yet another very useful aid to camera operators, and you can never have enough useful aids.”

Graeme Nattress
4/20/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1540&page=7



“Focus “waveform” that appears under the main image”

Stuart
4/26/07
RED User
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2014&page=2




Summary

The RED Team posts about the EVF, LCD, and Focus Assist reflect their belief that the Focus Assist will be effective in achieving focus when used with the EVF and LCD. They’re the ones who have developed those products and features, and have been testing them. Fact is, the LCD was used for the Crossing the Line production, and focus was achieved. In the absence of outside independent verification of the effectiveness of how the EVF, LCD, and Focus Assist work in unison, IMO we should accept the accuracy of statements by the RED Team about their products until such time as real world testing of those products/features either verifies their statements, or they modify their position on the use/effectiveness of the products. IMO their products/features will function well and be effective, as they have stated. Measuring tapes will undoubtedly continue to be used with RED One by those who are comfortable with their use, especially in certain workflows and genres, but as I illustrated in my post #18 there are numerous genres, workflows, and lighting/DOF requirements with RED One production in 4k resolutions on down, where a tape measure will never be used, and focusing will be exclusively by EVF + Focus Assist or LCD + Focus Assist, performed by a skilled and experienced camera operator working alone. We’re all looking forward to the camera beginning to ship, and real world testing of its features and utilities. IMO wisdom dictates that conclusions as to the effectiveness of use of RED One’s features and utilities be reserved until that time. From what I saw at NAB, the EVF and LCD will be excellent tools. Now I’d simply like to use them with the Focus Assist – something my testing team and myself will do shortly when we test RED #8.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I I realize other types of errors can be fixed in post, ADR, etc., but I refuse to believe there is no feasible way to move beyond a measuring tape for accurate focus. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Hi Marcus3208

Sure. Big inventions often seem so obvious afterwords. I would welcome gladly any cool tool that makes the work of the focus puller easier. By the way: What does ADR mean?

Hans

[Joel Kaye]

Traditional techniques just say that you're sorta-sharp, not maximally sharp....”

“Remember the focus graph sees the entire image and displays a graph that gets built up from all those lines across, meaning you'll see when the other objects come into or out of focus whether they're arranged vertically or horizontally or not.”

Those two quotes are pretty promising.

I asked PJ's DP how they focused Crossing the Line and was told it was experienced assistants using tape and traditional techniques helped by smaller apertures. So I don't know that they actually got a focus from a LCD. Composition probably was LCD though. I don't think the viewfinders were ready - but someone else here can probably verify that.

ADR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubbing_%28filmmaking%29#Automated_dialogue_replac ement_.2F_post-synch

[Hans von Sonntag]

Gibby

Thanks a lot for this thoroughly overview concerning focus assist with the RED EVF and the RED LCD!

Nevertheless, the focus Assist can only help you to evaluate visually the focus in the EVF or LCD (evaluating focus of a F900 can be difficult I found, lots of room for improvements here). The pulling has to be done manually. That the EVF of the RED ONE will be one of its kind, that's obvious... Didn't buy Jim Jannard Accuscene?

Hans

[Michael Ragen]

They were using a third party lcd for Crossing the Line I believe.

[Marcus Irvin]

Not bad ideas Marcus but what happens when the actor misses their marks(happens lots) or when the actor changes something and ab-libes a bit? For people who have not actually done the job of focus puller or worked closely with one I can see how it would be easy to undervalue them.

You might have misread my post due to poor wording on my part. Focus pullers are necessary and important and I don't think technology will or should replace the focus puller in most 35mm DOF shoots.

I'm a still photographer, not an AC, but in my ignorant opinion choosing a point of focus is just as much an aesthetic issue as a technical need. The AC or some other human should maintain "final" hands on control of the plane of sharpness even if this is just an override of the automation. My Nikon still lenses for example, allow manual control even when autofocusing.

All I'm saying is the current focus assist tools clearly are a long way from perfect and I believe this to be the primary reason for so many misses. Of course this is compounded because focus cannot be fixed in post like other filmmaking errors.

I 've worked a few film shoots and I know how quickly time can become the most valuable and scarce commodity for many reasons. Call me stubborn, ignorant or worse, but I refuse to believe there is no feasible way to move beyond a measuring tape for fast and accurate focus. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[damonbots]

Hi Marcus3208

Sure. Big inventions often seem so obvious afterwords. I would welcome gladly any cool tool that makes the work of the focus puller easier. By the way: What does ADR mean?

Hans

ADR as I know it is automatic dialog replacement

Oh by the way, a while back I read about a new technology that allowed one to adjust the focus plane after a picture is taken. I have no idea how it works or where you can find info about it, but it was really interesting. Perhaps some day that technology could be used in digital cinema.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen, have a reservation on the MoCohead of Curt. At least one in Switzerland...

Hi Daniel,

Thats cool. I saw a Milo Motion control yesterday in Sion of all places, its been there for 3 years, they plan on buying a Red!

Stephen

[Marcus Irvin]

Hi Marcus3208

Sure. Big inventions often seem so obvious afterwords. I would welcome gladly any cool tool that makes the work of the focus puller easier. By the way: What does ADR mean?

Hans

ADR is the same thing as looping. Automated Dialog Replacement or looping just means the actors using final film segments in a recording studio to replace synchronized dialog that was poorly voiced, poorly recorded, stomped on by louder action, etc.

[Steve Gibby]

I asked PJ's DP how they focused Crossing the Line and was told it was experienced assistants using tape and traditional techniques helped by smaller apertures. So I don't know that they actually got a focus from a LCD. Composition probably was LCD though. I don't think the viewfinders were ready - but someone else here can probably verify that.

True, but the Focus Assist function wasn't activated, so perhaps if it was they wouldn't have had to measure by tape. Also, there were many shots where measuring by tape was impossible - the plane-to-plane aerial shots, etc. The smaller apertures (deep DOF) helped with those shots. My point was that an LCD was used, and apparently without the Focus Assist, thus measuring by tape was necessary. I don't believe that RED EVF was ready and used, but I could be wrong.

[Steve Gibby]

Nevertheless, the focus Assist can only help you to evaluate visually the focus in the EVF or LCD (evaluating focus of a F900 can be difficult I found, lots of room for improvements here). The pulling has to be done manually.

All focus with RED One will be manual, whether its done by a single operator or by an AC. If its an EFP production, pro-level EFP operators are used to manually racking focus. If it's a large crew cine style production, ACs are obviously used to manually pulling focus. My point is that the combination of EVF + Focus Assist, or LCD + Focus Assist should enable focusing by a single camera operator in genres and workflows that call for that, or by an AC in genres and workflows that call for that. Thus the utility and flexibility of the RED One camera system is maintained.

[Joel Kaye]

True, but the Focus Assist function wasn't activated, so perhaps if it was they wouldn't have had to measure by tape.

Yeah I agree with that. I think tape could go the way of the dodo if the focus assist does what it looks like it'll do. You'll set your marks using that and be more accurate than tape.

But people can always use tape if they want to. I just think it will prove to be slower and less accurate when the dust settles.

[Stephen Williams]

Yeah I agree with that. I think tape could go the way of the dodo if the focus assist does what it looks like it'll do. You'll set your marks using that and be more accurate than tape.

But people can always use tape if they want to. I just think it will prove to be slower and less accurate when the dust settles.

Hi,

I know some very good assistants that hardly ever bother with a tape, they know distance by instinct. I asked one to set the camera 50cm from the packshot I was filming, he places the camera & sets the focus to 50cm he was spot on!

Stephen

[seank]

i've been following the RED discussions since a few weeks before nab. as an AC this focus discussion was interesting to read. i feel compelled to thank David Mullen for his clear descriptions of the trials and tribulations of a focus puller. these are exact. i was the AC on crossing the line and yes, you can get sharps from the onboard. but, as with all subjects of focus, they do tend to move. it does however give me an "enviro" mark of where they were

[Finner]

Yeah I agree with that. I think tape could go the way of the dodo if the focus assist does what it looks like it'll do. You'll set your marks using that and be more accurate than tape.

But people can always use tape if they want to. I just think it will prove to be slower and less accurate when the dust settles.

Setting hard marks with the camera on chairs and such is fine but if you have an AC that does not know distances in tape mesurement form you will end up having soft shots. Running that tape out ingrains distances in your head until you hardly have to use it anymore. My main AC is so good he never pulls out his tape unless we are on a 85mm or longer. He just knows distances and by setting focus off of hard marks with the camera an AC will never learn that. The tape measure is used because it is quick and allows the AC's brain to do a good job to judge inbetween hard marks.

[Joel Kaye]

He just knows distances and by setting focus off of hard marks with the camera an AC will never learn that. The tape measure is used because it is quick and allows the AC's brain to do a good job to judge inbetween hard marks.


I think you're correct that focus pullers are going to need to learn to sense distance by eye so they can follow the shot.

Do you think people could learn distances using a digital tape measure? Or does it have to be physical tape?

I do think this is a serious skill, but clearly it can be practiced and learned by anyone with good depth perception and motor skills. Which probably describes an entire generation of video game wizards.

[Finner]

Do you think people could learn distances using a digital tape measure? Or does it have to be physical tape?

I do think this is a serious skill, but clearly it can be practiced and learned by anyone with good depth perception and motor skills. Which probably describes an entire generation of video game wizards.

Digital tapes work fine but sometimes you need that exact inch to the eye.

As far as being learned by anyone, this is something I use to think but not as much anymore. I got the chance to pull focus on a show that I was a trainee on early in my career (C-camera). I was just good at it and could do it. I went straight from trainee to focus puller in 6 months. At that time there were seconds that were training me as a trainee that are still seconds and I have tried a few to pull focus for me now (did not go so well). Some people are very good at it and can just do it and some can not. It's weird but just the way it seems to be.

[David Mullen ASC]

Some people are good at some aspects of the job but not others. I worked with one focus-puller who was good at guessing distance but had a terrible sense of timing and sometimes (too often) fell out of sync with the actors' movements, was visibly late and caught off-guard too easily. But he really knew how to prep a camera package, take care of the equipment, and run the camera crew.

[Poi Boy]

With digital the tape is only ball park, you have to see it with focus assist and monitor.
Aloha
-A

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, a tape measurement is only ballpark because the camera and the actors move, but it's not ballpark in the sense that if you run a tape measurement from the camera to the actor's eyeball, it better match what the lens distance marks on the barrel are saying if you can do a good eye-focus to double-check. In other words, a tape measurement should be completely accurate if the lens is marked correctly and mounted correctly, with the correct flange depth, etc.

[Jannard]

Obviously the pros check all the markings on every lens before shooting. There is a lot of focus training that needs to be addressed by those that are stepping up from a prosumer camera... or even a 2/3" camera.

Focus is serious business.

Jim

[Poi Boy]

Absolutely David, but my world, unfortunately is not that perfect. With film, tape distance matching lens barrel is a given and it is very easy to go by tape and tables to gauge dof but digital focus is far more critical and less forgiving. I have not found a tape very helpfull with digital stills and video. I find it faster and more accurate to use focus assist and careful monitoring. Whatever works for you and your budget rules.
Aloha
-A

[Jannard]

It is probably worth noting that there is not one scene in PJ's "Crossing the Line" that is out of focus (or missed focus). While focus techniques are imperative for a full frame 35mm sensor, it is not impossible. PJ and his crew used a variety of techniques. But the primary ones were focusing on the LCD when stopped down a reasonable amount, and a tape measure. Graeme's focus magic was not available for the shoot.

Jim

[Shawn Nelson]

Jim, what was their typical aperture settings for "Crossing the Line"?

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, I saw a couple "borderline" soft shots in the PJ short, nothing objectionable or unusual, just one of those "that close-up of the soldier looks a bit like the focus was just beyond the eyeballs" sort of thing. Considering how fast they were working, it's amazing that the whole movie is as sharp as it is.

From what I heard from the DP, they were working in the middle range, f/5.6 to f/8, during most of the day, although you can see some wider-open stuff once the light was dropping, like that night-for-day shot where they lit-up the ground with HMI's (I think it's when the soldier is crawling towards the photo on the ground before the tank rolls over it???)

F/8 isn't unusual considering that in direct sunlight, it's usually slightly over an f/16 at 50 ASA, so if they were rating the camera at 250 ASA, you'd need an ND1.2 (4-stops) to get to 16 ASA, which would be around an f/8 in frontal sunlight and an f/5.6-4.0 in backlight.

[Jannard]

There were quite a few instances where scenes were shot f2.8. Particularly in the early morning. Both days shooting began around 6-7am. There were also times when there was considerable cloud cover. And we shot into the evening. The range of light varied greatly.

