Mechanical Shutter , yet a problem for RED

[najafi/didarfilm]

befor , right here , once i said that the main red problems are 1.frame rate and 2.mechanical shutter

for mechanical shutter , RED friends told that it would make the camera body bigger with more comlpex machanics .
yet in the market , it seems RED deserves to be bigger but has a mechanical shutter.
mechanical shutter is the love of DP's . they like Dalsa because it gives them what thay have in their film based cameras and one of the most important ones is mechanical shutter. they love to see the world just by a mirror not transferred through digital processes.

i suggest , for RED TWO , after increasing the frame rate , RED friends should work on mechanical shutter and of course after RED MIRACLE it doesn't seem so hard.

najafi
C.E.O. at DIDAR Visual Effects Co., Ltd.
www.didarfilm.com
najafi@didarfilm.com

[Damien Molineaux]

Hello Najafi,

A mechanical shutter is one thing and an optical viewfinder is another, although you need the first to have the latter, the reverse is not true.

Yes, optical view finders are nice, or can be. Yet I trust the Red viewfinder will make many cinematographers/filmmakers/operators/etc, not regret an optical one. The most wonderous things about the Red viewfinder are the extra field of view, which means you see more of the image than is being recorded, even if shooting 4.5K uncompressed due to the myteriums 4.9K resolution ; and the magic focus assist, which is still a mystery.

I like that Red One is as small and lightweight as it can be, and yes a mechanical shutter plus optical viewfinder would make it considerably larger, heavier and more expensive.

Cheers,
Damien

[Stuart English]

I agree that there will be filmakers who wish to retain an optical viewfinder. However, the size, quality and mobility of RED ONE are pretty compelling reasons to adopt our technology. In fact we may see an interesting split develop here - either you embrace a RED ONE and its compact, all electronic approach, or you decide to stay with a film based camera. The large and immobile "lets pretend we share the same form factor as a film camera" systems offered to date have not been a big commercial sucess - despite having an optical viewfinder.

[David Mullen ASC]

Although I don't think of the Arri D20 as being particularly bulky, unlike the Dalsa Origin. Certainly the optical viewfinder and mirror shutter adds size and weight (and limits your shutter speed options) but it doesn't necessarily have to make a camera huge.

I think in the case of the Arri D20 at least, there are other reasons than its size for its low impact on the industry. It has a certain noise problem, the sensitivity is not that high, and the recording solutions for data are still awkward. And there aren't that many of them out there. I see it as more of an experiment on Arri's part before they really get serious about designing and building a digital camera.

I'm sort of on the fence in regards to this issue of an optical viewfinder. While on the one hand, being able to look through the actual taking lens during the scene provides you with a certain level of picture information that is unique, especially in regards to seeing focus, being able to see what the sensor is capturing is also incredibly valuable and more important ultimately. It partly will come down to how accurately we will be able to judge things like focus on a 4K camera while we are shooting, especially if we are operating and can't run to a 24" HD monitor to judge focus. Electronic viewfinder technology keeps improving yearly so we don't have to live with little 1" b&w CRT viewfinders anymore.

[Brian D. Goff]

Electronic viewfinder technology keeps improving yearly so we don't have to live with little 1" b&w CRT viewfinders anymore.

For me electronic viewfinders represent "what you see is what you get". Just recently we hand an issue with the 435 xtreem - after changing the mag, the sector went to 11° and totaly underexposed the image -The video assist (cam was on steadicam) did'nt show the problem. Quite often when I'm shooting HD I "check" the image by adjusting the brightness/contrast on the B/W viewfinger "simulating" grading posibilities. I didn't see the RED viewfinder but what I've heard first hand let's me believe that the days of optical viewfinders are coming to an end.

[Jannard]

I watched Peter Jackson personally shoot our camera. He never once asked for an optical finder. We have a dozen top directors/cinematographers with reservations in and none have asked for an optical finder.

We have heard this suggestion from day one. But in the end, I have not heard anyone say "I won't buy or use your camera until you put in an optical finder". If we heard that 100 times, we might look into it. But expect a significantly higher price.

This is our 1st camera. It is difficult enough as it is.

Just saying...

Jim

[David Mullen ASC]

I suspect the interest in an optical viewfinder will keep shrinking over time as electronic viewfinders keep improving -- you heard the cry more often back in the early days of the F900 and the standard b&w viewfinder that it came with. That was quite a letdown if you were used to a nice clear optical viewfinder, plus there was the whole problem of operating to a b&w image while the director was screaming "pan to the women in the blue dress -- no, the guy in the red T-shirt!"

It's also a somewhat generational thing; I've been shooting both video and film for a decade or so and am used to both kinds of viewfinders, and the older camera people who have only dealt with optical viewfinders are dwindling. So it may be a non-issue if you wait long enough.

Most of the complaints are generally about the tiny electronic viewfinders; most film DP's love looking at larger HD monitors when operating (like Tom Sigel did while shooting "Superman Returns" on the Genesis, another camera with no optical viewfinder). Film directors (like Jackson) have been staring at video tap images for a long time now so I doubt many of them care much about optical viewfinders versus electronic ones as long as they can see the framing.

[Chris Kenny]

Personally, I'm in favor of almost any design choice which reduces the number of moving parts.

[Priyesh P.]

Personally, I'm in favor of almost any design choice which reduces the number of moving parts.

This is what I was thinking about a short time ago, too. It is a fascinating situation to shoot something with the resolution of 35mm without any moving parts ( as long as you use a flash based media ).
It can be an uneasy feeling for some people ( like me ) in the beginning since you could be a bit unsure if the camera is REALLY running but then it´s fantastic again.
On the other hand that strange sounds that come off a film camera, like that high noise of a 435 at 100+ fps or an ending magazine of an SR3 that sits on your shoulder can be annoying as well.

[dalemccready]

I've always thought an optical finder is great, but if you can give me a comparable picture, then I'm happy to wave goodbye to it.

As an operator I'm more than happy to not have to perform acrobatic dance moves around a dolly purely to keep my eye on the eyepiece!

[Darwin]

One big plus is you can mount the EVF any where on the camera you wish!

[Martin Ludwig]

We have heard this suggestion from day one. But in the end, I have not heard anyone say "I won't buy or use your camera until you put in an optical finder". If we heard that 100 times, we might look into it. But expect a significantly higher price.

This is our 1st camera. It is difficult enough as it is.

Jim

this sounds good - and imo you should think about to build a more cinematographic camera - fhigher priced - and sure a lower number of sales.
BUt this will bring you and us up in the digital cinematography !

[jaadgy akanni]

this sounds good - and imo you should think about to build a more cinematographic camera - fhigher priced - and sure a lower number of sales.
BUt this will bring you and us up in the digital cinematography !

Hold on, let me try and wrap my head around that statement 'cause it's confusing... "a more cinematographic-higher priced camera????? Do you mean as opposed to this run of the mill one...gimme a break! Tell all the things that would make this camera "more cinematographic? I'm curious.

[Jay A. Kelley]

this sounds good - and imo you should think about to build a more cinematographic camera - fhigher priced - and sure a lower number of sales.
BUt this will bring you and us up in the digital cinematography !

One of his first shooting customers was Peter Jackson and his crew.. How much further up does the man have to go?! I don't think God shoot professionally any more.

:)

Just saying....

