RED Scopes?

[I Bloom]

I searched around and couldn't find a thread that answered this question I have.

I understand that with the EVF you will have the ability to see exposure using the coloration system from Accuscene. That sounds like it will cover most working situations, but on heavily lit dramatic HD sets its great to have a monitor for the gaffer that has with it a waveform.

So here is the question, RED RAW is a significantly different format from HD, so in truth an HD monitor with built in waveform plugged into the HD-SDI isn't going to cover it, am I right? Thats just for the director.

Is there a waveform built into the LCD? Or is there any chance of having a vectorscope, RGB parade or histogram?

I think this has been covered, I just don't know where?

IB

[Emery Wells]

It has been mentioned that scopes will be available in the EVF and LCD. I believe i read somewhere that all menu and scopes will also be available on other outputs but im not sure on that.

[Mark L. Pederson]

other than the LCD/EVF connectors - I am pretty sure you can only get the menu/scopes on the HDMI out - Stuart?

[Emery Wells]

That would make sense Mark. I doubt you'd get the overlays on HD-SDI. But would still be nice to get confirmation on that.

[Brook Willard]

I believe all menus, overlays and scopes are available on the single-link HD-SDI "Preview" output, but I'm not sure. Things change very rapidly... so I really don't know. Wait for confirmation from somebody at RED.

[I Bloom]

Let me add to that question and say. What about different displays on different outputs. My choice would be:

1. Accuscene on the EVF and Focus Zebras (a feature I'm hoping for).
2. Focus Waveform and Focus Zebras on the LCD (for the 1st AC)
3. Exposure Waveform on the HD SDI. (for the gaffer)

Something tells me this isn't going to happen, but I can hope.

IB

[Emery Wells]

Of note, I believe its all available on a given output or not available at all. We'll get confirmation on this from the RED team.

[Pete Horvath]

focus zebras, awesome idea

[Corrado Silveri]

Anyone vote for a laptop connection?
(something like Scopebox: www.scopebox.com)
I use this tool on set. Really useful, instant reply, cutting preview (if needed), fx preview (blue/green, etc.).
Hystoram, RGB Parade, VU Meter...

Just my two cent.

Just imagine this thing in the Graeme's hands...

[I Bloom]

(something like Scopebox: www.scopebox.com)


Wow that colored waveform and vectorscope is awesome. So much easier to read.

Laptops however take a beating on set. I'd rather have a monitor that can mount on a C-stand. It's awesome if the camera is just generating those displays to any output you want. That way you don't have to worry about the performance of you monitor. You can use a really cheap monitor actually.

IB

[Mark L. Pederson]

This is hands down the best scope I ever tested - dual HDSDI - 444 - this is the mother-of-all-scopes -

http://www.omnitek.tv/xr.php?btnno=1

[Chris Kenny]

Remember, if you're shooting 12-bit linear RAW, the 10-bit HD-SDI output (which will have a LUT applied) is not going to be representative of what you're actually capturing. It might still be useful to monitor it on scope under some circumstances, but... just something to keep in mind.

[Emery Wells]

Remember, if you're shooting 12-bit linear RAW, the 10-bit HD-SDI output (which will have a LUT applied) is not going to be representative of what you're actually capturing. It might still be useful to monitor it on scope under some circumstances, but... just something to keep in mind.

Which raises an interesting point. Will the user be able to select what the scopes are analyzing? As in pure REDCODE RAW signal or HD-SDI with LUT applied. There is benefit to being able to see both.

[I Bloom]

Remember, if you're shooting 12-bit linear RAW, the 10-bit HD-SDI output (which will have a LUT applied) is not going to be representative of what you're actually capturing. It might still be useful to monitor it on scope under some circumstances, but... just something to keep in mind.

True, thats what I'm trying to figure out, since RAW is its own format how are we going to know whats in the RAW files we are creating. The HD Output with the LUT applied is great for a director to look at. But not for the person trying to look at the data they are creating and shooting for post.

My guess is this, its likely the camera has an internal processing unit that generates the images that are transmitted to the EVF screen and the LCD, this includes menu displays, Accuscene overlays, zebras and possibly waveforms or magic foci. Since this feature is perhaps still in the oven information about the specifics is still in the "Keep em drooling" file. Also possibly part of the features that won't be out and completed until later in the year.

I'm worried about how available detailed information about the RAW files we are creating is going to be. I'm hoping RED includes a straightforward solution that doesn't add to the price tag. I'm sort of on the fence but I'm leaning toward wanting an in camera software solution to generate scopes and transmit them to its various outputs. If they look something like the ones we see in Scopebox or Omnitek then awesome. (especially that colored waveform/vectorscope, howdaydodat!).