Jim

[Poi Boy]

I would say that a couple of years down the Red road no one will use a tape. It will go down as an old film thing.
Aloha
-A

[istvanttt]

.....
This is another one of those areas where there needs to be a paradigm shift away from what's always been done in the past. It should be possible for an operator to get focus accurately. I do agree though that if the subject is moving it's a lot easier with a puller.

So you don't see the charme of having just the eyes in the main focus?

Personally I just cannot imagine a narrative work without a focus-poller, who's "craft" participates a lot in the creativity of the movie.

[seank]

our first job on the day we had boris and natasha was to ensure the lens witness marks were accurate to the sensor plane. they were perfect. taking this for granted on any shoot can result in calamity. i found, on a shoot like this, that a tape measure (old style that it is) was the safest way as a tape also allows you to memorise natural marks before and behind the actor for those unexpected moves. time was not something we had alot of. i have used digital tapes and as with all aspects of film making believe that different situations call for varied techniques. tapes do tend to teach distance perception very well so please dont disregard them. pardon my ignorance, but what is a graeme focus magic?
hope to see the movie next week!!! feel like i'm missing out....sort of

[Andy Taplin]

So you don't see the charme of having just the eyes in the main focus?

Personally I just cannot imagine a narrative work without a focus-poller, who's "craft" participates a lot in the creativity of the movie.

I'm just looking for RED to incorporate some innovative technologies (which they are doing) that enable solo operators (not just working on dramas or features) to achieve accurate focus with narrow DOF at high res.

Maybe I should have said 'achieving focus' rather than 'pulling focus' which of course are two different things.

I didn't realise that I would get so much stick for daring to suggest there might be another way other than focus pullers with tape measures.

They are extremely skilled as I said before (I personally would not use the word craftsmen or women) but if RED is going have broad use in other areas of production like doco, corporate, TV it needs to be more than just a digital Panavision.

[Stuart English]

RED ONEs focus assist feature will certainly let the solo operator "achieve focus". The difference between that and dynamically pulling focus on actors etc is where electronics currently steps aside and human skills take over.

[Finner]

I would say that a couple of years down the Red road no one will use a tape. It will go down as an old film thing.
Aloha
-A

I have a $1,000 says your wrong. Care to take that bet and make me some money?

[Steve Gibby]

RED ONEs focus assist feature will certainly let the solo operator "achieve focus".

That answers the question that the Lordnumberzero asked in his thread-opening post:

“Is the resolution of the LCD aided by the focus assist sufficient to see if things are in focus?”

I share your opinion on this, which I expressed in post 18, 50, and 60, that in using RED One for multiple cine style and EFP style genres and sub-genres of production, especially in those requiring mostly medium to deep DOF, that solo operators will be able to achieve focus using the LCD + Magic Focus Assist or EVF + Magic Focus Assist.


The difference between that and dynamically pulling focus on actors etc is where electronics currently steps aside and human skills take over.

There’s no doubt that in using RED One for narrative cinema and its closely related genres of production that manually measurement, AC eyeballing, and focus pullers will also be used in the workflow. That said, and I’m singing to the choir here, in my posts on this thread I went out of my way to mention that narrative cinema is but one of a broad array of cine style and EFP style genres and sub-genres of production that RED One will be used for, and that many of those other production types will not involve actors at all, don’t usually require hyper-shallow DOF, and will be generally shot at apertures between f5.6 and f11, so that, coupled with the ability to achieve focus with the LCD + Magic Focus or EVF + Magic Focus, single operator focusing with RED One for those genres of production is enabled and achievable.


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


Speaking to the forum, rather than to RED Team, because I feel RED Team totally understands what I say below:

Time and again threads on RED User get pulled into a context of a narrative cinema only viewpoint. Narrative cinema has traditionally received a lot of attention from the press and the public because of the high-profile nature of the genre. But the fact remains that narrative cinema productions are a small percentage of the professional motion media productions worldwide, year in and year out. The overwhelming majority of motion media productions worldwide each year are EFP style and other non-narrative cinema cine-style productions. It’s very confusing to users and interested parties from all those other genres and sub-genres of production to visit RED User and find threads where those who’s work is largely limited to a narrative cinema workflow are telling them that they absolutely can’t focus RED One alone, that they’ll need to use a tape measure, and that an AC must be used with RED One – without also being told that narrative cinema is only one of the genres that RED One can be used for, and that many other potential genres and shooting environments won’t have those same requirements. IMO narrative cinema needs to be respected for the rich tradition it has engendered, but also kept in perspective as merely one of the many workflows and traditions in the motion media industry – and only one of the many genres and workflows enabled by RED One.

I work in a broad array of cine-style and EFP style genres and sub-genres that will be enabled by RED One – but I haven’t yet chosen to work in narrative cinema. I respect narrative cinema, but that’s not where my interests have led me in my career. Do I consider myself a second-class citizen in the motion media industry because I haven’t chosen to do narrative cinema? Absolutely not – and nobody else with a similar career track should either. Respect should be a 2-way street between workers in the many genres of motion media production.

Proven methods and technologies are fine, but new ideas and technology are inevitable - and what works for one workflow may not be necessary for another. With media convergence nearly everybody is cross training in technology, skill sets, and genres – or if they aren’t IMO they should be in order to maximize their professional and fiscal opportunities with emerging camera systems like RED One.

The diversity of this forum is it’s key strength - but collective diversity doesn’t always equate to individual diversity. It is a combination of open minds, constructive input, and emerging technology that will further the boundaries of the convergent motion media industry.

[Clayton Harper]

That answers the question that the Lordnumberzero asked in his thread-opening post:

“Is the resolution of the LCD aided by the focus assist sufficient to see if things are in focus?”


Gibby, I love how you are always on point. :)

Thanks, Stuart!

[Andy Taplin]

Time and again threads on RED User get pulled into a context of a narrative cinema only viewpoint. Narrative cinema has traditionally received a lot of attention from the press and the public because of the high-profile nature of the genre. But the fact remains that narrative cinema productions are a small percentage of the professional motion media productions worldwide, year in and year out. The overwhelming majority of motion media productions worldwide each year are EFP style and other non-narrative cinema cine-style productions. It’s very confusing to users and interested parties from all those other genres and sub-genres of production to visit RED User and find threads where those who’s work is largely limited to a narrative cinema workflow are telling them that they absolutely can’t focus RED One alone, that they’ll need to use a tape measure, and that an AC must be used with RED One – without also being told that narrative cinema is only one of the genres that RED One can be used for, and that many other potential genres and shooting environments won’t have those same requirements. IMO narrative cinema needs to be respected for the rich tradition it has engendered, but also kept in perspective as merely one of the many workflows and traditions in the motion media industry – and only one of the many genres and workflows enabled by RED One.

I work in a broad array of cine-style and EFP style genres and sub-genres that will be enabled by RED One – but I haven’t yet chosen to work in narrative cinema. I respect narrative cinema, but that’s not where my interests have led me in my career. Do I consider myself a second-class citizen in the motion media industry because I haven’t chosen to do narrative cinema? Absolutely not – and nobody else with a similar career track should either. Respect should be a 2-way street between workers in the many genres of motion media production.

Proven methods and technologies are fine, but new ideas and technology are inevitable - and what works for one workflow may not be necessary for another. With media convergence nearly everybody is cross training in technology, skill sets, and genres – or if they aren’t IMO they should be in order to maximize their professional and fiscal opportunities with emerging camera systems like RED One.

The diversity of this forum is it’s key strength - but collective diversity doesn’t always equate to individual diversity. It is a combination of open minds, constructive input, and emerging technology that will further the boundaries of the convergent motion media industry.

Well said Gibby. I too work in many fields but not cinema - I like the autonomy of doing lots of different things, directing, producing, writing, shooting, editing, compositing etc and this variety keeps me working most days of the year - but I also know my limitations!

RED should be the camera for all of us and I see no reason why it can't fulfill this promise with the right system behind it.

[Finner]

Hi Steve,

I totally understand everything you are saying. I have shot both eng and efp and don't doubt for a second that you could do that style of shooting with a RED camera. That said EFP and ENG is shot in a VERY different style then cine shooting. Not a bad style but you just have to use your mind and shoot in a way that works for a 1 man band shooter and it is very challenging and interesting. I do not see the problem you mention being in any way a "cine superiority" issue and I believe many others that are cine based have a lot of respect for anyone out there that can go out as a 1 person crew and create a beautiful well shot piece.

Where I see the problem is newbee's with limited experience or understanding of how a movie set works stating that a focus pullers job is unskilled and not really nessesary. That because they shot a 2 minute short with a dvx 100 and now they are experts at knowing what is needed and not to make a movie and focus pullers are a waste of money. There are focus pullers out there that have made it their entire career most are extremely tech savy and smart. If there was a better system then a tape measure don't you think they would figure it out. A focus puller does this job everyday and uses many different tools and techniques to achive focus. New technology is added to a focus pullers bag of tricks all the time. When you break it all down though the tape measure is most often the quickest best tool for the job. It's just the ignorance and disrespect towards focus pullers from people that have barely an inch of a clue that pisses me and others off. You would react the same way if people started saying "well its just eng and efp shooting so you guys dont need a tripod." or "Eng & Efp shooting can just use a lense stabilizer to get a steady shot. A lense stablizer will work for everything they do" and I could go on with a bunch more but you can see how clueless statements like this would upset you. Steve you are one of the first to educate and inform peolpe that make wrongful statements about efp and eng shooting. That is all that is happening here. There are ignorant ill informed statements being made and experienced members on here end up banging our heads against the wall trying to explain why a focus puller does their job the way they do and why they are valuable to closed minded inexperienced people.


Obviously the pros check all the markings on every lens before shooting. There is a lot of focus training that needs to be addressed by those that are stepping up from a prosumer camera... or even a 2/3" camera.

Focus is serious business.

Jim

I completely believe that eng/efp style shooters will be able to use their bag of tricks and skills to achive great work by themselves and have things in focus. Like Jim states though "FOCUS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS". It just would be nice if some people with limited or no cine experience would catch a clue and be open to the comments and advice given by ASC and other IATSE professionals that have done a bunch of work in the cine genre for many years.

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason that the discussions revolving around the RED camera are focused on narrative cinema is that when you design a 4K camera with 35mm-style depth of field using 35mm optics... you are primarily designing a camera to match the visual qualities of 35mm production.

And the 35mm format has primarily been used for narrative cinema, plus high-end commercials and music videos, often those with "cinematic" styles.

There are already plenty of ENG-style cameras with enough resolution for HDTV broadcast applications, and the extra depth of field from 2/3" sensors and whatnot are probably better suited anyway for those types of shoots.

It seems to me that the whole point of the RED camera is to bring 35mm-quality & photographic style to moving digital images. Now that of course is an interesting prospect to people who shoot EPK/EPF work, or documentaries, even wedding videos, where 35mm was rarely used because of cost and convenience issues... but this would be a rather new way of shooting these types of projects.

Hence why I don't think anyone should be surprised that the talk about the RED camera is focused on the types of productions that would traditionally use 35mm -- which tends to be narrative cinema.

It's the reverse when you talk about a 3-CCD ENG camcorder that only does 1080i, let's say, where narrative cinema would be a less likely application compared to EPK/EFP, news, whatnot. In that case, imagine if someone complained in a forum for such a camera that people weren't thinking of this ENG camera more as a cinema camera for narrative work?

Yes, the RED camera will have lots and lots of applications, which we will be reminded of constantly, but I don't think it's strange that people are thinking of it primarily as a digital cinema camera, not a broadcast video camera. If you're just going to treat it like it's a Panasonic Varicam, why not just buy one of those? The RED camera is more than just a bargain-priced 24P/1080 camcorder, but it seems to me that some people are thinking of it in those terms.

[Joel Kaye]

It just would be nice if some people with limited or no cine experience would catch a clue and be open to the comments and advice given by ASC and other IATSE professionals that have done a bunch of work in the cine genre for many years.

First, I don't think anyone is dismissing focus pullers. Maybe I missed a post... I think some people, myself included have WONDERED/HYPOTHESIZED out loud that maybe SOME people will make due without tape measures. Maybe not. Who knows at this point.

Second, why bother repeating the same thing over and over? Let 'em think what they want. The day they go shoot is the day of reckoning. When they come home with a bunch of soft stuff you can say "See, I told you so".