Jay

[PaulClements]

I think an EVF That can display 4k and scale down would be better than an optical viewfinder, it's only a matter of time before it's available. Red might require some modifications to ouput the 4k to evf but I can see this happening some time in the future. I only hope that Red has included such a future upgrade as part of their modularity concept. If they have then I'm happy to stick with the lower res over optical for the other benefits it offers.

[JohnF]

This is more for conversations sake than a technical request...

Canon managed to produce a stills camera (the EOS-1N RS) that used a hard-coated pellicle mirror which allows light to pass through to the film whilst reflecting it to the viewfinder at the same time. This allowed for a faster 10fps rate because there was no up-down mirror movement. What it meant in terms of light-loss through such a mirror I don't know but this technology might help RED reach those users who prefer optical viewfinders...

JohnF

[David Mullen ASC]

What it meant in terms of light-loss through such a mirror I don't know but this technology might help RED reach those users who prefer optical viewfinders...


I think Jim is asking "where are they?" -- it's becoming a smaller contingent over time that would want one.

On the other hand, would DSLR users actually prefer a non-SLR design, same features and picture quality, bigger LCD screen, and no optical viewfinder, no mechanical shutter? What is the opinion out there in the still camera world?

[KJames]

I am puzzled why anyone is suggesting an optical viewfinder. Optical viewfinder was an invention of necessity not because it was the best method. They are lossy and is one of the most complex and expensive part of any camera system. If your not shooting film there is absolutely no reason what so ever to use an optical viewfinder.

I think this whole discussion is based in a misunderstanding and mistrust of electronic image acquisition. You are shooting for an public audience and not a group of technicians. That sensors perception is what your audience will see and nothing else. Trust in the sensor and a a good display. Red is also working on display systems. There is no reason why you wouldn't be able to set up a good display next to your camera. You just have to stop thinking film.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not a misunderstanding, it's a reaction due to actual on-set frustration dealing with electronic viewfinders on HD cameras over the past several years by people used to dealing with much sharper and clearer optical viewfinders on film cameras. It's not a theoretical or conceptual problem, it's a practical, physical problem.

Sure, you can park a 24" HD monitor next to a camera and get a much more detailed image than any optical viewfinder, but that's not aways practical during a dolly move, for example.

Like I said, as electronic viewfinders and other onboard monitors improve, this issue goes away and eventually will be a non-issue for most shooters. But it has nothing to do with misunderstanding how a digital camera works and everything to do with the quality of common electronic viewfinders out there on your typical Varicam and F900. If you're used to the viewfinder of a Panaflex or Arricam and then look at the typical viewfinder that comes with a rented F900, it's the electronic viewfinder that they would call "lossy", not the optical one.

For someone who has spent their career looking only at electronic viewfinders, there is no frame of reference to understand how a 35mm movie camera operator used to judging focus through an optical viewfinder now feels about an electronic one.

In a larger "union-style" narrative production, an operator is separate from the DP's job, and their responsibility is mainly framing, focus, and moving the camera as they operate -- not exposure. And to be accurate, most film operators have also been using LCD screens for difficult-to-operate shots, or remote-head shots, etc. so many of them these days could not live without some electronic monitoring in addition to the optical viewfinder.

And there are few DP/operators who are also in love with optical viewfinders, more in the commercial world though.

This does not need to be another "culture war" debate though because I think it will keep fading away as an issue -- if the methods of seeing the electronic image keep improving on the camera (I'm not talking about separate large monitors), then the need for optical viewfinders dies down.

All Jim probably has to do is mutter "we're exploring our options on future cameras" anytime a film shooter asks about an optical viewfinder, just to appease him... and in the next few years, he'll probably stopping hearing the issue come up anyway.

[ColinSmith]

On the other hand, would DSLR users actually prefer a non-SLR design, same features and picture quality, bigger LCD screen, and no optical viewfinder, no mechanical shutter? What is the opinion out there in the still camera world?

Well, the new Canon 1D III introduces a live view lcd mode, and the general feedback I have read has been "it's OK, but doesn't add much for me". The positives have mostly been restricted to dificult to view shots (over the heads of crowds and macro) rather than any plus in general use. There is also an overheating heating issue with leaving the sensor "running" for longer periods of time (to give the live view) compared with a single exposure in normal slr modes.

I think that before pro slr uses were looking to go that way you would basically have a Red One with full EOS autofocus and at least a 4k lcd on the back..... ;-)

[Moir]

On the other hand, would DSLR users actually prefer a non-SLR design, same features and picture quality, bigger LCD screen, and no optical viewfinder, no mechanical shutter? What is the opinion out there in the still camera world?

All other things being equal, I wouldn't miss the noise and mirror slap of a mechanical shutter / optical viewfinder, and if resolution of an EVF was as good as an OVF, I could live with that.

Problems with an LCD-only system would be lower battery life and ergonomics: scrunching the camera against your face gives a lot of stability: holding it at arm's length to look at an EVF is inherently less stable. And, obviously, use in sunlight is an issue.

Of course, point and shoot digital still cameras are moving over to this system anyway, presumably for cost reasons.

[Proteus]

This is more for conversations sake than a technical request...

Canon managed to produce a stills camera (the EOS-1N RS) that used a hard-coated pellicle mirror which allows light to pass through to the film whilst reflecting it to the viewfinder at the same time. This allowed for a faster 10fps rate because there was no up-down mirror movement. What it meant in terms of light-loss through such a mirror I don't know but this technology might help RED reach those users who prefer optical viewfinders...

JohnF

I don't think RED users would want to lose a full stop of sensitivity or so + affected color response + a full stop dimmer viewfinder, + sensitivity το vibrations (it has an ultra thin membrane to avoid ghosting) + extra space in front of the sensor (it has to be in a 45o angle), because these are the cons...

The pelicle mirror is a type of beam splitter and it is always lossy as part of the light passes through it and part reflects. It can be made at different than 1/1 ratios but then one of the two, (the viewfinder or the camera) will be even more dimmer!

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I think Jim is asking "where are they?" -- it's becoming a smaller contingent over time that would want one.

On the other hand, would DSLR users actually prefer a non-SLR design, same features and picture quality, bigger LCD screen, and no optical viewfinder, no mechanical shutter? What is the opinion out there in the still camera world?

I like the optical viewfinder on my dSLR, but i dont like the mechanical shutter. For dSLRs, not having the LCD run all the time saves a lot of battery power, so i like the OVF. But if the shutter was entirely electrical, i could use the flash sync at any speed, which would be awesome.

Word.

[Stephen Williams]

I don't think RED users would want to lose a full stop of sensitivity or so + affected color response + a full stop dimmer viewfinder, + sensitivity το vibrations (it has an ultra thin membrane to avoid ghosting) + extra space in front of the sensor (it has to be in a 45o angle), because these are the cons...

The pelicle mirror is a type of beam splitter and it is always lossy as part of the light passes through it and part reflects. It can be made at different than 1/1 ratios but then one of the two, (the viewfinder or the camera) will be even more dimmer!

Hi,

Most beam splitters used in reflex motion picture cameras are 1/3 stop of a light loss. They were good enough for Panavision, Photosonics & Fries Mitchell cameras.

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

For me electronic viewfinders represent "what you see is what you get". Just recently we hand an issue with the 435 xtreem - after changing the mag, the sector went to 11° and totaly underexposed the image -The video assist (cam was on steadicam) did'nt show the problem. Quite often when I'm shooting HD I "check" the image by adjusting the brightness/contrast on the B/W viewfinger "simulating" grading posibilities. I didn't see the RED viewfinder but what I've heard first hand let's me believe that the days of optical viewfinders are coming to an end.

