WARNING for rookies... [Archive]

Blair S. Paulsen

07-13-2007, 03:32 PM

Focus - I'm hoping that the high res EVF with Grame's magic waveform displayed will make that manageable. I also have many years of experience pulling my own focus operating 2/3" cams so I am used to racking on moving subjects - of course I could have been slightly off many times but unless I was in tight nobody could tell.

NDs, I only have one grade at the moment so perhaps I should get a full set from Schneider :mellow: .

I thought there was so much latitude exposure errors could be fixed easily in post :whistling: .

Brook Willard

07-13-2007, 03:40 PM

I get the first two, but is the third any different than those who are used to 35mm should expect? Or are you directing that at the auto-exposure _VX and below crowds?

Curran Giddens

07-13-2007, 03:41 PM

Bruce Allen

07-13-2007, 03:44 PM

Jim, you realize that your statement causes the 100,000 people who DO know about the above but DON'T have sufficient cash for your camera to kinda all gnash their teeth in unison in a worldwide grinding noise, right?

Hey we can't complain though - you put it within rentable range for us!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Adam Jeal

07-13-2007, 03:52 PM

NDs, I only have one grade at the moment so perhaps I should get a full set from Schneider :mellow: .

The Formatt ND's are the best i've used. Better than Tiffen or Schneider IMHO.

Sean

07-13-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote from David Lynch (gawd I love 'im):

INTERVIEWER: Can you go back to orthodox filmmaking ever again?

LYNCH: [S]hooting film as compared to shooting video is soooo inefficient. The downtime—I die the death. Magic can get lost. With video, there’s no waiting, you get deep into a scene, things can happen, and with auto-focus you can make little changes as you shoot you could never make with film. It doesn’t have film’s quality, but it has its own quality, and I love its quality. Film has gotten as good as it’s going to get. Video is the future, and it’s just going to get better and better.

WHAT I TAKE FROM THIS: Focus is gonna be an issue, of course...especially for cinematographers. But I hope artists will blow us away with Red even when something is a hair out of focus--I'd like to think we'll be so engaged nobody will notice. Slightly soft focus is sacrilege, of course, when all you're doing is staring at the image. But when you're telling a story in an innovative way, well I say rookies should go to town.

I can hear Jim groaning. All that out of focus Red footage floating around, spoiling his good name! ;-)

Adam Jeal

07-13-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote from David Lynch (gawd I love 'im):

INTERVIEWER: Can you go back to orthodox filmmaking ever again?

LYNCH: [S]hooting film as compared to shooting video is soooo inefficient. The downtime—I die the death. Magic can get lost. With video, there’s no waiting, you get deep into a scene, things can happen, and with auto-focus you can make little changes as you shoot you could never make with film. It doesn’t have film’s quality, but it has its own quality, and I love its quality. Film has gotten as good as it’s going to get. Video is the future, and it’s just going to get better and better.

WHAT I TAKE FROM THIS: Focus is gonna be an issue, of course...especially for cinematographers. But I hope artists will blow us away with Red even when something is a hair out of focus--I'd like to think we'll be so engaged nobody will notice. Slightly soft focus is sacrilege, of course, when all you're doing is staring at the image. But when you're telling a story in an innovative way, well I say rookies should go to town. ;-)

Focus is an issue for everyone. Although David Lynch seemed happy with using the Auto-focus on the PD 150. This was ok for INLAND EMPIRE. He mentioned that he wants to consider 'A Small HD Quality Camera' for his next film. How about it Jim? - I think Lynch will love the Red and the Compact Red Camera. It'd be a crying shame to see the guy use a Sony V1!

Sean

07-13-2007, 04:06 PM

Lynch will LOVE that 8000 ISO rating (still less grainy than a PD150!). It would mean less futzing around with the lights. Or no lights. He'll absolutely love it. I wonder if he'd deal with Red's more demanding focus needs, though. Bet he'll be convinced it's worth the trade off.

Adam Jeal

07-13-2007, 04:09 PM

Rockin Good News!, Damn-Fine Cameras or Peachy-Keen! (take your pick!).

Casey Green

07-13-2007, 04:22 PM

Three things to prepare for.

Focus.

ND's.

Exposure.

Jim

I don't think this is the first warning Jim has made. And I think it's wise of RED to do this several times before release. As with any new professional level tool that democratizes the industry because of it's price and potential, it is inevitable that results will vary from outstanding to amateur (and quite possibly horrendous) depending on how much experience the operator will have.

When the Cameras get into the hands of the public (which will be Pro DPs and Camera Operators, as well as Film Students and Home Videographers, etc.) anything goes, and the sooner people realize this, the better the chance they have to familiarize themselves with the concepts and methods needed to produce quality images.

Unwounded

07-13-2007, 04:22 PM

I don't know. If someone could make out of focus "Work" It'd be Lynch for sure.

Evin Grant

07-13-2007, 05:53 PM

I get the first two, but is the third any different than those who are used to 35mm should expect? Or are you directing that at the auto-exposure _VX and below crowds?

I think he means that the sensor responds differently to different contrast ranges. So you may be at ISO 320 in flat light but 500 or 640 in contrasty situations.

Sean

07-13-2007, 06:14 PM

Further to Jim's warning about ND, I'm curious what you guys have to say about the different ND filters for 4K work (in my case for use with Nikkors).

For example over at www.CameraFilters.com (http://camerafilters.com/pages/nd.aspx), you can choose an ND-2 filter that is Hoya Double Coated, Hoya Ultra Thin, Hoya HMC Multi-Coated, etc. Evin Grant probably has a few pointers in these regards!