I've shot enough 16mm film, HD and 35mm adapter stuff to know focus is a real issue. But I've also been stunned at how useful JVC's focus assist has been when using my 35mm adapter. You literally can feather in focus during a take by watching it... so you can combine it with your instincts about distance and anticipation of an actors movements.

I'm hoping Graeme's thing is as useful. He notes "maximally sharp" will be represented. I think a focus puller will be able to use that info live during a take to feather in maximally sharp, but I don't know at this point. It's one reason I think Graeme should consider painting some focus assist info in the frame itself as opposed to only histograms on the sides.

I'm sure you guys are right about many people not having the ability to pull focus because they don't have the required talent.

[Craig Schober]

First, I don't think anyone is dismissing focus pullers. Maybe I missed a post... I think some people, myself included have WONDERED/HYPOTHESIZED out loud that maybe SOME people will make due without tape measures. Maybe not. Who knows at this point.

Second, why bother repeating the same thing over and over? Let 'em think what they want. The day they go shoot is the day of reckoning. When they come home with a bunch of soft stuff you can say "See, I told you so".

I've shot enough 16mm film, HD and 35mm adapter stuff to know focus is a real issue. But I've also been stunned at how useful JVC's focus assist has been when using my 35mm adapter. You literally can feather in focus during a take by watching it... so you can combine it with your instincts about distance and anticipation of an actors movements.

I'm hoping Graeme's thing is as useful. He notes "maximally sharp" will be represented. I think a focus puller will be able to use that info live during a take to feather in maximally sharp, but I don't know at this point. I'm sure you guys are right about many people not having the ability to pull focus because they don't have the required talent.

no one would dismiss a focus puller's skill or need but all this "focus pulling is an art" talk is overblown. that's like saying a film mag loader or negative cutter is an art. focus pulling is simply a job that machines or robots cannot yet perform and that a lazy dp doesn't want to or cannot perform themselves. someone explain the rules of pulling focus for me besides:

1. measure distance from camera to actor's eyes
2. keep actor's eyes in focus at all times
3. if it's a 2 shot, director decides where the focus falls

am i missing anything?


ignore this post if you're annoyed like me about red's slight shipping delay. actually, everyone ignore me. thanks.

[Andy Taplin]

Finally some support, thanks wigby.

I never said focus pullers where not skilled or valuable. But like Stedicam opps, boom swingers, grips these are technical jobs sometimes with a degree of sensitivity to the subject and situation.

Here in the UK there are no BAFTA craft awards for these positions. But I say again, in case I'm still being misunderstood, they are valuable and skilled and important to the success of the production.

[Steve Gibby]

Finner,

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, and I made a point of emphasizing in my posts that in a narrative cinema workflow certain techniques would be retained. I’m not strictly an EFP/ENG guy, but rather a “both” guy. I understand and work in both workflow styles, although by preference I like a mobile EFP style, world travel scenario for my work. Each workflow and genre has its own nuances and demands. Breadth and depth of skill sets are the hallmark of progressive professionals – and a non-union environment with a flexible camera system like RED One enables that. I feel that Graeme's Magic Focus will potentially help open up some new workflow and crew options in multiple genres of production, but for various reasons the narrative cinema industry will remain very traditional in their workflow approach for some time to come.


David,

RED didn’t just design a 4k camera system with 35mm DOF and optics, but rather a 2540p/4k/2k/1080p/720p camera system that uses S35mm/35mm still/S16mm/b4 2/3’ optics. All of those resolutions and lens options were consciously designed into Red One from the very beginning of the project to enable a broad range of cine-style and EFP style production uses of RED One. RED One was stated from the very beginning to be a digital cinema camera system that was also developed for extensive EFP usage. Those who have been active on RED forums from the announcement of RED One understand that. I can provide a long list of links that support that, but for simplicity sake, read my published interview with Jim Jannard almost 14 months ago:

Link: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/6388.html

I was one of the invited attendees to the very first RED One camera specification meeting at Oakley headquarters in December 2005, and I’ve contributed extensive suggestions to the development of the camera system ever since – thus I’m totally aware of the designed use intentions for RED One.

No doubt the 35mm format has been used extensively for many other genres of production beyond narrative cinema. That’s why in my posts I separated narrative cinema from other cine-style production genres. You named a few, commercials & music videos, but the list continues beyond that do not involve actors (certain docs, nature films, etc.) or significant use of shallow DOF.

RED One was conceived as a digital cinema camera system that was designed to be used in a broad range of cine-style and EFP style production genres. The EFP capabilities were not a design afterthought, but very intentional, and narrative cinema is only one of those intended uses of RED One.

If people are speaking of RED One as both a digital cinema camera and an EFP camera – it’s because that is exactly what it’s stated design function was from the very beginning of the project. That’s also exactly why there are all those formats, lens options, and diverse accessories offered. IMO it is those who in recent times got interested in RED One, who haven’t researched the history of RED One development, and who specialize in traditional narrative cinema workflows, that now seek to claim RED One as their own semi-exclusive tool. I also think that traditional 35mm workers are having a hard time adjusting to the media convergence reality that with a versatile camera system like RED One, other motion media shooters that 35mm workers have usually viewed as being somehow aesthetically and professionally inferior (TV, video, etc.) will now have the affordable opportunity to use the same camera system as them - RED One. I think some traditional 35mm egos are bruised by that concept – that the supposedly “inferior” workers of EFP are storming the gates of the traditional 35mm citadel. I’ve been in this industry way too long not to have noticed the prejudice between certain factions. As a worker in both workflows, I feel its time to do away with those barriers and unite as one cohesive motion media industry. IMO RED One should be a unifying technology, rather than a divisional accelerant.

[Adrian T.]

1. measure distance from camera to actor's eyes
2. keep actor's eyes in focus at all times
3. if it's a 2 shot, director decides where the focus falls

am i missing anything?

Timing and characteristics of racking the focus.
Prediction of movements.

It's in a way the same art as operating the camera where we also need the skills of perfect timing and prediction of movements in addition to framing.

Manual focus pulling will not be replaced by "robots" for a long time.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

no one would dismiss a focus puller's skill or need but all this "focus pulling is an art" talk is overblown. that's like saying a film mag loader or negative cutter is an art. focus pulling is simply a job that machines or robots cannot yet perform and that a lazy dp doesn't want to or cannot perform themselves. someone explain the rules of pulling focus for me besides:

1. measure distance from camera to actor's eyes
2. keep actor's eyes in focus at all times
3. if it's a 2 shot, director decides where the focus falls

am i missing anything?


ignore this post if you're annoyed like me about red's slight shipping delay. actually, everyone ignore me. thanks.

Stay in focus, man. Focus is not just a technical thing, it is more a tool to guide the eyes of the spectator (public?) through the picture/story. So it's more a question about concept and style. And for that, you need someone who feel, when actors/cameras are moving and where the principal action will be.

[TimothyD]

As a worker in both workflows, I feel its time to do away with those barriers and unite as one cohesive motion media industry. IMO RED One should be a unifying technology, rather than a divisional accelerant.

I couldn't agree more. And I'd like to add that as someone who has had very little chance to work with film, I welcome adding tricks and techniques from the cinema style of shooting to my arsenal. Red will help make that possible for me...

In addition, the most important aspect of the Red for me at least, is not that it is serious competition for 35mm film cameras, and their digital rivals, but that it is very obviously the highest quality video camera in its price range by a factor of nine or more...

As someone who is looking at either the Sony XDCAM format or Pansonic's HPX-500 as an alternative, I see Red as the most important innovation in my career to date, and quite possibly until my retirement in about 30-40 years. (yeah, I know that is optimistic, but look at how big a change this really is for ENG/EFP in terms of quality and workflow)

It is very surprising to me that there aren't more ENG/EFP people on this forum already. By this time next year we will probably outnumber the narrative cinema people by ten to one or more...

Peace,

Tim

[Stuart English]

So to return to the question first posed on this thread. Is the LCD sufficient to set critical focus ?

To back up the LCD's native WISIWG capability we have two other modes of focus assistance which are available to both the RED-EVF and RED-LCD feeds - which are 1280 x 848 pixel and 1024 x 600 pixel displays respectively.

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected portion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

b) Focus Assist : - i.e. the graphical representation of the focus within a selected area of the 4K image (as previewed at NAB with a stills mockup)

[Alex Boothby]

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

Excellent! Is this active during rec-pause mode, rec mode & playback? Very happy. :w00t:

[David Mullen ASC]

It is very surprising to me that there aren't more ENG/EFP people on this forum already. By this time next year we will probably outnumber the narrative cinema people by ten to one or more...


I'm sure you do already - there are a lot more people working in those fields in general, worldwide.

It works both ways, you know... if the EFP/EPK people (which I've done for a living myself, by the way) feel that the "cinema" people are looking down on them, one gets the reverse impression that the EFP/EPK people seem to feel that what cinema workers do for a living can't be all that hard. There's a cultural divide there that needs to be recognized.

Despite the fact the RED camera can be used in both worlds (and let's not kid ourselves, this is nothing new - the F900 has been used on feature films and 35mm used for non-cinema uses) it won't necessarily be used in the same way.

When people like me try to warn people used to shooting with 2/3" and smaller sensor cameras about the problems of focus-pulling with 35mm-style depth of field, remember that people like me have worked with both technologies. And I've shot EPK's, infomercials, documentaries, etc. -- that's mainly how I stayed afloat financially in the late 1990's. Plus I've shot eight features in HD.

I even did a F900 HD narrative feature with a director who came out of shooting documentaries in Digital Betacam, which would mean the same depth of field characteristics, and he even had trouble getting around the problems of focusing for HD instead of SD. He wanted to operate handheld and pull his own focus, so I was sitting at a 14" HD monitor as the DP, watching his work, and kept telling him everytime the shot was soft. After awhile, he said "I don't get it -- I don't have all these focus problems when I shoot in Digital Betacam!" The thing was that he probably did have the same focus problems, it's just that standard def is a lot more forgiving. And that was a movie shot on a 2/3" CCD camera -- now imagine 4X the resolution and half the depth of field.

Sure, most of what I have to say is mainly applicable for narrative productions with actors and anyone doing something very different can pretty much ignore my comments. But there's no way that everytime I make a post, I somehow touch on the needs of every possible type of production. Which is why when talking about focus-pulling issues, I try to mention things like "scenes with actors" so people are clear that I'm not talking about a documentary or an EPK interview situation or shooting wildlife, whatever. If you want to know how to pull focus on a telephoto lens as a lion is charging straight at the camera, talk to a wildlife cinematographer.

[Adrian T.]

If you want to know how to pull focus on a telephoto lens as a lion is charging straight at the camera, talk to a wildlife cinematographer.

...if he's still alive after that shoot! :blink:

[Steve Gibby]

So to return to the question first posed on this thread. Is the LCD sufficient to set critical focus ?

To back up the LCD's native WISIWG capability up we have two other modes of focus assistance which are available to both the RED-EVF and RED-LCD feeds - which are 1280 x 848 pixel and 1024 x 600 pixel displays respectively.

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

b) Focus Assist : - i.e. the graphical representation of the focus within a selected area of the 4K image (as previewed at NAB with a stills mockup)

That's great news Stuart! I was hoping RED One would have those types of capabilities for both the EVF and LCD - and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. To see them confirmed is really cool. If those features are activated when the team of directors, DPs, cinematographers, FX guys, and editors tests my RED #8 camera in Los Angeles, we'll test them out thoroughly. They sound like they have the potential to be extremely important tools for achieving focus at 4k resolution on down with the camera.

Again, thanks for adding those capabilities to the camera...

[Poi Boy]

That is great news, it will make focusing much faster than getting out the tape.
Aloha
-A

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

b) Focus Assist : - i.e. the graphical representation of the focus within a selected area of the 4K image (as previewed at NAB with a stills mockup)

Can one dear to hope that you could view the whole image on the EVF, and have the "zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio. " on the LCD - at the same time (or vica versa), that would be AWESOME!

[Steve Gibby]

When people like me try to warn people used to shooting with 2/3" and smaller sensor cameras about the problems of focus-pulling with 35mm-style depth of field, remember that people like me have worked with both technologies. And I've shot EPK's, infomercials, documentaries, etc. -- that's mainly how I stayed afloat financially in the late 1990's. Plus I've shot eight features in HD.