Hi Brian,

You would not have seen that problem though an optical viewfinder. When using a film camera with an adjustable shutter, it must be checked before every take, just like T stop.

Stephen

[James T Mather]

One of the problems with the d20 - from my perspective is that an astro is essential as there is no "zebra" system - in other words - depite the die-hards wanting optical systems so that they can pretend they're on a film camera, it's a great deal less useful than a fully functional digital one where clipping etc can be viewed in real time - if an actor doesn't hit his mark forcing a little extra tilt into a hot sky for example - you can tell in real time if this is a problem for 100% luminance etc - as opposed to playback.

Further the endless spinning shutter in the d20 does my head in.

[Stephen Williams]

I am puzzled why anyone is suggesting an optical viewfinder. Optical viewfinder was an invention of necessity not because it was the best method. They are lossy and is one of the most complex and expensive part of any camera system. If your not shooting film there is absolutely no reason what so ever to use an optical viewfinder.



Hi,

I don't know how a spinning mirror could be 'lossy' there is nothing in the optical path during exposure.

Stephen

[James T Mather]

I think he means the beam splitter system for video taps etc.

[Priyesh P.]

And I think he means the overall loss of brightness through the fibre screen, pechan prism, lenses and optics besides the beam splitter.
Nowadays that has been much more improved with the 416 etc., but it´s still "lossy" and highly complex.
I´ve counted at least around 20 individual optical elements - not speaking of the mechanical components that`s housing them.
Here´s a diagram of such a system (arri 416):
http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/tutorials/viewfinder_functionality/viewfinder_drawing.html

[Álex Montoya]

Was there a need to change the title to "yet a problem"?

[Stephen Williams]

And I think he means the overall loss of brightness through the fibre screen, pechan prism, lenses and optics besides the beam splitter.
Nowadays that has been much more improved with the 416 etc., but it´s still "lossy" and highly complex.
I´ve counted at least around 20 individual optical elements - not speaking of the mechanical components that`s housing them.
Here´s a diagram of such a system (arri 416):
http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/tutorials/viewfinder_functionality/viewfinder_drawing.html

Hi,

None of those optics effect the film image in any way, If you were filming the 'eyepiece' you would have a point.

Stephen

[Priyesh P.]

Yes, I know, I´ve worked with 235, 435ES+Xtreme, 16SR3 and 416. I only wanted to make clear that the optical viewfinder system is a highly complex and expensive one and still doesn´t give you a 1:1 image. I didn´t mean that the final image is affected in any way.

[dalemccready]

Also don't forget the brightness of the viewfinder drops when the shutter spins. Just when you need to be able to see the most clearly.

[Stephen Williams]

Also don't forget the brightness of the viewfinder drops when the shutter spins. Just when you need to be able to see the most clearly.

Hi,

Panavision offer a beamsplitter on many cameras for that reason.

Stephen

[Priyesh P.]

Hi,

Panavision offer a beamsplitter on many cameras for that reason.

Stephen

How can that be? Is that beamsplitter in front of the mirror shutter? Never heard of something. But if so, it`d effect the amount of light that reaches the film. Do you have a link where it is explained in-depth?

[Jim Arthurs]

I'm fond of the spinning mirror... as a shooter, I think it helps separate your mental focus between anticipating a shot and actually shooting it; that flicker effectively removes half of the temporal information coming through the lens and helps me concentrate in a way that a little red recording dot doesn't. Between the visual flicker effect, and the slight vibration and transport noise, a film camera has a way of saying "Game On!" when you flick that switch that digital cameras don't seem to emulate very well.

When the first rumors of RED started to hit the forums, I was concerned about the lack of an actual mechanical shutter system/viewfinder in a "digital cinema" camera.

Now that the design is finalized, and the RED EVF I looked through at NAB is such a winner, I'm certain the team made the correct choice. Certainly price-point is a major factor, and if they want to add 15 or 20K to the cost of a RED 2, then go for it. Personally, I'll be happy with the sharp and detailed 720p electronic finder attached to a light weight, silent camera.

[Stephen Williams]

How can that be? Is that beamsplitter in front of the mirror shutter? Never heard of something. But if so, it`d effect the amount of light that reaches the film. Do you have a link where it is explained in-depth?

Hi,

They pull the spinning mirror & replace it with a beamsplitter. This was very common many years ago with the GII, the first 'Flicker Free' video assist. The Mirror in many Panavision cameras is just a mirror, there is also focal plane shutter like in a Mitchell. A beam splitter & gelatin filter behind the lens is not possible with Arri Cameras due to the shorter FDD.

The beam splitter will use 1/3 stop of light.

This is detailed in the Panavision Book by 'focal press', I don't know of any online links.

Stephen

[Priyesh P.]

Thanks Stephen !

[Priyesh P.]

I'm fond of the spinning mirror... as a shooter, I think it helps separate your mental focus between anticipating a shot and actually shooting it; that flicker effectively removes half of the temporal information coming through the lens and helps me concentrate in a way that a little red recording dot doesn't. Between the visual flicker effect, and the slight vibration and transport noise, a film camera has a way of saying "Game On!" when you flick that switch that digital cameras don't seem to emulate very well.

When the first rumors of RED started to hit the forums, I was concerned about the lack of an actual mechanical shutter system/viewfinder in a "digital cinema" camera.

Now that the design is finalized, and the RED EVF I looked through at NAB is such a winner, I'm certain the team made the correct choice. Certainly price-point is a major factor, and if they want to add 15 or 20K to the cost of a RED 2, then go for it. Personally, I'll be happy with the sharp and detailed 720p electronic finder attached to a light weight, silent camera.

Maybe two tiny features for the next Red release.
1. A beep signal that can be set on/off, at record start and/or stop, like the arris - could be helpful sometimes

2. Flashing leds on the camera´s back ( switchable ) when camera is running (like 16SR).

[KJames]

I am still waiting for an actual reason for an optical viewfinder. Every reason given so far is because everyone seems to be stuck on a film work flow.
If people started looking at digital image acquisition like a database or telemetry then I think people would stop trying to peer through glass.

And this whole mechanical shutter complaint is just amusing.

[Stephen Williams]

I am still waiting for an actual reason for an optical viewfinder. Every reason given so far is because everyone seems to be stuck on a film work flow.
If people started looking at digital image acquisition like a database or telemetry then I think people would stop trying to peer through glass.

And this whole mechanical shutter complaint is just amusing.

Hi,

You can set up & light your shot without any power!
You can see the lighting better than on any monitor, your looking at your shot, not a corrected version.
You can see focus & judge DOF.

Looking through an optical eyepiece separates you from the real world, isolating your thoughts to the image. I never get this feeling looking through an digital finder, if it's in color I get a headache after couple of hours, if its black & white.......

Stephen

[Stuart English]

As a RED one can also record sound we may need to pass on the audio "beep" feedback, but we already do have tally lamp indication on the rear of the camera body and the front of the RED-EVF (switchable on / off of course)....

[dalemccready]

just a momentary beep would be good...