The accuscene display is great for highlights and shadows, but consider if you are working on some delicate exposure, like faces in the mid to lower values while keeping detail and even matching between shots and with highlights in the background (a dark bedroom with windows). 12bit or not, I want to get it close to what I want in camera before I tweek it in post.

Maybe I lean too hard on the scopes.

IB

[Mark L. Pederson]

I am sure there will be lots of great features in the EVF.

I also think shooting RAW for many of us is a transition -

I was just thinking about this:

You need an Intel mac to run REDCINE, so onset - that's a MAC BOOK PRO - which has an ExpressCard/34 slot -

I like the idea of buying the FLASH ExpressCard/34 module for $500 - then, on set, I set the camera default to the Flash module, shoot a few seconds of the lighting setup with two or three exposure ratings - pop the card out - stick it in the mac book and look at the RAW files in REDCINE - pick the rating that gives me more of what I want - then tell the camera to default back to the drive and shoot -

[I Bloom]

Knowing very little about the RED its hard to say, but from the way they talk about software it sounds like Spike is kind of like a souped up cylender shaped laptop with a CMOS sensor patched right into the motherboard. It's possible then that various outputs to displays (the EVF, LCD, and HD-SDI,*but lets just call them monitors) are reading off of a circuit board that works alot like a video card. In that case, its possible that a lot of the things that we're talking about could be dependant on software alone. Which is kind of exciting, in theory of course. Maybe RED will even someday allow Third party plugins, for whatever scope you want.



I like the idea of buying the FLASH ExpressCard/34 module for $500 - then, on set, I set the camera default to the Flash module, shoot a few seconds of the lighting setup with two or three exposure ratings - pop the card out - stick it in the mac book and look at the RAW files in REDCINE - pick the rating that gives me more of what I want - then tell the camera to default back to the drive and shoot -

We'd have to see, but that sounds like it could be tedious. Especially if what is changing is the lighting itself and not just your chosen exposure bracket. When I'm rushing to audition the right piece of diffusion on a light before the 1st AD has me castrated what I'll be hoping for from the camera is confidence and immediate feedback.

Maybe the solution to this problem will be YE' OLD spot meter. That's my fathers gun but I could use it. Look to the accuscene to identify problems with highlights and shadows, but use the spot for exposure choices. I was hoping to just use an incident meter during pre-lighting, but treat the red as a giant 4K spot meter, I guess thats a bit impractical. Ideally its all these techniques combined. An in camera waveform would be one more tool in the arsenal.

IB

[Mark L. Pederson]

We'd have to see, but that sounds like it could be tedious. Especially if what is changing is the lighting itself and not just your chosen exposure bracket. When I'm rushing to audition the right piece of diffusion on a light before the 1st AD has me castrated what I'll be hoping for from the camera is confidence and immediate feedback.


That EVF is going to give you confidence and immediate feedback. I am only suggesting pulling up test clips in REDCINE as a way to understand the best way to rate exposure when shooting RAW to get your desired result and better understand how to best shoot RAW in extreme lighting condintions. Obviously, after you done this a bit - you won't need to do it because you will just "know" - like shooting film - after you shoot some test on a specific stock, study the results - you know how YOU want to rate that stock.

The Peter Jackson short was shot WITHOUT an EVF - and I think it was all rated at 250 - so, if you saw that, you don't need to worry about confidence - I have shot and/or produced/supervised LOTS of film and TONS of HD - I have NOT shot LOTS of RAW - so, I want learn in a practical, real-world environment. If you watch a high-end still photographer work with a digital-back - they are looking at their raw images in software during the shoot -

[I Bloom]

The Peter Jackson short was shot WITHOUT an EVF - and I think it was all rated at 250 - so, if you saw that, you don't need to worry about confidence - I have shot and/or produced/supervised LOTS of film and TONS of HD - I have NOT shot LOTS of RAW - so, I want learn in a practical, real-world environment. If you watch a high-end still photographer work with a digital-back - they are looking at their raw images in software during the shoot -

I'd be interested to know exactly what their technique was for judging exposure on Crossing the Line. Guessing they treated it entirely like film, rating at 250 and using light meters. If I had a really good understanding of the response curve on the camera, I'd be cool with that. But they also had an HD monitor, I wonder if they were looking at that signal as well.

Offhollywood, I'd love to hear about your process as you start experimenting with these cameras. You guys are going to be the pioneering REDusers.

IB