We share the same background you describe, in 2/3" and 35mm media, but with mine being weighted more heavily to the EFP side, and yours being weighted more heavily to the cinema side. I've also been shooting 35mm still film since 1969 and 35mm DSLRs since 2002. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying here about the DOF challenges that face people moving up from 1/3", 1/2", and 2/3" formats, but then again they have the advantage of having worked in a digital medium (video) that has a pedigree that is much closer to the technology of RED One than a film workflow, and if they will be working primarily in genres that usually call for f5.6 or smaller apertures, then DOF isn't a giant obstacle to master for them. I also think Stuart English's post on this page announcing native pixel analysis in a 1:1 ratio at 4k, and geographical representation of focus within a selected area of a 4k image will enable experienced pros to achieve accurate critical focus faster, and also potentially shorten the learning curve for the less experienced who are learning to shoot S35mm values.

I recognize and work with the challenges of both workflows. I also mentor tons of beginning and intermediate workers, teach them workshops, and write magazine articles directed at them, all the while warning them of the differences in workflow and issues they will face - like working with shallow DOF. IMO RED One will enable significantly more shooters to get “stick time” at 35mm-level shooting, thus giving them a faster learning curve for the issues involved.

As a yearly judge for many of the directing and cinematography categories for multiple national Emmy Award competitions (Prime Time, Sports, Daytime, etc.), I recognize and appreciate good directing and camera work wherever I see it, no matter what the genre. For the television programs I judge, I always appreciate good cinematic camera techniques, even if it is only included in opening/closing montages, inbumps/outbumps, etc. Many of them are cinematic in values throughout. IMO the infusion of cinematic camera techniques into television is a welcome occurrence. Beyond my camera work, as a longtime producer/director of international and national series and one-offs I always look for the best below the line skill sets I can find for my productions. People who are mono-dimensional in skills, or who have unprogressive attitudes simply don’t get hired for my productions. The cross-pollination of cine-style and EFP style production was inevitable. IMO RED One will enable that to a much higher degree than any camera system in the history of the previously separate, but rapidly converging motion media industry.

BTW, in 2007-08, with my production partner Ken Corben, we’ll be co-producing, co-directing, and do extensive cinematography with RED One on our first D-cinema feature. I’m looking forward to it! We also have four HDTV series in development. All of these productions will use RED One camera systems exclusively. Under NDA now, but more info progressively in the months ahead.

[David Mullen ASC]

To me what's interesting about the RED, to some degree, is that it shows the problems of making one camera please all people. I'm thinking in particular of the F900, which really was the first significant camera to be adopted for cinema use, narrative TV shows, whatnot, and had to be used by film crews. So they tweaked the hell out of it and complained of course about its ENG design features -- even George Lucas complained to Sony when he saw the finished F900. The cry among filmmakers was "when is someone going to build a true digital cinema camera that is not an extension of ENG/broadcast video technology?"

I actually was a little ambivalent because I found some ENG functions to be helpful in my more run & gun indie feature productions -- rather than force the F900 be a 35mm camera, I used it for what it was good for and treated it like a betacam.

But now we see on this forum some of the opposite cry -- we now have a true digital cinema camera and some video shooters are complaining about the lack of classic ENG camcorder design features.

Which to me shows that it's very hard to design one single camera to serve all needs. Even in 35mm production, we don't have that - we use Eyemos and Arri-2C's, 1000 fps high-speed cameras, VistaVision cameras, besides all the 35mm sync-sound cameras. There are specialty cameras in video too.

So while certainly both film and video crews will be able to use the RED camera and modify it to serve their needs, maybe to a higher level than possible before, there will be elements that some film crews and some video crews will feel are missing. For example, some film shooters are wedded to using a camera with an optical viewfinder. I was at a demo of the Sony F23 prototype where some European DP made some highly passionate argument that his entire art derived from his ability to look through the actual lens while shooting the scene (a bit melodramatic, I know.)

Tom Sigel, ASC, who shot and operated the Genesis camera on "Superman Returns", complained that the electronic viewfinder was not useful, even onboard 7" HD LCD's were not good enough, and operated mostly off of a hothead with a big 24" HD monitor parked next to him -- which he actually liked and felt was an improvement over an optical viewfinder, but that's not a practical solution for all shooting situations.

[Keith Nealy]

I never said focus pullers where not skilled or valuable. But like Stedicam opps, boom swingers, grips these are technical jobs sometimes with a degree of sensitivity to the subject and situation.

Andy, Steadicam ops, like boom swingers, grips these are technical jobs sometimes with a degree of sensitivity to the subject and situation?

:waaa: Now your demeaning Steadicam ops by giving them the same skill level as a grip? while you're composing and focusing your camera in 2-D, we have to do the same thing and more in a 3-D space while running backwards up a flight of stairs, not being able to see where you are going and everything must be in focus and composed perfectly and artistically in a way that flows with the scene and doesn't really call attention to itself.

This thread is getting silly. As someone who has spent over thirty years doing all forms of camerawork and directing, I have learned the value of the art and craft of many crewmembers and the "ballet" of teamwork it takes to get a good shot.

In EFP and ENG I am all for technology creating solutions to focus and other things but I also respect the hard-won confidence that some DP's have for their favorite focus-pullers.

Just like a good comedian... it's all in the precision, delivery and timing of a punchline.

aloha,

Keith

[TimothyD]

To me what's interesting about the RED, to some degree, is that it shows the problems of making one camera please all people.

Ultimately though, isn't this just bound to happen? I have to imagine that in ten years there will be an SLR sized camera that can shoot in every concievable scenario from stills of my kids graduating from high school, to blockbuster movies. Frame rates, resolution, formats, codecs, etc will probably be a non-issue because every device used to watch moving images will be computer based be it an iPhone or a 4k projector. Lenses will still of course matter, as will much of the other associated gear and the specialists who use it, but it seems like the technology is bound to hit some type of plateau when people stop caring about (noticing) increased resolution, etc...

While it may be difficult to make every type of shooter happy, it sure seems like Red is taking a huge step in that direction with a camera system that is completely modular.

Doesn't this modularity solve many of the problems you mention? Aside from the through the lens viewfinder?

Some others have also argued that this camera is too big and heavy for ENG/EFP, and I suppose that has some validity. On the other hand, I'm guessing that it won't be any heavier than the typical 2/3" cameras used for this purpose now. I for one am willing to put up with Red being similar in size and weight to my DXC-637 BetaSp I use now in order to avoid all of the compromises of the ENG/EFP competition.

Tim

[Brook Willard]

Q: How many Camera Assistants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Five: One to do it and four to tell you how they did it on the last job.

Let's stay happy and friendly in here, guys. :)

[Joel Kaye]

Can one dear to hope that you could view the whole image on the EVF, and have the "zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio. " on the LCD - at the same time (or vica versa), that would be AWESOME!

Good idea - perhaps you could toggle between 6 zones. Just centering up the blowup sucks because so much composition is off center. That's what I didn't like on the HVX... I don't want to have move the camera to check focus and then move it back. Do that 100 times in a day and you'll go crazy.

[Sanjin Jukic]

...

Tom Sigel, ASC, who shot and operated the Genesis camera on "Superman Returns", complained that the electronic viewfinder was not useful, even onboard 7" HD LCD's were not good enough, and operated mostly off of a hothead with a big 24" HD monitor parked next to him -- which he actually liked and felt was an improvement over an optical viewfinder, but that's not a practical solution for all shooting situations.

After that example I am back again on my old idea of re-inventing HMD (Head Mounted Display) like a future critical focus viewfinder for 4K.

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/viewfinder_1.jpg

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/Oakley_glasses1.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/i-glassesonline/IG-Man05a.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/i-glassesonline/anim-70inch-screen-02b.gif

[Ralph Oshiro]

So to return to the question first posed on this thread. Is the LCD sufficient to set critical focus ?

To back up the LCD's native WISIWG capability we have two other modes of focus assistance which are available to both the RED-EVF and RED-LCD feeds - which are 1280 x 848 pixel and 1024 x 600 pixel displays respectively.

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

b) Focus Assist : - i.e. the graphical representation of the focus within a selected area of the 4K image (as previewed at NAB with a stills mockup)
F-----g AWESOME, Stuart! F-----g AWESOME!

[ericyoung]

Good idea - perhaps you could toggle between 6 zones. Just centering up the blowup sucks because so much composition is off center. That's what I didn't like on the HVX... I don't want to have move the camera to check focus and then move it back. Do that 100 times in a day and you'll go crazy.

Joelnet - think that is what they are offering if you read Stuart's post more carefully. :biggrin:


... Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.
...

[Joe Aurili]

I expected a. It would be silly not to have that option. b it what I am excited about.


So to return to the question first posed on this thread. Is the LCD sufficient to set critical focus ?

To back up the LCD's native WISIWG capability we have two other modes of focus assistance which are available to both the RED-EVF and RED-LCD feeds - which are 1280 x 848 pixel and 1024 x 600 pixel displays respectively.

a) Native pixel analysis : - i.e. zoom into a selected protion of the 4K image at a 1:1 ratio.

b) Focus Assist : - i.e. the graphical representation of the focus within a selected area of the 4K image (as previewed at NAB with a stills mockup)

[Joel Kaye]

Joelnet - think that is what they are offering if you read Stuart's post more carefully. :biggrin:

As long the people doing the "selecting" are us and not them then you're right and that would be terrific. If you could could quickly wheel your way around the frame while zoomed in that would really be good. Then you could set your focus marks faster and more accurately than tape (that was a joke Finner). :-)

The zoom also needs to be selectable so the EVF can be full frame while the LCD is pixel for pixel or vice versa.

[jamesedwelland]

Couple of things about focus in my view:

whatever happens to focus pulling, developments there dont change the need for a 1st AC. Focusing is by no means all they do

Possibly one of the main reasons for a shot to be unusable is focus. So its very important. And the size of the projected image is very relevant to the problem - with TV you can ' get away' with a certian amount of off focus; on a big screen its critical.

Many focus solutions are too complicated, take too long to set up, are only useful in a certain % of situations, hence the trusty tape measure. However it seems to me that with apparent DOF reducing, with sharper projectors, lenses and TV's, and with increasing time pressures on set, a bringing together of possibly existing technologies is necessary to find a follow focus solution. It needs to be one that can be set up at the start of the day and used for all shots reliably, and still with human input.

To this end I was thinking about the focus methods in digital stills cameras. Years ago I was wondering if rather than choosing from a range of focus points, you could move the focus point to where you would like it in the frame. Some cameras I think have a system that tracks your pupil, but in a movie situaltion thats of limited use.
I was imagining the focus puller setting up at the start of the day a hand held screen that can toggle between 'magic focus' (with zoom function)and an image of the shot. Attached to this screen is a focus knob that actually controls a target like cursor, and importantly that target selects exactly which area of the picture you would like to be sharp, sending that information back to the (calibrated) lens focus motor. The knob can be used like a joystick to control the target point cursor, possibly pressing a button to engage/disengage the track focus. The knob can also be turned and marked up in the traditional way, with a display using the /i technology to show the actual lens distance. The focus puller can toggle between magic focus and image to check if desired, and the traditional turning of the knob would enable the focus puller to adjust the focus closer or further away from the selected point of focus, or to use the unit manually just like a Preston or other Lens Control System.
The unit may operate wired or wirelessly getting the lens setting from the lens i/ system and the distance information (and indeed other camera parameters) from the camera (and thus the 'film' plane) either in some available way - very accurate ultrasonics with software (the Cinetape does this but is limited to a CF of 22” and sitting on top of the camear is probably prone to parallax error?), harmless laser linked with the shutter (an available system I think) or of a very specific wavelength that is not visable to the sensor, some variation of the system used in digital stills cameras - or some other ingenious way linked with magic focus. Whatever method it needs to be very accurate and precise.
Something like this would give the focus puller one unit that could give them camera control (on/off etc), camera parameters (speed, battery, run indicator, remaining recording space, ASA etc), lens parameters (lens focal length, focus position, DOF, Iris etc), a really useful focus check (magic focus), a way to track focus electronically according to the cursor target position on the display, and a way to pull focus manually or do both at the same time, and a display of the actual shot all in one unit seperate from the camera. Something like this could really speed up the process and increase accuracy all with a human at the end of it to keep an eye on F-ups.

james

[Steve Gibby]

To me what's interesting about the RED, to some degree, is that it shows the problems of making one camera please all people. I'm thinking in particular of the F900, which really was the first significant camera to be adopted for cinema use, narrative TV shows, whatnot, and had to be used by film crews. So they tweaked the hell out of it and complained of course about its ENG design features -- even George Lucas complained to Sony when he saw the finished F900. The cry among filmmakers was "when is someone going to build a true digital cinema camera that is not an extension of ENG/broadcast video technology?"