OR maybe at 120FPS windowed you can make the camera shake and chatter a bit (some scraping noise randomly every 5 takes?) and also when you've reached the limit of the digital magazine a loud "flap, flap, flap" noise would be good...you know, just to make me feel comfortable, since I'm not sure I can adjust to this new quieter technology after using film cameras for years ;)

[martinnoweck]

LOL

i like the idea of a "vintage simulator mode" - maybe also to select different camera models -> different noise levels!

Martin

[Finner]

just a momentary beep would be good...

OR maybe at 120FPS windowed you can make the camera shake and chatter a bit (some scraping noise randomly every 5 takes?) and also when you've reached the limit of the digital magazine a loud "flap, flap, flap" noise would be good...you know, just to make me feel comfortable, since I'm not sure I can adjust to this new quieter technology after using film cameras for years ;)

Great thoughts, one more to add when the camera starts to make scraping and strange noises if we can bash and slap the red drive a bit and it will sense it and run quietly for a while would also bring nice familiarity.

[Craig Schober]

You can set up & light your shot without any power!
Stephen
so how and why are you setting up lights without any power? framing maybe but there's no point in setting up for lighting unless you're using available light only.



You can see the lighting better than on any monitor, your looking at your shot, not a corrected version.
Stephen
see the lighting better? does that include everytime you have to stop up to check and then use the lightmeter and then stop back down again over and over for every light change. that is the old film workflow. why do we need to continue with it when we're not using a film camera?



You can see focus & judge DOF.
Stephen
i agree here but only slightly. it's very easy to not get catch the sharpest focus when viewing a digital source but it's also easy to miss focus in an optical source. how many times have we seen poor focus pulling in major releases. i still see it in just about every production. if dps are looking through their optical viewfinders, why couldn't they see the softness that viewers can see? with digital, the same problem can occur but for different reasons. if the lcd can only resolve a few hundred lines, then no one could tell just by looking if it's as sharp as can be.



Looking through an optical eyepiece separates you from the real world, isolating your thoughts to the image. I never get this feeling looking through an digital finder, if it's in color I get a headache after couple of hours, if its black & white.......
Stephen

i think this is more subjective and maybe even generational. i'm sure kids growing up that have only looked through digital viewfinders do see and interact with the world differently from old-school photographers.

what's more important to me is the relation that's physically created with the tethered viewfinder. it forces the cameraperson to man the camera in the same way for all shots. always from behind with the camera generally on the shoulder. sometimes this is fine for composition and movement but sometimes this is not. with a digital connection, the viewfinder could go anywhere and lend to much more mobility and grace with the camera. it just takes hand-eye practice. kind of like videogames.

[Stephen Williams]

so how and why are you setting up lights without any power? framing maybe but there's no point in setting up for lighting unless you're using available light only.


see the lighting better? does that include everytime you have to stop up to check and then use the lightmeter and then stop back down again over and over for every light change. that is the old film workflow. why do we need to continue with it when we're not using a film camera?


i agree here but only slightly. it's very easy to not get catch the sharpest focus when viewing a digital source but it's also easy to miss focus in an optical source. how many times have we seen poor focus pulling in major releases. i still see it in just about every production. if dps are looking through their optical viewfinders, why couldn't they see the softness that viewers can see? with digital, the same problem can occur but for different reasons. if the lcd can only resolve a few hundred lines, then no one could tell just by looking if it's as sharp as can be.




i think this is more subjective and maybe even generational. i'm sure kids growing up that have only looked through digital viewfinders do see and interact with the world differently from old-school photographers.

what's more important to me is the relation that's physically created with the tethered viewfinder. it forces the cameraperson to man the camera in the same way for all shots. always from behind with the camera generally on the shoulder. sometimes this is fine for composition and movement but sometimes this is not. with a digital connection, the viewfinder could go anywhere and lend to much more mobility and grace with the camera. it just takes hand-eye practice. kind of like videogames.


Hi,

Lights are plugged into a generator, camera works on batteries.

I don't have to keep using a light meter, I can judge the ratio by eye.

The DP may know the shot was soft. The Director may like the performance, the editor looking on a monitor probably won't be able to see focus issue unless the film was printed & projected

I often work with a director who shot a lot of video, I have trouble getting him away from the optical eyepiece!

You can operate of a video assist if you want, nobody is forced to look through an optical finder, think of steadycam.

Stephen

[Finner]

so how and why are you setting up lights without any power? framing maybe but there's no point in setting up for lighting unless you're using available light only.

Profesional cameras are typically powered by battery not AC power so there are times when a mirrored shutter is handy.


see the lighting better? does that include everytime you have to stop up to check and then use the lightmeter and then stop back down again over and over for every light change. that is the old film workflow. why do we need to continue with it when we're not using a film camera?

You can directly see the lighting better through a mirrored shutter. A light meter has nothing to do with seeing the light as most DP's will set the light by eye and then give a ratio check with the light meter thus saving a lot of time in future close ups and turn arounds. Also most DP's will not open and close the stop over and over, as you light with an open stop and not until you are ready to shoot would the stop be correctly set. The reason for a film style workfow is that it is fast, works well, and helps with future shots in a scene.



i agree here but only slightly. it's very easy to not get catch the sharpest focus when viewing a digital source but it's also easy to miss focus in an optical source. how many times have we seen poor focus pulling in major releases. i still see it in just about every production. if dps are looking through their optical viewfinders, why couldn't they see the softness that viewers can see? with digital, the same problem can occur but for different reasons. if the lcd can only resolve a few hundred lines, then no one could tell just by looking if it's as sharp as can be.

The reason you see some focus problems in major releases seldomly has anything to do with operators missing it but with a director or editor deciding that the performance of that particular shot overides a focus problem. Pretty much they always have sharp coverage or another take that could have beeen used and knew there was a focus problem with that shot at the time it was done. Focus is much easier to see in an optical viewfinder.



i think this is more subjective and maybe even generational. i'm sure kids growing up that have only looked through digital viewfinders do see and interact with the world differently from old-school photographers.

what's more important to me is the relation that's physically created with the tethered viewfinder. it forces the cameraperson to man the camera in the same way for all shots. always from behind with the camera generally on the shoulder. sometimes this is fine for composition and movement but sometimes this is not. with a digital connection, the viewfinder could go anywhere and lend to much more mobility and grace with the camera. it just takes hand-eye practice. kind of like videogames.

Since the 70's cameras with optical viewfinders have video taps that allow the exact options you mention.


I am not trying to fight on these points but you stated that there were no benifits to an optical VF and Stephen gave you some presise examples of where they are superior. Would I want to pay the extra? No, and I am very glad RED made the choices they did on the VF but it still does not change the fact that there are some things that an optical finder are better at then an electronic one.


EDIT DOH!! while I was slowly 2 finger hack typing this Stephen beat me with pretty much the same replies.

[Proteus]

Hi,

Most beam splitters used in reflex motion picture cameras are 1/3 stop of a light loss. They were good enough for Panavision, Photosonics & Fries Mitchell cameras.

Stephen

Hi Stephen, this means that the viewfinder is 1.5 stops darker! I didn't know that it would be acceptable -(in dark scenes of course)!:blink:

But I personally, still prefer the non-loss solutions (at least for the sensor).
Also, in a faster frame rate like 60p or even 120p that RED ONE supports, 1/3 stop light loss in low light, might be a significant loss.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

In still photography I also love the focus prisms on the ground glass. No better way to absolutely undoubtably nail the focus than a checkered prism. I've never used a quality EVF. Not saying they don't exist. They just don't exist on any of the prosumer cameras I've shot with. It's also been my experience that believing an EVF is actually WYSIWYG is a very dangerous assumption unless you have someone ensuring your monitoring solution is calibrated.