As reflected by their own literature on the F900, Sony intentionally designed the F900 from the form factor of their Digital Betacam camcorders, and then pitched that design to filmmakers as being the form factor they should expect from a digital cinema camera. IMO it was a mistake by Sony, and the complaints of film crews about the form factor were largely justified. IMO one other factor there was the resistance to change in equipment that is obviously present in users of 35mm film equipment – in essence an attitude of “we’ve always had equipment that looked distinctively like film equipment, and we don’t want equipment that looks like video equipment because we consider ourselves to be a higher class than the TV/video shooters”.


I actually was a little ambivalent because I found some ENG functions to be helpful in my more run & gun indie feature productions -- rather than force the F900 be a 35mm camera, I used it for what it was good for and treated it like a betacam.

IMO it sounds like you were smart to utilize the camera in a “form follows function” manner. That’s good business sense – use a camera in environments and genres that it’s best suited for. I did the same with the F900…for a while.


But now we see on this forum some of the opposite cry -- we now have a true digital cinema camera and some video shooters are complaining about the lack of classic ENG camcorder design features.

IMO, over the last 17 months of daily participation in all the RED online forums, the majority of inquirers seem to understand and accept the flexible utilitarian concepts of RED One, with a minority of film types and EFP types crying for the their “comfort zone” feature sets. RED designed a digital cinema camera system that was also intended to be easily accessorized and re-lensed for EFP use. No matter what they design there will always be a certain small percentage of unhappy people.


Which to me shows that it's very hard to design one single camera to serve all needs. Even in 35mm production, we don't have that - we use Eyemos and Arri-2C's, 1000 fps high-speed cameras, VistaVision cameras, besides all the 35mm sync-sound cameras. There are specialty cameras in video too.


Hard, but not impossible – and I think RED is proving that assertion. It’s the traditional model of needing to buy or rent a separate camera system for every genre and style of production that has continually fed the bank accounts of large film and video equipment manufacturers. As a producer, the geometrically increased expense for my budgets has been a direct result of the “get a separate camera for every project, or portions thereof” requirement that has pervaded the motion media industry. The more types of shots and the more genres of production my camera systems can handle, the greater savings to me on my project budgets. Equipment manufacturers, rental houses, and unions have greatly profited from that paradigm – at the expense of us producers. RED One’s reasonable cost and broad utility are a welcome change to the fleecing of producers that we’ve had to suffer through.


So while certainly both film and video crews will be able to use the RED camera and modify it to serve their needs, maybe to a higher level than possible before, there will be elements that some film crews and some video crews will feel are missing. For example, some film shooters are wedded to using a camera with an optical viewfinder. I was at a demo of the Sony F23 prototype where some European DP made some highly passionate argument that his entire art derived from his ability to look through the actual lens while shooting the scene (a bit melodramatic, I know.)

If someone absolutely can’t stand to work without an OVF, then RED One isn’t the camera system for them. An OVF has it’s tradition, function, and adherents, but an OVF makes it necessary to keep your eye up to the viewfinder during takes, to carry various length viewfinders, the added bulk (and expense) of a mechanical shutter, etc. IMO the RED combination of an HD EVF (1280 x 768), programmable camera data in the EVF periphery, overscan to see outside the framed area, and the newly-described Magic Focus Assist capabilities (native pixel 1:1 in 4k + selective zoom to specified areas of the frame in 4k), help bring RED One into 21st Century technology for shooting. If traditionalists demand an OVF, then RED One isn’t the camera system for them. That’s not to say that at some future point RED won’t develop a separate OVF-equipped camera system:

“We have a great alternative to an optical finder in Graeme's magic invention. And the cost of an optical finder is prohibitive on this model.”

Jannard
11/2/06
DVX
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=76855



Tom Sigel, ASC, who shot and operated the Genesis camera on "Superman Returns", complained that the electronic viewfinder was not useful, even onboard 7" HD LCD's were not good enough, and operated mostly off of a hothead with a big 24" HD monitor parked next to him -- which he actually liked and felt was an improvement over an optical viewfinder, but that's not a practical solution for all shooting situations.

I’m not surprised by this. The Sony HDVF-C30W EVF has a resolution of 960 x 540. The RED One EVF will be one of the most advanced EVF’s ever marketed, with a resolution of 1280 x 768, a bunch of user-assigned button functions, and the Magic Focus Assist feature that Stuart English described yesterday. Bottom line: there’s no comparison between the F900 EVF and the RED EVF. The RED LCD will be 1024 x 600 and have basically all the functional features of the EVF, but at a slightly lower resolution. For diehards on fixed sets, the ability to easily monitor RED One in 1080p via dual HD-SDI + converter is always there.


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


The F900 is a camcorder form factor, 1920 x 1080, 24p/25p/50i/60i, 3CCD, 300ISO, f10.0 @ 10 lux, 12 bit DSP (10 bit/sample input-output, 8 bit internal sample for compression process), limited to B4 2/3” lens use, attempt by Sony to move into the digital cinema market, first introduced in 2000 (7 years ago) with the HDW f900 Panavised cameras.

RED One is a small form factor camera body (about 7 lbs) that can be accessoried outward for a long list of cine or EFP style production uses, shoots resolutions of 2540p/4k/2k/1080p/720p, uses lenses in S35mm/35mm still/S16mm/B4, 12 bit processor, HD EVF, hi-res LCD, multiple use setup accessories (RED Rail, etc), has its own line of smart lenses (i technology), shoots RAW or RGB, has processing software (REDCINE), and is designed with technology that is up to date (2007).

The F900 was the first real entry into the professional digital cinema camera market, it had many limitations, just some of which I’ve illustrated above. I was never a fan of the F900. The F900 entered the DC market 7 years before RED One. The design factor, scalability, flexibility, utility, resolutions shot, formats used, lens options, and technology of RED One so far surpass those of the F900 that IMO comparisons of field use and user reactions to the F900 have extremely little relation to the probable field use and user reactions to RED One. No matter how much flexibility, utility, and scalability RED designs into their camera systems, there will be a certain number of detractors – opinions are like noses, everybody has one. IMO RED One will shortly make the motion media industry forget that the F900 and Varicam ever existed.

[Priyesh P.]

I was at a demo of the Sony F23 prototype where some European DP made some highly passionate argument that his entire art derived from his ability to look through the actual lens while shooting the scene (a bit melodramatic, I know.)


I bet they were German...

[Michael Hastings]

I have to imagine that in ten years there will be an SLR sized camera that can shoot in every concievable scenario from stills of my kids graduating from high school, to blockbuster movies. Tim

I don't think it will be 10 years. The reason I believed that RED could pull off making this camera for $17500 the minute I saw it at NAB2006, is that a month before I had a conversation with a friend that was talking about getting an HVX200 for the 24P capability and I said I didn't see why Nikon or Canon (Nikon probably since they didn't have a broadcast lens division that would be cannibalized) didn't just speed up the frame rate and storage speed of their DSLRs and once they got to 24 frames or more they would have a big part of the cinema market as well (since the lenses were already in place). They aren't that far off now and they sell the cameras for $700. So I figured RED had an extra $17K to make the rest of it work (and the RED didn't need to miniaturize as much as an SLR either). I think this is more of the fundamental paradigm Jim hit on than trying to make a better ENG/EFP camera, and I think Nikon is more likely to be RED's next big competitor than Sony or Panasonic - not because they can't achieve the engineering but because they have to fit it in among their existing product lines.


IMO comparisons of field use and user reactions to the F900 have extremely little relation to the probable field use and user reactions to RED One.... IMO RED One will shortly make the motion media industry forget that the F900 and Varicam ever existed.

First of all let me say thanks for the well thought out posts. I agree - the F900 and Varicam are essentially video cameras with borderline capabilities for output to film theatrical presentation. As far as comparison, it would probably make more sense to compare to the Arriflex D20. The F900 and Varicam make some sense because you can buy them (you can't buy a D20) and you can use them as a highend video camera as well. The beauty of the RED is it gives us D20 or better capability at the price point of a midrange pro video camera!

[David Mullen ASC]

In all the optimistic predictions for the RED camera taking over the world and changing life as we know it, you are ignoring two factors: (1) the inherent inertia of industry and its resistance to changing its workflow habits, especially when they aren't particularly displeased with the ones they have bought and installed; (2) rental houses and private owners aren't going to junk their F900's and Varicams just because the RED exists, let alone their 35mm camera packages.

Look how long analog betacam-SP camcorders have been in use, long after you would have thought Digital Betacam and DVCPRO camcorders would have replaced them. I still run across crews shooting with old Sony BVW600's! So why would someone junk an F900 that they have paid for if all they need are 1080P or 1080i images and they are happy with the quality level?

Everytime new technology comes out, I hear the same arguments... including the one about how this new technology is nothing like the last new technology, so old models that govern prediction no longer apply. Remember all the talks about the "New Economy" during the Clinton years that said that we no longer had to worry about boom and bust periods, that the economy could just keep growing forever?

I can pretty much predict that five years from now people will be asking "I don't understand why RED didn't take over the motion picture industry like we predicted!" And the main reason why is that you guys are WAY too logical and intelligent about the whole thing, and logic and intelligence doesn't rule the TV and motion picture industries!

RED, though, certainly points to the future... but whether it will be RED ONE, RED TWO, or some Arri or Panavison or Nikon or Sony whatever copy of RED, I don't know who will become the key player over the next ten years, but something like the RED will become more and more dominant over time. But all this talk about people forgetting the F900 in the next few years is nonsense. It's got nothing to do with whether the RED is cheaper or better or anything, it mainly has to do with how many of the darn things are out there and paid for.

All those sitcom crews struggling with F900's on multi-camera shows are going to be dealing with them for a few more years, I'm afraid... Panavision's got a couple of hundred of them and they are just going to be practically giving them away over time.

[TimothyD]

I can't speculate myself on how many people will be getting rid of their F900's and Varicams, but I can say that it seems like that within its pricerange Red will destroy all competition (HPX-500, XDCAM). That surely will be the biggest impact that Red will have on the industry.

As far as the 1080p goes, there will be no other full raster camera in its price range, and to me that is pretty important. Additonally, I don't see a future for interlaced video once we move even further from "broadcast" toward computer based multicasting. So that is another huge selling point for me.

At any rate, I think the next year or two will be very different than they would have been without Red. I know they will be for me...

I'm sure Red will be slower to take hold in the cinema world than the ENG/EFP world, but that just means they will be that much more determined to make an impact there...

*Edited for clarity, as I crack open another beer*

Tim

[M Most]

Everytime new technology comes out, I hear the same arguments... including the one about how this new technology is nothing like the last new technology, so old models that govern prediction no longer apply.....I can pretty much predict that five years from now people will be asking "I don't understand why RED didn't take over the motion picture industry like we predicted!"

Excellent point. Many people today ask similar questions about the F900, and why it didn't take over television drama production, as Sony and some others had predicted (although it has, for all practical purposes, taken over multicamera sitcom production). The reasons are largely the same, then, now, and in the future.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just to clarify, I have no doubt that the RED camera will be a big success, and it certainly seems to me like a no-brainer choice for many people with that budget to spend on a camera package. I just think that in the larger production world, the next two or three years will be about seeing how the RED fits into existing production trends and modes of working... before we then see any major shifts away from currently available technologies. Obviously for people investing now in a RED camera, they will see an immediate change in the way they are working. But private owner/operators are only one part of the production picture, and RED owners will be only one part of that part.

And I can't really speak for the industries in other countries, just for the U.S. Obviously for a country that only makes a couple of features a year and a half dozen TV shows, something like the RED camera could have an dramatic effect rather quickly if it takes off there.

[laguun]

RED, though, certainly points to the future... but whether it will be RED ONE, RED TWO, or some Arri or Panavison or Nikon or Sony whatever copy of RED, I don't know who will become the key player over the next ten years, but something like the RED will become more and more dominant over time. But all this talk about people forgetting the F900 in the next few years is nonsense. It's got nothing to do with whether the RED is cheaper or better or anything, it mainly has to do with how many of the darn things are out there and paid for.

i have to agree with david for most of the points he rises. we own, operate & rent hdcam and vintage 35mm and have 2 reds on order.

out of 5 customers who plan to shoot their fullfeatures by end of the year, 2 want to go hdcam, 2 red, 1 undecided - independent of price.



All those sitcom crews struggling with F900's on multi-camera shows are going to be dealing with them for a few more years, I'm afraid... Panavision's got a couple of hundred of them and they are just going to be practically giving them away over time.
yes, and lets add another point. red will have a better image quality, more creative choices regading lenses and framerates..

however, just some scenarios where hdcam will make plenty of sense
- series.
battlestar galatica. colorcorrection in the 900/750 is pretty powerful, they do it on set. red offers better images, but they are happy the way they do it and broadcast on hd only, so they won´t benefit from the advantages of the red.
- longform documentary.
reds workflow is very good for drama etc. however, in documentary, you often have many cameras, many teams rolling all the time, dubs are done tape to tape with tc-burn in in remote locations in foreign countries - we will hardly see the necessary infrastructure in computers there anytime soon, even if its superior, as most of the broadcasters will have hdcam/dvcpro hd if any hd at their foreign bases.
- cooperation & exchange
any format which requires interchange between different non-it-centric companies. its tough, but real: >85% of all network/broadcasters won´t accept harddisk or memory cards (or film) - they want tapes. also, from an executive producers point of view, even if they COULD use redcode, there are many open question - how to guarantee TC integrity when lets say 4 people are sitting on 4 NLEs and the original media (disk) has already been copied?
- live.
intercom, camera remote, tally etc... things can be pretty wild if you have 8 cameras running etc. building a truck with 8-24 cams will be market which thomson, ikegami, sony & pananvision won´t feel red red one, and its a huge chunk of the camera market.
- knowhow.
one shouldn´t underestimate how slowmoving & thinking many people can be. some know how to shoot it on hdcam, others on 35mm, and the rather fearsome ones or slower ones will be afraid of the new challenges. heck, when we introduced HDCAM to our production pipelines, i saw several seasoned dops who wanted to start as assistant for much more unexperienced shooters, as they wouldn´t want to learn while shooting etc.

there are plenty more reasons why the red 1 will not crush sony & panasonic. in my humble opinion, red one is much more of a threat for aaton & arri camera. sony & panasonic do earn on the high sales figures of consumer/prosumer and eng/efp, where red isn´t competeting. just one examle, sony is selling >5.000 HDV Z1 per quarter in Germany alone. that market won´t be influenced by red.

The cameras who competete with red are, in my opinion mainly: 416, 435, 535, d20, penelope, xtera, 35-3, a-minima, origin, SI, millenium, genesis, viper, 750/900/23, maxbe also the xdcam hds and dvcpro hds a bit. so if we look at this list, we see how very few models of sony, panasonics and thomson are affected. look, the japaneses behemonths themself are having a hard time migrating their customers away from tape.

its something different when you have a -poject- as a movie or a TV-network infrastucture. for the project, you can use all the fantastic benefits of the red at once, for the TV-station you have to change dozens, houndreds or thousands of running and paid vcrs, qualify employees, risk proven workflows etc. as producers for one fullfeature project however, red will certainly be the best choice and easy to implement.

red takes a huge and cool chunk out of the cinema market, alone the 1500 units preordered are amazing. but the huge market is TV, and there reds advantages (superior image, superior creative options) are challenged by $10.000-15.000 cameras which are "good enough" and infrastructure - and thousands of "cameraman" who really don´t care too much about their images but about dumping their tape at the stations reception and close the day.

as david said - don´t expect to much logic from such people, and let me add - don´t expect them all to share the enthousiasm about moviemaking most members of this board certainly have.

[TimothyD]

there are plenty more reasons why the red 1 will not crush sony & panasonic. in my humble opinion, red one is much more of a threat for aaton & arri camera. sony & panasonic do earn on the high sales figures of consumer/prosumer and eng/efp, where red isn´t competeting. just one examle, sony is selling >5.000 HDV Z1 per quarter in Germany alone. that market won´t be influenced by red.


I don't think that Red One will destroy the HDV market, I'd leave that to Red Two, and I'd consider it as good as done as soon as it ships if it is even half as formidable as Red One (2k ought to do it)

Where I think Sony, Panasonic and JVC will feel the pain is in the removable lens 1/2" and 2/3" cameras in the 10,000 - 25,000 range (minus lens). After taking all of the other gear needed for a functional kit into account, the Red will be only slightly more expensive than the low end of this range, and cheaper than the high end. Who in their right mind would buy a Sony PDW-F330 or 350 when they could get a Red One instead.

I think that Sony and Panasonic will take a heavy hit in the higher end from this as well, apply what I've said above to the F23, who would buy that when they could buy a Red One? So in new sales, I bet they feel the pain.

As for the investment broadcasters have in gear and the desire to maintain a tape-based workflow, I have to say they are dreaming. Tape is dead, and for my money, as broadband gets faster and has more extensive penetration, so is "broadcasting" in the traditional sense. *duck* Digital acquisition, editing, post-production and distribution are all here, now, so the broadcasters are going to be forced to play catch up...

Sure, they want tapes now, but give it a little time and they will know better than to expect oxide as a delivery format.

Anyway, I just think that arguing about the impact on cinema and high-end broadcast misses the point that camera companies make money by selling cameras, and the more cameras they sell the more money they make. Since there are more sub 40k camera systems out at work in the field every day, I think that is where Red will have its biggest initial impact. The rest will probably take more time, and for the low end (sub 10k) it will take the "pocket" Red...

Peace,

Tim

[James T Mather]

but if RED is going have broad use in other areas of production like doco, corporate, TV it needs to be more than just a digital Panavision.

Current ENG cameras tend not to have autofocus lenses - ENG cameramen tend to crash zoom in, pull sharp and then widen out to their desired frame. That, plus experience gets the shot in focus - plus not working at wide apertures if avoidable and often working at wider focal lengths. Auto focus is generally a consumer requirement.This is because pro operators generally tend not to put anything in the centre of frame (where autofocus often guesses where you want it sharp) unless going for a framing effect.


It seems to me that on this board occassionally people want the camera to do all the work for them. Now maybe if the camera could just grip its own dolly and act in the scene. One of these days they will make a camera that operates and lights it's own shots and then we cameramen needn't show up at all.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I think Laguun is spot on.
I'm getting RED because next year I want to film a movie that I'm writing myself, and in which I can devise and control the post-production workflow. Now of course I'll use it for every other doco or short film project that I can, because it will look amazing and even more important because I'll really enjoy working with such a beautifully engineered camera and 35mm lenses. But I think that it will initially prove to be very difficult to persuade some companies to accept such a new workflow. Hell, I still get people calling me up asking if I can film their gig on a Z1, as if that's anything special! And loads of people still spec that I film at DV res...:watsup:

Affordable HD DVD players will make a big difference over here...

[Ralph Oshiro]

Sorry for the way off-topic post, but I just wanted to add to something David said here . . .


. . . rental houses and private owners aren't going to junk their F900's and Varicams just because the RED exists, let alone their 35mm camera packages.I don't think everyone's going to dump their F900s soley because of RED, but having RED out there certainly won't help their continued marketability either. I've been talking to several of my friends who own F900s about the future viability of the F900 from an owner/operator/rental perspective. One was concerned that his F900/3 has been getting passed over for 900Rs on recent rentals. My other friend asked me what I thought the market was going to be for F900s over the next year. I told him, "Dump it by the end of the year, 'cause that's when the new 2/3" Sony XDCAM HD 4:2:2 cameras are scheduled to come out." In my opinion, if ABC and NBC (the two remaining networks yet to decide on their next-generation ENG/EFP camera purchase) decide to go with the new Sony 2/3" XDCAM HD 50Mbps 4:2:2 cameras, things could change dramatically for EFP owner/operators who currently own F900s.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Again, sorry for the off-topic post . . .


All those sitcom crews struggling with F900's on multi-camera shows are going to be dealing with them for a few more years, I'm afraid... Panavision's got a couple of hundred of them and they are just going to be practically giving them away over time.The multi-camera sitcom guys may stay with their Panavised F900s, but one-hour dramas who have been forced to go "F900" in recent months (and, in recent years, for some shows now) may be seriously looking at a more appealing choice . . . RED.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Now back to your regularly scheduled, "Critical focus on LCD" thread. All this sounds like great news! I'm going to go with the LCD. I'll miss those extra dedicated buttons, but I think I'll be fine.

[M Most]

Again, sorry for the off-topic post . . .

The multi-camera sitcom guys may stay with their Panavised F900s, but one-hour dramas who have been forced to go "F900" in recent months (and, in recent years, for some shows now) may be seriously looking at a more appealing choice . . . RED.

There are very, very few network dramas on F900's. In fact, the only ones I can think of off-hand are "Jericho" and "Close to Home." The vast, vast majority of networks dramas are shot on film, primarily 3 perf 35mm. There are a few on 16mm, and fewer on Genesis. This year's pilots followed pretty much the same pattern (the vast majority on 35mm film).

The one exception to this is cable, specifically Showtime - which insists on HD video for all of its original production. HBO, on the other hand, has almost all of its original programming (all dramas, plus some single camera comedy, such as "Entourage") on film.

[Steve Gibby]

Overview of Packaging and Independent Production for the Television Industry

Firstly, let me summarize my professional background so it’s clear that I know the TV industry well. Over a 30-year career as an executive producer, producer, director, DP, and cinematographer, I have contributed to over 800 international and national TV programs that aired on 12 different broadcast and cable networks. I’ve received Emmy Awards, served multiple terms on the Board of Governors for the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS-PSW), and each year I’m an invited judge for multiple national Emmy Awards competitions (Daytime, Sports, etc.). In fact, this week, between my normal work, I’m serving as a judge for various categories of the Daytime Entertainment Emmy Awards. All of my work has been non-union, thus I’ve had the opportunity to spread my skill sets and experience to virtually every above the line and below the line position for television production. The largest percentage of the programs I’ve contributed to were non-hardlined EFP, but I’ve also contributed to a significant number of hardlined EFP, and a scattering of ENG productions.

The majority of all motion media productions worldwide each year are non-hardlined EFP productions, thus the large majority of TV productions worldwide are non-hardlined EFP productions. That said, broadcast and cable networks produce in-house (by themselves) only a small percentage of the total number of non-hardlined TV productions each year. The vast majority of those series and one-off programs are produced by independent production companies and producers known as Packagers. There are large packagers, who do several series per year for multiple networks, and boutique packagers who do maybe only one series or a few one-off programs per year. Packagers are “indies”, pure and simple. I function as a contract independent contractor for multiple packagers, I also package my own branded series and one-offs, and I co-produce series and one-offs with various other producers.

As a packager, and independent contractor for other packagers, I’ve always been in close contact with the key programming executives for multiple networks, and I routinely pitch series and one-off proposals to them. After 30 years of working in the independent packaging of television programming, and as a key contractor for other packagers, I have a sizeable Rolodex of direct contacts in the TV industry, as you might expect. I’m cleared and invited to pitch series and one-off ideas directly to multiple networks, something I do regularly.

Networks utilize a packager system because it would be absolutely impossible for them to staff the crews and equipment to produce all of their programming themselves. Networks only produce a select few series and specials by themselves, with the remaining majority of programming being packaged and independently produced. Up to the mid-90’s there were credit rolls for packaged and independent work. Since then you mostly see a quick graphic for the packager of independent producer at the end of the programs.

Quality control of programs is maintained via strict Producer’s Guidelines that are distributed to all packagers and independent producers. These Producer’s Guidelines are comprehensive and precise in what they expect for programs delivered to them, right down to the technical specifications for acquisition, graphics, and delivery.

RED One Potential for Packaging and Independent Production of Television Programming

If you review my “EFP and ENG Explanations” sticky at the top of the EFP/ENG for RED forum, I give a brief opinion on the potential utility for RED One in Non-Hardlined EFP (huge), Hardlined EFP (moderate), and ENG (limited). Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1105

For several months now me and my production partner (Ken Corben) have been pitching various networks for several new HDTV series we have in development that will be produced entirely using RED One cameras. Beyond our resumes, demo material, and sizzle pieces, a key selling point of our concepts has been the use of RED One on those series. We’ve yet to receive a single negative reaction to our intended use of RED One. In fact, over the long period of time since I reserved my first RED One camera, before I formed my alliance with Corben, I’ve been in contact with numerous key programming executives for the networks I have a relationship with, all the while getting them up to speed on the development of RED One, my view of how RED One could be integrated into program production, the technical aspects of such, and inclusion of RED One into their accepted acquisition equipment in their Producer’s Guidelines. Intending to use RED One in my productions entails educating my contacts about the camera system and its potential use.