Looking through the optical viewfinder of a medium format camera is a beautiful beautiful thing. If there weren't pictures to be taken I would be content to just wander around "filming" the world.

That being said when it comes to moving images I'm perfectly content to sit behind a crappy NTSC television. But I'm not the one pulling focus so I'll defer judgement to them.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen, this means that the viewfinder is 1.5 stops darker! I didn't know that it would be acceptable -(in dark scenes of course)!:blink:


Hi,

You do get a darker image, but 100% of the time. Of course using faster film gives you a darker image in the viewfinder when shooting. 500 asa seems very popular so that cant be an issue.

Stephen

[Revenefilm]

One of the big features of electronic viewfinder, for me, is the elimination of the extension finder for comfort of operation. IE, low angle, stationary eyepiece as camera tilts up and down. I've seen no mention of bracketry
to accomodate this thought. Am I wrong?

[Rocco Schult]

You're not - until now, theres no other mount/bracket/acc.

[dalemccready]

We've chatted a bit regarding a bracket to attach the EVF to the head itself, replacing a long extension. The benefit being the eyepiece wouldn't tilt with the camera. Great for dolly shots etc. One of the first bits I'd want for my EVF

[Craig Schober]

Hi,

Lights are plugged into a generator, camera works on batteries.

I don't have to keep using a light meter, I can judge the ratio by eye.

The DP may know the shot was soft. The Director may like the performance, the editor looking on a monitor probably won't be able to see focus issue unless the film was printed & projected

I often work with a director who shot a lot of video, I have trouble getting him away from the optical eyepiece!

You can operate of a video assist if you want, nobody is forced to look through an optical finder, think of steadycam.

Stephen
agreed. but if you have genny power for lights, you have power for camera and battery charger although the gaffers wouldn't be too happy.

i use a light meter (at least i used to with film) whenever the light or lighting setup changes. that might be once or 20 times.

that's a good point. i can only hope as an editor my monitor is sharp enough to warn the director. but i think 99.9% of all hd is still not being projected on anything better than consumer hd projectors so it might not matter most of the time.

video assist is nice and not really any different from an lcd or evf so you're kind of arguing against your own point for an optical viewfinder. you gain freedom but you lose ability to judge focus and detail from any electronic tap.

i have no doubt that any pro dps know way more than me when it comes to tried and true workflows. but that's how they work. i'm trying to match all my options to my work style to come up with a more efficient way to work. as with any technological based medium, some things should be adopted or continued but some other things should be dropped unless you're comfortable with them.

[KJames]

Hi,

You can set up & light your shot without any power!
You can see the lighting better than on any monitor, your looking at your shot, not a corrected version.
You can see focus & judge DOF.

Looking through an optical eyepiece separates you from the real world, isolating your thoughts to the image. I never get this feeling looking through an digital finder, if it's in color I get a headache after couple of hours, if its black & white.......

Stephen

So can a directors viewfinder, spotmeter, contrast glass, a cardboard cutout, and your own hands. I've never seen a good DP light through a viewfinder. And if your want to know exactly what the lighting will look like when the audience sees it well then your need to see it on a monitor or projection screen anyway.

[KJames]

just a momentary beep would be good...

OR maybe at 120FPS windowed you can make the camera shake and chatter a bit (some scraping noise randomly every 5 takes?) and also when you've reached the limit of the digital magazine a loud "flap, flap, flap" noise would be good...you know, just to make me feel comfortable, since I'm not sure I can adjust to this new quieter technology after using film cameras for years ;)

ROFLMAO!!!

Should be nominated for best use of sarcasm in this board ever.

Great post.

[Adrian T.]

ROFLMAO!!!

Should be nominated for best use of sarcasm in this board ever.

Great post.

Here are some similar ideas you may have missed:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39498&postcount=461
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39521&postcount=464
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39542&postcount=465
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39546&postcount=466

:clown2:

[KJames]

Ok so we keep talking about power issues. Gaffers could care less what needs power as long as you let them know ahead of time how much power you need. I've only seen cameras run off of battery when they are handheld or steadycam. Even choppermounts are wire fed. Second if you can afford the price tag of a complete RED camera package you can afford enough battery power to run constantly 24/7. You must remember you could run an EVF for hours off the power it takes run a 35mm motor for just a few minutes. Even though Mr English may not agree I still think this is all due to a lack of understanding of this technology.

You must and will change your workflow to operate this camera. And in effect you will gain a lot of production time because you won't need to think about the camera. No checking gates, no reloads, no running out of film, no film breaking, no dust, no camera wirrr on the sound, and no sticks to be clapping. The shot info will be metadata. The stops, focus, and shutter info will all be available in real time at post.

You will in effect have many of the restrictions of film lifted which in turn will create a new set of challenges for the production when it comes to shooting too much and trying to perfect things too much. It will be a different discipline. And if your over 40 and have been shooting for years on film you may just want to stay with film because this much change may bury you. No one is saying you can't shoot film if you want that film "feeling".

[KJames]

Here are some similar ideas you may have missed:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39498&postcount=461
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39521&postcount=464
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39542&postcount=465
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=39546&postcount=466

:clown2:

OMG Those are great I think you made my morning Lebowski!!! :biggrin:

[SF Geek]

Gaffers, or more correctly, best boys don't want to power anything other than lights and maybe craft services. I've even heard them groan when they have to give the dolly a bump. Obviously if you're the DP they have to deal with it whether they like it or not.

And i have never seen a film camera run off of anything but battery power.

[tj williams]

This thread would sure be of interest to sociologists. Set the Zebra or set the focus..... Finally many of the folks on this board who have shot with a lot of 1/3" chip cameras will get to see how damn hard exact focus can be, when you combine a 35mm imager, fast lenses, and the speed of a lot of quick setups.

Directors n Dp.'s on indy type films often watch the action on small monitors near the camera, unless video village is close to the action. This tendency will only increase as the number of possible setups increases. Listen to what Peter Js Dp said about trying to go over to video village and check things out. They see the frame. They trust the Dp has the stop. "is it sharp" is the operators biggy question.

As a person who has done a certain amount of steadi n crane remote operating, I gotta say that is a harder question when looking into most of todays electronic viewfinders, sd steadicam monitors, or small field monitors on remote heads.

If you are looking into the optical viewfinder in any modern film camera then you know. If you are looking at most evf then you hope. David is the one to listen to on this. "if they become better" The evf Red showed at nab was looking bigger n brighter than any previous I'd seen They were talking about several options to more clearly determine focus. There are many advantages to electronic viewfinders, but they only work for operators when we can say "It's sharp" with real authority.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I think the small size of the RED is a huge advantage, personally, so that is what makes a big difference to me in that argument. I mean I was on a shoot with a Sony F900 about ten days ago and the thing was MASSIVE, wow, I didn't quite realize it was that big. With this lens they had on it, he was telling me the camera was 110 pounds! I was blown away. It had like 7 different boxes to put the equipment in.

[Stephen Williams]

So can a directors viewfinder, spotmeter, contrast glass, a cardboard cutout, and your own hands. I've never seen a good DP light through a viewfinder. And if your want to know exactly what the lighting will look like when the audience sees it well then your need to see it on a monitor or projection screen anyway.