So, what has been the reaction of network programming executives in my sphere of contact? Overwhelmingly positive. Most of them began investigating RED shortly after the announcement of RED and their camera system. Most of them have also sent staff to NAB, IBC, Cine Gear, and 4k RED screenings (L.A.) to check out RED first hand. I’m not at liberty to give names and networks of who I’m talking about. IMO their primary focus is on the use of RED One by packagers and independent producers in Non-Hardlined EFP productions, followed by significant interest in potential integration of RED One into their in-house Non-Hardlined EFP productions, and to a certain extent some potential use in their in-house Hardlined EFP productions. ENG (news) and other quick turnaround programming has it’s unique set of challenges, they have legacy investments in equipment, and their investigation of RED One for those specific genres is limited. Keep in mind what I said above – Non-hardlined EFP is the largest percentage of the overall total of TV programming, most of it is produced by packagers and independent producers, and it is also IMO the most likely the category for early and wide integration of RED One into the industry.

Feedback I’m getting from networks centers on the quality of the original images that will be generated by RED One. They obviously like the idea of 1080i and 720p programs downsampled from 4k and 2k originated footage, the use of high-quality optics in the process, etc. Obviously now if they would compress, uplink, and downlink higher quality copies of the programs all us packagers would be happier. If they would go to 1080p and higher data rates, the shows would look a lot better at broadcast or cablecast.

Delivery of finished programs, for the time being, will remain via HDCAM airing masters. For packagers who don’t maintain an HDCAM deck in-house, that’s as simple as taking a hard drive with their finished program, and a copy of the Producer’s Guidelines spec page to a duplication house and having a HDCAM airing master dubbed from it. I believe that over time RED One using packagers will be able to simply deliver their edited airing masters on hard drive to the networks, where the networks will either dub it over to HDCAM themselves, or bypass that step and integrate the hard drive material straight into their media servers. The technical requirements of integrating RED One into the overall packager and in-house programming scenario are being analyzed and solved as we speak.


Summary

You can choose to accept or reject the info I’ve provided above. IMO wise packagers and independent producers of television programming should be taking a hard look at how to integrate RED One into their acquisition workflow and pitches to networks. Many packagers/producers, who compete with you for those series approvals and contracts (like Gibby/Corben), have already done that or are in the process of it. Those of you who are in denial of RED One’s potential rapid and deep integration into the television industry, many of whom have posted on this thread, are welcome to your opinion. I actually enjoy it because in essence though we’re associates on this forum, many of you are potential competitors for available broadcast network and cable network packaged series and one-off approvals. You can do me and my associated producers a favor and go on believing that way – or do yourself a favor and open your minds up to the realities of an evolving marketplace for television programming.

[Billy Summers]

Well said Gibby-

B.

[Ralph Oshiro]

But Gibby, tell us what you REALLY think!

[Steve Gibby]

But Gibby, tell us what you REALLY think!

OK, here goes:

forrest trees

[Ralph Oshiro]

So, meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

According to what I've gleaned from those inside RED with knowledge of the EVF/LCD who have posted here, the LCD will be usable for critical focus, and will include both the "magic" focus assist and false color exposure assist features. Other than slightly lower resolution, and a few somewhat less-important features (color matix control over VF display), the LCD will still be a fairly capable primary viewing option as I see it.

[Steve Gibby]

So, meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

According to what I've gleaned from those inside RED with knowledge of the EVF/LCD who have posted here, the LCD will be usable for critical focus, and will include both the "magic" focus assist and false color exposure assist features. Other than slightly lower resolution, and a few somewhat less-important features (color matix control over VF display), the LCD will still be a fairly capable primary viewing option as I see it.

I agree. I'll be buying the EVF and LCD because I need both of them for the stuff I do. Sometimes I'll be running one or the other, and sometimes both at once. I'll use a sun hood on the LCD for outdoor use. From what I saw at NAB, both of them will be really good tools, and when you add in the Magic Focus features Stuart English described, there's the icing on the cake.

Lookin' forward to testing them out on #8! We'll get a lot of answers about 'em then...

[David Mullen ASC]

Gibby, I recognize and respect your vast experience and credentials in the field... but you do recognize that as a buyer of RED cameras and someone now pitching TV projects that will use your RED cameras, and that aspect being one of your selling points... that you are not entirely objective or neutral on the subject, but have a vested interest -- financial & emotional -- in having your predictions come true?

Imagine if I invested in a new Arri 416 Super-16 camera and then started posting here about how the future of everything in TV and film will move to Super-16 as the dominant acquisition format. People would say "you're only saying that because you bought a Super-16 camera."

Plus should your predictions come true and the RED is used extensively in your field, then you'd no longer have that particular edge over your competition and it would be back to the traditional things that lead to success in the industry (and have lead to your success already): talent, creativity, contacts, credits, etc.

Technology is constantly evolving and we all have to keep up with the changes, but by the very nature of the fact that it is a moving target, ulitmately there are bigger core issues that matter more in the creative fields, that are more eternal than what camera you are using today.

I've deliberately made a point of being as neutral as possible on the tools out there -- I alternate between Kodak and Fuji when I shoot film, I don't have a favorite lens manufacturer, I don't really care about Sony versus Panasonic, and I shoot both digitally and in film. I personally own two light meters -- that's it as far as my "kit". When the RED camera is available for rental, I will probably find the right project to use that camera on and get to know its strengths and weaknesses; maybe it will become a common tool that I reach for, maybe not, I don't know yet. I want it to succeed just as I want anything good to succeed, because I want good options to choose from.

Now obviously owner/operators and independent production companies do have to make a bigger financial commitment to a particular technology and put their money where their mouth is, and I respect that. I'm only bringing up the issue of objectivity, because over the years I have found that if someone owns a hammer, everything looks like a nail to them. The people most resistent to incoming HD technology were not, oddly enough, film shooters -- they were people who had just spent a fortune on a Digital Betacam camera. So you'd hear these endless arguments from them about how "HD isn't necessary, HD is a fraud, audiences don't care about HD, SD uprezzed to HD looks like HD and no one can tell the difference"... but it was hard not think "you're saying that because you are invested financially in SD equipment and don't want to upgrade." So the fact that RED buyers are the most optimistic about how the RED camera will revolutionize their business and the industry, help them advance, etc.... well, it's understandable why they should feel that way but there is always a grain of salt that has to be taken with those optimistic predictions.

But I wish everyone the best of luck out there, honestly. Enthusiasm and energy are positive attributes for artists. Just try to not see everything through rose-colored (or red-colored!) glasses.

[Steve Gibby]

David,

I think the easy out for others to explain someone’s enthusiasm in a product is to conveniently excuse it away as just their optimism or bias. To set the record straight on the issues you mentioned, I have used, now use, and will continue to use equipment from almost every manufacturer in the industry. In the past year alone I’ve written objective magazine articles reviewing the following equipment:

Camera systems manufactured by Sony, Panasonic, ARRI, JVC, and RED
Anton Bauer batteries
Innovision camera support columns
Cooke lenses
Red Eye Wide Angle adapters
Several other products.

I’ve consistently posted on this and other forums over the years my conviction that as an artist I start by choosing what I feel is the best tool for the job – regardless of the manufacturer. I’ve always worked that way and always will.

I pitch to networks the equipment I’ll be using because they expect that in the pitch, and they require a certain level of equipment in their Producer’s Guidelines. In this case I’d be a fool not to include the use of RED One cameras in the pitches to networks, because they are interested, and it helps me close deals. As an independent producer I have to be equal parts artist, techie, manager, and journalist, and I assure you I am. Since we’re in a tech-intensive industry, part of the business end of any business in this industry is staying on top of breaking technology, adopting what makes sense, and mentioning what you’re using via your web site, print collateral, and wherever else makes sense. If you don’t approach your own business that way I’d be highly surprised.

This is a RED User forum, people who interested in RED products and uses post here, I’m someone with a solid resume in the production industry, others are always curious about what I use and how I use it, and thus I take my time to answer tons of questions for them. Why? Because I enjoy helping others in their work and by nature I’m the kind of guy who doesn’t hoard his knowledge but shares it with others. The information I post, like my long post on this thread about packaging for television, and my FAQ defining the divisions of the EFP industry, are the kind of info that less experienced workers have to either pay years of dues to learn or buy a book for - and instead they got fast-tracked by me. I'm sure you can identify with that because you do the same thing - post freely from your experience and knowledge.

As for mentioning my upcoming projects, I get scores of emails and PMs daily asking what projects I’ll be working on, and how I’ll approach doing them. I’m sure you do too. Mentioning what projects we’re working on is basic to every tech forum, as is placing links to web sites, etc. How is that any different than you placing “ASC” behind your name everywhere? Even if ASC requires it when you’re a member the end result is that it is a promotional vehicle for ASC and for you individually – and thus your business. Networking, forming alliances, and mentioning what you do on forums are routine procedures used by everyone in the motion media industry for promoting their business.

Don’t confuse my enthusiasm for RED One with a lack of objectivity, when actually it is generated by a very objective approach to RED One. I call things as I see them. At 58 and with a proven track record in this industry, I’m infinitely beyond being a blind fanboy or gushing groupie. To me, expressing myself about a product doesn’t require me to be negative about it, just because that will enhance my image as somehow being objective. I call it as I see it, positive or negative. I test out as a mid-brain who can go left brain (objective), or right brain (subjective) at will, and I do so daily in my business practice.

Since I’m a widely published journalist who reviews equipment from a variety of manufacturers, I have a solid track record of being objective in the articles I write, and writing and reviewing equipment is an integral part of my business, your calling my objectivity into question concerns me. If your doing so affects my business, then I have a problem with that.

I recognize and respect your experience in cinematography. I’ll consider this post of yours a mere speedbump along the highway of a hopefully productive association with you.

[istvanttt]

Many focus solutions are too complicated, take too long to set up, are only useful in a certain % of situations, hence the trusty tape measure. However it seems to me that with apparent DOF reducing, with sharper projectors, lenses and TV's, and with increasing time pressures on set, a bringing together of possibly existing technologies is necessary to find a follow focus solution. It needs to be one that can be set up at the start of the day and used for all shots reliably, and still with human input.
......
I was imagining the focus puller setting up at the start of the day a hand held screen that can toggle between 'magic focus' (with zoom function)and an image of the shot. Attached to this screen is a focus knob that actually controls a target like cursor, and importantly that target selects exactly which area of the picture you would like to be sharp, sending that information back to the (calibrated) lens focus motor. The knob can be used like a joystick to control the target point cursor, possibly pressing a button to engage/disengage the track focus. The knob can also be turned and marked up in the traditional way, with a display using the /i technology to show the actual lens distance. The focus puller can toggle between magic focus and image to check if desired, and the traditional turning of the knob would enable the focus puller to adjust the focus closer or further away from the selected point of focus, or to use the unit manually just like a Preston or other Lens Control System.
The unit may operate wired or wirelessly getting the lens setting from the lens i/ system and the distance information (and indeed other camera parameters) from the camera (and thus the 'film' plane) either in some available way - very accurate ultrasonics with software (the Cinetape does this but is limited to a CF of 22” and sitting on top of the camear is probably prone to parallax error?), harmless laser linked with the shutter (an available system I think) or of a very specific wavelength that is not visable to the sensor, some variation of the system used in digital stills cameras - or some other ingenious way linked with magic focus. Whatever method it needs to be very accurate and precise.
.........
james

Actually most of the things you ask for do already exist in a much simpler way. Since many years the industrial design uses 3D space digitizers which, with small modifications, could do the work you want to have done. You put in the space minimum 3 better 5-6 special radio receivers which can calculate by the signal strength of a transmitter an approximation of the distance to all receivers. Behind the ear of the actor you could glue the transmitter which sends the radio waves to the receivers. Then all the receivers in the space will send to the camera the numeric value of the signal length they received. The camera calculates by successive triangulations the geographical position of the actors ear and calculates the distance to the image sensor of the camera. If you put 3 transmitters on the head of the actor (2behind each ear and 1 somewhere under his hear) then you can capture with the help of some coordinate-offset also the exact 3D position of both eyes. So with some additional small programming it should be possible to have now an automatic focusing of moving actors even if they are nervously blinking with their eyes.

Basically its a similar procedure like the GPS navigation system in your car, only inversed.

(To avoid the risk to be accused to talk only for narrative shooting, well you could glues the transmitters also behind the ears of some leopards or even, if you are very, very careful behind the ears of some CEOs if you do corporate filming.)

Would I still need the Focus-poller? For narrative work, yes, I would. Because what I have is nothing else then what I had before with a simple tape: I know the distance! But the decision how to follow the 3D depth of the image has still to be done. Maybe I just want to rock nervously the focus between the 2 eyes of the actor, maybe I want to follow the litigation of a couple, maybe the eyeline of a fallen in love hero or, or, or... In still photography the decision where to put the focus on is determinated mostly esthetical factors, in narrative filmmaking it is a question of storytelling. In other words: it is an emotional difference if on a moving actor the focus is anticipated, on time or slightly delayed.