Hi,

You could judge the lighting through a directors finder with the same lens as the camera, those do exist. I do not accept one could through a spotmeter, contrast glass etc. The DOF also effects how one lights.

You say you have never seen a 'good DP light through a viewfinder'. I don't know how many DP's you have seen shooting film, peoples styles are different. The ones you have seen will be happy with an EVF.

Stephen

[JohnF]

If you are looking into the optical viewfinder in any modern film camera then you know. If you are looking at most evf then you hope. David is the one to listen to on this. "if they become better" The evf Red showed at nab was looking bigger n brighter than any previous I'd seen They were talking about several options to more clearly determine focus. There are many advantages to electronic viewfinders, but they only work for operators when we can say "It's sharp" with real authority.

I'm with TJ on this one. There are many advantages to EVF's but they have to be good (and a great deal better than they currently are).

I shoot with EVF's all the time and one of the things I find I have to do is compensate in my head for the lousy picture I'm working with to operate the camera compared with what the camera is actually capturing. Colour is a big problem as is sharpness. Having to adjust back focus on a broadcast 1/3rd-2/3rd" chip lens using a colour EVF is, shall we say, less than reliable. You can do it but the chances are it won't be bang on.

I used to do alot of stills shooting and comparing an optical viewfinder with an EVF is simply no comparison. Not to mention the benefit of being able to frame up and focus without the camera even being switched on. Plus the ability to see details in the darks/shadows which most colour EVF's score a big zero on.

Another indicator of EVF's poor sharpness, on 1/3rd/2/3rd" cams, is the need to zoom in and focus 'cos on the wide you simply can't say for certain. This technique is a little hard when using primes!

Basically what one has to do to become reliable with EVF's is to accept their limitations (for they are limited) and get to know them and the camera well to have the ability to shoot decent footage as often as possible.

That said I have to admit that I have a slight bias against having a "digital village" parked behind every setup I do. I find it slightly ridiculous to have a 30+" monitor plus power supplies, cables etc along with its own crew sitting in a tent shouting out when the pictures sharp when an optical viewfinder and a decent focus puller could do the trick just as well!

I'm not against a digital village I just find them a slightly silly concept as overtime they have become more and more elaborate (and a potential cost burden) instead of viewfinders getting better.

I hope that RED's built in focus assist and scopes will help out a lot.

JohnF

[Finner]

I've only seen cameras run off of battery when they are handheld or steadycam. Even choppermounts are wire fed.

The wire feed (power cable) you see going to the camera (when not on steady cam or hand held) is attatched to a large square block battery that is powering the camera.

[KJames]

The wire feed (power cable) you see going to the camera (when not on steady cam or hand held) is attached to a large square block battery that is powering the camera.

I realized I forgot to put in the fact that I was referring to a studio setup in comparison to remote. In studios I never see people running on battery. Maybe this is just my experience.

[tj williams]

Kjames In TV Studios, with studio style cameras, it is common for cameras to be powered from the wall. Even EFP type cameras can be powered by AC Adapters. Most film packages don't come with an included AC adapter. The cameras don't come this way fm the mfgs. My own experience of powering with AC adapters unless the power has been checked out has not been all good. We smoked a Sony one time when the power outlet was wired wrong in a new const. warehouse. The AC power supply fuse never blew!!! Now I always use batterys. The new Litiium Ion similiar to the RED batts run the camera for a long time...

ps John I do think we have grounds to hope the RED crew will finally get an EVF that we can work with. The prototype at NAB was quite impressive.

[David Mullen ASC]

I realized I forgot to put in the fact that I was referring to a studio setup in comparison to remote. In studios I never see people running on battery. Maybe this is just my experience.

Even in a soundstage, film cameras are run off of batteries, usually the block type. Studio video cameras, though, are often run off of AC power.

The last film camera I saw being run off of AC power was an old Mitchell.

[JohnF]

Yes I've heard only good things about RED's evf from those that got a look at NAB.

What I'd like to know is whether or not the EVF shows the entire frame with no cropping (however slight), an issue vital for 4k shooting.

About the battery business - being into electronics I often rigged up a circuit which worked like a UPS. That is it would take the power from the mains (via 12V psu for example) with diode protection (to stop incidents like TJ mentioned above) and would instantly switch to battery if the mains source were to be unplugged or cut off. This would leave the batteries unused but setup ready to go if the set-up required it - you could go handheld in a blink of the eye. Ideally I'd like to make a setup that automatically charged the batteries whilst in this config.

Oh can the RED EVF be colour calibrated if so how?

I have a feeling we're drifting off topic here!

JohnF

[Adrian T.]

In studios I never see people running on battery.

I never see people running on AC power for that matter. They mostly run on food. :whistling:

[Jim Arthurs]

What I'd like to know is whether or not the EVF shows the entire frame with no cropping (however slight), an issue vital for 4k shooting.JohnF

Even better, you have look-around room.... since in most cases you're taking a 4K area of a 4.9K sensor, you not only get the full frame, but you can look outside the recorded area! Just like in an optical finder... So no more mikes coming into frame... or at least no more excuse for not anticipating it...

[Cail Young]

What I'd like to know is whether or not the EVF shows the entire frame with no cropping (however slight), an issue vital for 4k shooting.

Yes, in fact even in the full RAW mode through the fiber port the EVF and LCD show even more picture outside the recording area.

[tj williams]

Big... I have seen them run for food right over the top of the "AC" cables, often tripping in their eagerness..

[tj williams]

At NAB I asked about this and was told the full overscan area is shown. Of course this includes area outside the recorded area like a film cameras Optical finder shows. which allows the op to see boom etc before it enters the part of the frame being recorded. VF was quite large and bright, good looking overlays etc. however the focus indication was not working at that time.

[KETCH ROSSi]

One of his first shooting customers was Peter Jackson and his crew.. How much further up does the man have to go?! I don't think God shoot professionally any more.

:)

Just saying....

Jay

Hey Jay, you enter my mind and pulled out my exact words and put them down on this post, very nice of you, thanks.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Bill Anderson]

I would not give up the optical finder on my dslr. However, if my dslr's mirror spun and fed me only a portion of the light that fell on it, and the
f-stop choice was applied constantly, I would probably rethink that preference.
The optical finder has an organic quality that suits film acquisition well. There is something just slightly removed from the hard edge of "reality" that gives an appropriate approximation of film's qualities. Not that we're too dependent on the viewfinder image when it comes to previsualizing, but there seems to be a psychological link completed with particular viewfinder/acquisition media combos. And for the same reasons, I think an optical finder setup might be alien to the final feel of the digital image- all other things (like ease of focus) being equal. Some say, of the optical finder, "it's reality, you can't get better than that", but I'm not so sure since we're interpreting reality, and if an EVF can better approximate our interpretations and allow us to handle the practical matters of focusing etc. It has my vote.
Of course, that's where monitors come into play; if we had the option of pixel for pixel monitors on every take this would make viewfinder preferences moot.
Imagine if 35mm film camera taps gave a live, accurate image, grain for grain, of the film stock being used, I think "reality" would take a back seat. That's a lot to imagine though.

[JohnF]

Well it sounds like good news on the EVF front.
The overscan issue is a big deal for many reasons and it looks like they've addressed it.

But does RED's EVF have a suitable near/far focus option and/or a flip up hood to allow for those real difficult shooting positions?

I can't imagine the answer being anything other than "Yes" but I'd like the clarification.

JohnF

[Harry Lime]

Two comments:

Personally I prefer an optical viewfinder over a EVF.

They are sharper, let you focus more accurately and you can REALLY see what's going on. You can miss a subtle flare etc on a EVF. I also prefer to see the world in color ("Frame on the guy with the blue shirt!").

You can build a compact camera with an optical viewfinder. Take a look at the tiny A-Minima, the new Arri 235 or even the old Arri IIc, which is very small.

And this talk about people being dinosaurs, because they prefer an optical finder over an EFV is non-sense. But what will age you real quickly is the director tearing you a new one in dailies if his star is out of focus, because you couldn't see it properly on your EVF.

And frankly it doesn't make a difference to me that Peter Jackson thinks the EFV is just great. Mr. Jackson may be hugely successful in commercial terms, but that doesn't make him an expert on technical matters. I'd trust someone like David Mullen any day of the week on these issues, before I trusted a director. In my personal experience even the very technical ones are no match for a true expert (read DP). We can't confuse technical expertise, with hero worship.

What is of far more interest to me is a mechanical shutter to avoid the video look (temporal issues). That really is my main concern with the RED.

Can someone please elaborate on their experiences with this issue? Are you seeing the 'video look' during pans or certain moves etc.?

Can RED make a new front end as a module, that contains a mechanical shutter and / or a optical viewfinder? The best solution would of course be a second, more expensive camera.

In any case I'm very excited about the RED. It looks like it could truly revolutionize the way films are made.


Cheers,

HL

[Graeme Nattress]

Harry, for a first post, that comes over that you've not really read up on RED.

The EVF is a HD Colour display, so yes, you can focus on the guy in the blue shirt. It's a better EVF than has ever been made previously, so if you're comparing it to other EVFs, then your comparison should really be made after using a RED EVF.

As for an OVF showing you "REALLY see what's going on", that is not the case. They show you exactly what is not going on. They show you the light that's NOT hitting the sensor (or film). If you move away from a 180 degree shutter, they show you the opposite shutter speed. OVFs flicker in a way that real life does not. As for focus, you can't just take into account the resolution of the display, but the visual capabilities of the eye, and the size / distance of the image that you're viewing.

And EVF shows you the light hitting the sensor. An OVF shows you the light that is NOT hitting the sensor.

I don't see why you'd think RED footage, if well shot by someone who knows what they're doing would look in any way videoish. RED is a fully progressive Digital Cinema Camera, not an interlaced, over processed dayglo colours video cam.

I'm pleased you're excited about the camera. We are too! Of course, commercial success doesn't make you an automatic technical expert, but neither does it mean you must be ignorant.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

Harry, for a first post, that comes over that you've not really read up on RED.
The EVF is a HD Colour display, so yes, you can focus on the guy in the blue shirt. It's a better EVF than has ever been made previously, so if you're comparing it to other EVFs, then your comparison should really be made after using a RED EVF.


Well, there you go. Out of the gate and the foot right in the mouth.
Sorry, my mistake. You're right. It's color, not black and white.

But I'm still hesitant to say that you can focus as critical on an EVF as on a OVF. At least that's my experience on ENG cameras. Some of them are very, very good, but it's not quite there.



As for an OVF showing you "REALLY see what's going on", that is not the case. They show you exactly what is not going on. They show you the light that's NOT hitting the sensor (or film). If you move away from a 180 degree shutter, they show you the opposite shutter speed. OVFs flicker in a way that real life does not. As for focus, you can't just take into account the resolution of the display, but the visual capabilities of the eye, and the size / distance of the image that you're viewing.

I should clarify. With an OVF you are seeing what the lens sees, not what the sensor is seeing. It's an unfiltered view of the scene, without the interpretation of the image having passed through the electronics. Personally I don't mind the flicker from the shutter.



I don't see why you'd think RED footage, if well shot by someone who knows what they're doing would look in any way videoish. RED is a fully progressive Digital Cinema Camera, not an interlaced, over processed dayglo colours video cam.

I'm not talking about exposure issues. Without a doubt the RED will produce beautiful images if handled properly. The samples I have seen have a very attractive finger print, that - dare I say it lookvery film like...

I'm talking about temporal issues, that you experience while panning/ tilting or as a result of subject movement.

I'm not sure if the fact that it is progressive, instead of interlaced resolves these
temporal issues. I don't think that is the case. So, what I am talking about has nothing to do with the RED in particular, but is common to all electric movie cameras that do not use a mechanical shutter. It's a matter of physics / optics.



I'm pleased you're excited about the camera. We are too! Of course, commercial success doesn't make you an automatic technical expert
, but neither does it mean you must be ignorant.
Graeme

I didn't equated commercial success with ignorance. If anything I was pointing out that commercial success as a director doesn't make you an expert in every discipline of film making. Jackson is a talented man, but I highly doubt that he has the in-depth technical knowledge of a truly well versed DP. In the same vein I would also not consult a DP on the direction of actors. ;-)

HL

[Graeme Nattress]

Harry you're right to like what you like. When it comes to personal choice, it's not debatable.

The RED EVF is very different to any other EVF I've come across, and very much more advanced than you'd get on a normal camera. We've really tried to give OVF lovers as many of the features they love, like the look around region, and high resolution.

If you can describe a perceived temporal issue, I can talk about it. One of the issues with video cameras is their small sensor, and consequently deep DOF. Deep DOF can increase the human perception of pan jitter at 24fps. Because of the large sensor, and the nice edge rolloff, RED doesn't have that issue.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

Harry you're right to like what you like. When it comes to personal choice, it's not debatable.

The RED EVF is very different to any other EVF I've come across, and very much more advanced than you'd get on a normal camera. We've really tried to give OVF lovers as many of the features they love, like the look around region, and high resolution.

I'm trying to get a look at a RED over here. I'm certainly open minded about the issue. If it works, it works and you can't argue with that.




If you can describe a perceived temporal issue, I can talk about it. One of the issues with video cameras is their small sensor, and consequently deep DOF. Deep DOF can increase the human perception of pan jitter at 24fps. Because of the large sensor, and the nice edge rolloff, RED doesn't have that issue.

Graeme
It would not be an issue of DOF, since the RED uses a 'full size' sensor.

As you mentioned it's a smearing / softening issue in pans or tilts or moves and concerns the quality of motion blur. Difficult to describe in words, but I could point it out in footage. It doesn't show up all the time, especially with 24P, but it does rear it's head when all of the right ingredients are present.

I'm not claiming that these issues exist with the RED, rather I am asking if anyone has encountered them with the camera, because they have been present in other machines.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'edge roll off'?

Cheers,

HL

[Graeme Nattress]

Edge roll off is how sharpness on edges of objects in focus fall off to out of focus. It's a factor of DOF, and how the sensor renders DOF, and the image reconstruction algorithms from the sensor.

Smearing / too much motion blur on movement is usually just a factor of shutter speed, and many video cameras by default operate at equivalent of 360 degree shutter, and even at 24fps, it does look videoish. This is also often done by choice to get more sensitivity for better low light - like Apocalypto. And yes, you can do that if you want with RED, but if you don't like the look of it, it's simple to avoid.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

Smearing / too much motion blur on movement is usually just a factor of shutter speed, and many video cameras by default operate at equivalent of 360 degree shutter, and even at 24fps, it does look videoish. This is also often done by choice to get more sensitivity for better low light - like Apocalypto. And yes, you can do that if you want with RED, but if you don't like the look of it, it's simple to avoid.