I think it was Visconti who said: movie is music for the eyes. If you would use a computer to sync all the instruments of a chamber orchestra to meet the mathematical most precise moment of the beats it would end to be very boring the record. The slide, almost unconscious offset of the different instruments give the charm of a good recording. In the same way I think, yes, focus is much more then just a question of sharpness of the image.

[Eddie]

reading a lot of posts on this forum, it occured to me that I know just as much about gibbys resume as I know about Red one... :biggrin:

[Gbabymogul]

I've deliberately made a point of being as neutral as possible on the tools out there -- I alternate between Kodak and Fuji when I shoot film, I don't have a favorite lens manufacturer, I don't really care about Sony versus Panasonic, and I shoot both digitally and in film. I personally own two light meters -- that's it as far as my "kit". When the RED camera is available for rental, I will probably find the right project to use that camera on and get to know its strengths and weaknesses; maybe it will become a common tool that I reach for, maybe not, I don't know yet. I want it to succeed just as I want anything good to succeed, because I want good options to choose from.

It's an absolute pleasure to read your posts. Excuse the hyperbole, but it's true. You're a credit to your profession, mate (both in your profession and community work). This community could ask for no one better to test and give feedback on RED and its workflow (for narrative features especially). You're also a pretty humble guy, from what i can tell. :wink: As a small fish, that's what i first loved about RED - choices. It's enervating to see someone so respected see it the same way. Back on DVXuser my sig was "optimistic pragmatist"...

[Alex Boothby]

Now obviously owner/operators and independent production companies do have to make a bigger financial commitment to a particular technology and put their money where their mouth is...

Not to differ, but I believe this phenomena is actually referred to as "putting your mouth where your money is." :biggrin:

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, like I said, Gibby, you know your business and you know what you're talking about -- I wasn't trying to be unfriendly in questioning whether you were being completely objective, more of a wink and a nudge, :wink: because you do come off as being very enthusiastic and upbeat about the RED. Like I said, that sort of energy is necessary in this business, as long as it doesn't cloud your judgement.

I just get uncomfortable when anyone makes big predictions about anything, I guess. I don't see why some people are so confident that they can see into the future. I'm cautious by nature and the more enthusiastic people get about anything, the more cautious I get.

I'm only trying to be helpful to the younger people here by painting as accurate a picture of the way things work in this industry from my own perspective (since I can't assume someone else's perspective.) So take what you will from what I have to say and please ignore whatever isn't relevant to your own situation.

The reason why I'm hanging out here is that you guys are going to be the ones to make this technology work and I will need to learn for you. But in the meanwhile, feel free to learn whatever you can from me.

[Alex Boothby]

I just get uncomfortable when anyone makes big predictions about anything, I guess. I don't see why some people are so confident that they can see into the future. .

One defense - the combination of modern SLR sensor technology and higher fps seemed like an inevitable and formidable eventuality. We've just been waiting for someone to come along and do it. The immense success of digital SLRs in the professional stills world gives us great optimism for RED. I think it has more to do with pattern recognition than seeing into the future.

... but caution is good...:wink:

[Michael Hastings]

reading a lot of posts on this forum, it occured to me that I know just as much about gibbys resume as I know about Red one... :biggrin:

Eddie: You may have a point, and since you finished with "biggrin" I suspect you meant it as a lowkey shot, but let me defend that practice a little bit anyway. I make underwater housings for video cameras (and a few film cameras). Part of my job is to answer questions about gear, technique, etc. and the most difficult part is trying to overcome the tremendous amount of misinformation put out by supposed "experts". And that is because there are almost none of them out there that have had enough experience with multiple types and brands of cameras, multiple diving situations, etc..

So when I want to learn something about areas that I have less expertise, such as narrative/theatrical motion pictures or the business aspects of certain types of television production, I read with great interest the comments of guys like Gibby or David Mullen. Because I know Gibby's resume and because I see the ASC behind David's name, I give their comments a good deal of weight. It doesn't mean I take either one as gospel (or that it is any more valid than a bunch of other guys here on the forum) - it just means that I know where they are coming from so if their comment makes sense to me then I am pretty confident that I can use the info myself without a big potential for problems. If it doesn't seem right to me - then I know I better think pretty hard to figure out if there is something wrong with my thinking.

Re: David's point that Gibby inherently had some potential bias because he was packaging the gear:
I think it is worthwhile considering that often in the television and EFP worlds, while we know that creativity and artistic skill are what really counts, often we have to package ourselves with gear to get the appropriate payscale. David made an interesting comment which was that his gear kit consists of two light meters - while I and presumably Gibby have owned multiple highend broadcast cameras and now are purchasing RED.

The point is illustrated by the following: Back in the 90s I can remember on the same day having to justify our $1200 - 1500 DAY rate to a corporate producer by saying "well the camera is $40,000 so we have to get that much" even though I knew it was only $700 or so a MONTH for the lease. We could only get four to five hundred a day out of TV or corporate producers as a camera operator - so the package was the only way to get the day rate we really wanted. Yet on the same day we quoted for shooting a commercial with a producer that was used to shooting film and there was no problem getting $1500 dayrate as the DP/cameraman - with no gear. In fact they would probably have balked if we had asked for much less. The truth is Hollywood is used to paying camera people well. The television world is used to paying camera people as little as possible. Hence maybe in the television world we have been forced by circumstance to be promoters for the gear as well.

With that said, I really appreciate Gibby and David's comments and openness. Seems like either one or both of them would be good guys to work with, or to just sit and drink a beer and shoot the s**t.

[jamesedwelland]

Actually most of the things you ask for do already exist in a much simpler way. Since many years the industrial design uses 3D space digitizers which, with small modifications, could do the work you want to have done. You put in the space minimum 3 better 5-6 special radio receivers which can calculate by the signal strength of a transmitter an approximation of the distance to all receivers.


What I was suggesting perhaps is the possibility of linking all the available technolgy into one unit that you can set up at the start of the day as a sort of 1st AC focus and camera control unit with complete MANUAL focus override. Somthing using a digital stills like focus system but where you can CHOOSE and follow an exact point of FOCUS by MOVING A CURSOR on a screen which is showing the image being captured. Somthing to that once set up its set up for the day.

I am not sure that transmitters would be either quick (probably need to be moved for each setup, actor change, location change etc) nor accurate enough to, for example, choose which eye you want in focus.

The other reason why something to really help focus pullers is increasingly necessary is that getting focus is often at the very sharp end (!) of the filming process, moments before a take and when the actors are on set, and when tension and concentration from all the crew at its greatest. Its also not uncommon for some actors to pitch straight out of the trailer onto set not to wanting to rehearse. Thats why great focus pullers are no only worth their weight in gold, but also why they need some help.

james w

[Steve Gibby]

David,

With RED One being a camera system that spans cine-style and EFP style usage, it follows that users from a diverse array of backgrounds within those styles are converging into RED User seeking information about RED and its potential uses.

We share a common interest in presenting to interested parties an accurate picture of the way things work in this industry, and in the context of RED One, and accurate picture of how RED One can fit into this industry. Your posts here reflect deep knowledge of the film industry. The insight into film workflow and equipment is definitely helpful to people here in figuring out cine-style field workflow issues. That said, RED One isn’t a film camera and nobody will film anything with RED One. RED one is a digital cinema camera based closely off DSLR and video technology, and only remotely off film camera technology, with the majority of that similarity being that traditional film lenses being some of the lenses that can be used on RED One. I think you would agree that your equipment and field experience knowledge are weighted heavily on the film side, while my equipment and field knowledge are weighted heavily on the video and DSLR side. In essence, we’re opposite sides of the same imaging industry coin. What we collectively bring to the table is valuable insight for both the cine-style and EFP style workflows of RED One and its associated lenses and accessories.

Keeping the above in mind, lets bring it into the context of our recent exchanges on RED User threads. I can provide links if necessary, but for the sake of brevity, you expressed a belief that RED One was a digital cinema camera not intended for significant EFP or broadcast use. This is nothing new. You expressed that same thing over a year ago on another RED forum and we had an exchange then, with me itemizing the intended EFP and broadcast design features and uses of RED One. You then left that thread. Fast forward to last week. On threads here you again made assertions RED One was designed to work like a film camera, that it should be used in a digital cinema workflow, and that it wasn’t intended to be used for EFP and broadcast use. That was the point at which I starting long rebuttals to your claims on those issues, outlined with links the history of RED One development and design intentions for you, pointed readers to the EFP/ENG forum and FAQ on RED User, and then ultimately posted my long post on this thread defining the broadcast packager system. I can provide links for this progression of exchange between us.

If an accurate picture of the development history, design intentions, and uses of RED One is both of our objectives, then that’s what we need to portray, and the precisely accurate picture of RED One, leaving our opinions out, as stated by RED and evidenced by RED One’s formats/resolutions/lenses/accessories, is that RED One was designed as a digital cinema camera system to be used in a wide range of cine-style and EFP style production genres, depending on how it is accessorized and lenses used.

The X factor in all this is industry perception of RED One adopters. Having been in on the ground floor of development suggestions for RED One and reserved a camera early on, I’ve witnessed 18 months of various industry reactions to RED, ranging from vicious “vaporware” rants and tirades on cinematography web sites, to loving REDfest swoons on adopter web sites, and everywhere in between. For months on end I read posts on various web sites (not by you) saying that RED adopters were a bunch of indie DVX guys who are wannabe simpletons - techno-lemmings who were being led over a cliff by a wealthy pied piper. You’ve undoubtedly seen that parade of posts, and to your credit, you’ve kept a middle ground. The reality is that RED adopters over the past 18 months widely range from very beginners up to deeply experienced television and film industry professionals – but the easy out for detractors was to use the reality-challenged lemming analogy I described above.

Through all these months RED adopters felt that once the camera looked like a reality, and footage was displayed, that many new individuals would come forward to RED forums to seriously analyze RED One, its capabilities, design, and uses. That’s where you came in. To your credit, you’re known as a very knowledgeable, progressive ASC member with an excellent grasp of technology, and a broad background in on-set cinematography. The ASC tag on your name is great, but when you entered RED User IMO you didn’t do enough homework on the design history, intended usage, and technology pedigree of RED One, thus the statements you made here, which I mentioned above. As someone who has been on RED forums all along (18 months), and who has a firm grasp on the history, usage, and technology pedigree of RED One, I stepped up to counter your assertions and we’ve arrived at where we are today.

We’ve both expressed respect for each other’s background, knowledge, and insight. We’re opposite sides of the same imaging industry coin. IMO now that we’ve jousted a bit, and figured each other’s position out, we can settle in to the common interest of providing valuable insight and knowledge to RED User members and visitors. I wish you the best and for the sake of this board feel that we should press on with the business at hand – providing experienced insight into the motion media industry, it’s technology, and it’s uses.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Last year the swiss tv invited me for a workshop to talk about HD verus DigiBeta versus film. I was surrounded by a lot of enthusiastic technicians, cameraman, CEO, ASO with bright eyes and the future in there pocket. One of my main statement was very simple: First it does absolutely not matter what kind of technique will be used in the near future, there is something else that matters: creativity, good concepts and the courage to change not primerly the techniques but first the TV (feature film) content itself. Why should I see this 80 percent of bad taste, boringly superficially contents in HD or 4K? Obviously they didn't like my statement, so they never invited me again for a workshop. With this statement I just wanted to express, that a better, greater image guarantees not better news, soaps, TV-commercials or feature films. My target is very simple: to be always better than I was. RED could help me with that. Then REDone implements one very important thing: to shoot with RED won't be that simple than with a DVcam ore DigiBeta. RED could be a ENG style camera, but for me it will be more a 35. And that will be one of the greatest advantage compared to the classic digital techniques out there: you first have to think before you shoot - you need a concept an idea a vision. If not, things are going very expensive, very bad, very discourage.

[Keith Nealy]

But to give equal time to the sound guys....

If a tree falls in that forest... and no one is there..

Does the sound guy have to show up?

And is it billable, like a weather day?

[Michael Hastings]

If a tree falls in the forest... and you don't have a mini-xlr on your mic cable.....



But to give equal time to the sound guys....

If a tree falls in that forest... and no one is there..

Does the sound guy have to show up?

And is it billable, like a weather day?

[Ralph Oshiro]

Well so much for trying to stay on-topic in this thread. This thread has a life of its own! I guess no one will mind if I add to the off-topicness here. I just heard today that ____________ has four standing RED resevations. This company is well known to anyone that follows the film industry. Stunning news, in light of the company's new owners.