Graeme

That sounds very encouraging. I look forward to getting a close look at a piece shot with the RED.

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks Harry. We take feedback seriously, and we have an ethos of constant improvement.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

Thanks Graeme.

Exciting times.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think Harry is probably thinking of this issue some people have with the "crispness" of 24P with a 1/48 shutter, even though in theory it should have exactly the same motion blur characteristics of 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.

My theory is there is maybe a minor difference due to the fact that an electronic shutter is immediately off and on, whereas a mechanical shutter sweeps through to close, which probably means that the brightest highlights are slightly blurring more than the darker elements, I don't know. I suspect though that a simple A-B test of a 24P and a 24 fps film camera, at the same shutter speed, shooting a bouncing ball, for example, would get the same results if you examined each frame.

Some of the difference perceived has been due to the greater depth of field of 24P cameras with smaller sensors, since blur feels different for sharp objects than out of focus detail.

But I think most of the difference is due to how we watch 24P vs. 24 fps film. When we shoot with a film camera, we see a flickering image in the viewfinder, or a video tap image that does not give us a clear idea of how it will finally look on film. Then we either see the footage projected or transferred to video, often 60i or 50i, and viewed on a monitor. Whereas with many 24P cameras, we watch the live 24P image on a LCD or CRT monitor, sometimes converted to 48i, but either way, it tends to be the worse-case scenario for strobe and flicker. By the time it ends up on broadcast TV or transferred to film, most of the annoying motion artifacts have been reduced and then we're back to the question of whether 24P with a 1/48 shutter looks like 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter, and if there is a difference, it's pretty minimal, nitpicky at that point. Again, at this point, the final display format, deeper-focus or maybe excessive edge enhancement may be at play in terms of making the 24P effect look "crisper" than 24 fps film.

[Graeme Nattress]

Good post David! Even things like the demosaic algorithm can effect this, how lenses interact with the sensor too.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

I think Harry is probably thinking of this issue some people have with the "crispness" of 24P with a 1/48 shutter, even though in theory it should have exactly the same motion blur characteristics of 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.

Hello David -

A good example of what I am talking about is visible in a film from a few years ago called "The Deep End". I believe it was shot on SONY HD (900 series?).

I remember sitting in the theater and as the film began to roll I was initially impressed by how nicely it was light. Back then some films shot on HD didn't look so great, because people were probably still learning how to shoot with these cameras. In any case all was well, until the first pan came along. You saw the big video smear.

Of course that was 2001 and we have made a lot of progress since. You see less and less of these issues these days.

I only saw such artifacts in a few scenes in 'Apocalypto' and I'm not even sure what camera these were shot at. Previously it was mentioned that they shot Dalsa, S16 or 35mm. I think it may have been the Dalsa, although one of the shots was a POV...

But regardless although Apocalypto did look a little 'live' at times, I thought it was very beautiful.


HL

[Graeme Nattress]

Apocalypto was Panavision Genesis, and they did use 360 shutter on some shots, which would lead to the smearing you (and I) don't like.

Graeme

[Harry Lime]

Apocalypto was Panavision Genesis, and they did use 360 shutter on some shots, which would lead to the smearing you (and I) don't like.

Graeme

Sorry, Genesis. Not Dalsa.


HL

[Deanan]

I think Harry is probably thinking of this issue some people have with the "crispness" of 24P with a 1/48 shutter, even though in theory it should have exactly the same motion blur characteristics of 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter.


There's also a difference between the nonlinear response in film and the linear response of a sensor. The difference shows up in how the trailing end of a blur fades out. Not good vs bad but just a bit different.

Deanan

[Deanan]

The other factor regarding OVF vs EVF is a dramatic increase in cost and maint. which would double or triple the price of the camera. That goes against the goals of making a high quality camera accessible.

[Florian Stadler]

I have long been a fervent proponent of the optical viewfinder and I'm still on the fence about it.
There is a creative process going on when looking at a mirrored 2 dimensional representation of reality and one imagines the lighting one needs to do to capture the richness of that on a limited dynamic range medium. That moment on the set when one looks through the viewfinder, connects with the image and finds solutions to connect it with the story. I have yet to experience that with an electronic viewfinder.
The fact that you can see a pure image BEFORE it is translated by an image capture system is what makes the optical viewfinder appealing. Also the quiet alone moment with the image on a chaotic set is another aspect of it.

Can one learn to live without it? Can one find a creative process to replace it? Is it worth the trade-off of weight and price? Is the electronic viewfinder going to improve so much to make the differences irrelevant at some point?
Probably, the future will tell.

P.S. David is probably correct that feature film D.P.'s used to work with an operator will be much more used to contemplating the image at a different stage than us commercial D.P.'s that operate mostly themselves.

[mezmo]

Yes, I know, I´ve worked with 235, 435ES+Xtreme, 16SR3 and 416. I only wanted to make clear that the optical viewfinder system is a highly complex and expensive one and still doesn´t give you a 1:1 image. I didn´t mean that the final image is affected in any way.
Hi Kalone,
You might want to have your eyes tested (I'm being serious here)
Most D.P's don't have a problem with Arri viewfindwer optics.
The bigger the glass the faster the glass the better the image.
The SR3 with smaller optics can be a little dull with video tap
beam splitters in play but 35 format camera optics are fine.
Try using left and right eye to find a difference. You may have
a floating retina in one eye or some other problem.
Eye damage can be undetected for many years and should be a concern
if you have trouble getting a clear image thru an optical viewfinder.
Mezmo.

[mezmo]

Optical viewfinder on Red?
I see a lot of focus problems on footage/files posted by Red users.
Would an OVF help with this problem, I think it would and if any
electronic camera needs an OVF it's probably a 4K high resolution one.
Is it practicle and are Red up to the task, can customers afford it,
most probably don't need it at the moment with the camera at this
price point and specs.
As Red develops over time I wouldn't dismiss it as an option, as other cameras come on the market with this as a feature, Red may be left behind
a little here, I think the SI 2K already has a beam splitter optical viewfinder.
Mezmo

[Brook Willard]

Optical viewfinder on Red?
I see a lot of focus problems on footage/files posted by Red users.
Would an OVF help with this problem, I think it would...

Since nobody's shooting with an EVF, one can't say that an OVF would solve the focus problem. The focus problem is - in my opinion - lack of experience with 35mm combined with lack of full crews.

That said, I have found more footage in acceptable focus than out of acceptable focus.

[Steve Sanacore]

Well, the new Canon 1D III introduces a live view lcd mode, and the general feedback I have read has been "it's OK, but doesn't add much for me". The positives have mostly been restricted to dificult to view shots (over the heads of crowds and macro) rather than any plus in general use. There is also an overheating heating issue with leaving the sensor "running" for longer periods of time (to give the live view) compared with a single exposure in normal slr modes.

I think that before pro slr uses were looking to go that way you would basically have a Red One with full EOS autofocus and at least a 4k lcd on the back..... ;-)

As far as still shoots...
I find the live view of the Canon's best use is when used tethered to a laptop or monitor so the crew, art department and art directors can look at a live image while composing, styling, lighting etc. I don't think I ever looked at the screen on the back of the camera in this mode.

I too love optical viewfinders but as long as RED provides a compact high res on camera monitor which can accurately judge focus - I am fine with that.