Evin Grant

07-13-2007, 06:34 PM

Further to Jim's warning about ND, I'm curious what you guys have to say about the different ND filters for 4K work (in my case for use with Nikkors).
You may want to look into this product for Nikkors...
http://www.singh-ray.com/varindann.gif
It's a variable ND filter, from 2-8 stops, optimised for digital shooting, it negates the use of an additional polarizer though, so it's not a total solution.
http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html

Sean

07-13-2007, 06:51 PM

Cool. Didn't know such a filter existed.

I notice that some filters are specifically designated as being for wide-angle lenses. I need different ND filters for my 17-35mm than for my 180mm (other than filter size that is)?

Evin Grant

07-13-2007, 08:28 PM

Tom Lowe

07-13-2007, 08:44 PM

I have been saying all along that all these 1st ACs who have been working on Varicams and F900s, etc, need to sharpen up. Either that, or the old-scool guys are going to rule the day once RED drops.

mdo

07-13-2007, 08:58 PM

I thought there was so much latitude exposure errors could be fixed easily in post :whistling: .

You can dig them out of the floor, but if they blow out the top, they're gone.

Mark Thorpe

07-13-2007, 09:04 PM

I don't give a crap. Coming from 3CCD land I'm gonna take this cam, learn it, play it, master it, tame it and let forth the beauty of the Oceans as never seen before.

S'all about the spirit.

Blair S. Paulsen

07-13-2007, 09:16 PM

I get the first two, but is the third any different than those who are used to 35mm should expect? Or are you directing that at the auto-exposure _VX and below crowds?

The issue is just how critical proper exposure is, let me clarify:

The greener shooters have many issues to contend with in understanding exposure and from what I've seen auto-exposure is often their worst enemy. I would advise them to start by learning the basic theory of "place and fall" which is discussed in several books they should find the time to read, but I digress.

The oblique point of my post was more in terms of how the brave new world of post-acquisition image manipulation combined with a data based workflow has changed the rules. Sure, modern 35mm film stocks run through proper TK and DI (assuming the budget allows for it) can offer latitude similar to what we are being told we can expect from the RedOne with its low noise sensor, RAW color space and RedCine software.

My post was aimed at the "rookies" Jim was warning, most of whom are used to 6 to 8 useable stops, and, depending on what they are used to shooing with, plenty of noise even at 0db. For them the ability to miss by a couple stops and save it in post without anybody but their hairdresser knowing for sure seems to me like the RedOne is making their lives easier. Perhaps I am so used to proper methods of setting exposure I underestimate how lost some noobs might be, if so I stand corrected.

Blair S. Paulsen

07-13-2007, 09:33 PM

You can dig them out of the floor, but if they blow out the top, they're gone.

I have always followed that dictum myself but lately I am wondering if maybe there is more to the story. I had the good fortune to attend a seminar at NAB that Jason Rodriguez (who is working with SI these days I think) gave on working in RAW color space. (I am going to paraphrase his comments here, if my memory is off my apologies in advance.) The short version is that the extra bits of info that cameras like SI and RedOne intake (largely to push down the noise floor from what I gathered) include actual image information that can be recovered from the blown out portions of highlights.

I will leave it to more technically proficient folks to explain how this is possible but from the images that Jason showed at the seminar it sure looked like you could extract details from pretty blown areas.

In any case, I plan to shoot to the left at first just to cover my arse.

mdo

07-13-2007, 09:48 PM

The short version is that the extra bits of info that cameras like SI and RedOne intake (largely to push down the noise floor from what I gathered) include actual image information that can be recovered from the blown out portions of highlights.

I will leave it to more technically proficient folks to explain how this is possible but from the images that Jason showed at the seminar it sure looked like you could extract details from pretty blown areas.

Can't imagine how. If all bits are set to 1 for all values over a certain level, doesn't seem like there would be any way to work back from that.

Blair S. Paulsen

07-13-2007, 10:11 PM

Can't imagine how. If all bits are set to 1 for all values over a certain level, doesn't seem like there would be any way to work back from that.

Until that seminar at NAB I would have agreed with you. I wish I had the technical chops to explain it better but unless Jason falsified the images, which I am certain he would not do, I know what I saw.

Evin Grant

07-13-2007, 11:13 PM

It has to do with the fact that more often than not one or two color channels will blow our first. If done intelegently though they can be rebuilt using the remaining info.

SF Geek

07-13-2007, 11:26 PM

Evin. What do you mean by different ISO for different contrast situations? Can you get more latitude out of one rating than you could out of the other?

Evin Grant

07-13-2007, 11:51 PM

Evin. What do you mean by different ISO for different contrast situations? Can you get more latitude out of one rating than you could out of the other?

It's about tailoring your exposire to the available DR. Sort of like a digital zone system.

REDHKSC

07-14-2007, 12:43 AM

Three things to prepare for.

Focus.

ND's.

Exposure.

Jim

What about Shutter and Frame Rate ?

Stewart

Fergus Meiklejohn

07-14-2007, 01:34 AM

I'm ready for the challenge. I'm ready for the work it'll take for me NEVER to have to film (that should be video ED) with crappy cameras that make our beautiful world look like.. well.. cheap video.
I saw David Lynch's new film. I thought it was lesson in how a great director can make a virtue out whatever crap he or she has to film with. But some of the shots were totally out of focus; I mean long medium shot on our lead actress as she delivers her lines.. out of focus.. I'm squirming in the back row trying not to shout out.. thirty seconds later.. still out of focus. Doubtless the DP walked straight out and shot himself there and then. What else could he do?
I'm sure David Lynch will avail himself of RED for his next crazy feature. I'm also sure that there are many people on this forum who would do it for cost for the chance to work with him.. Am I wrong??:biggrin:
What do we think of Lynch's work? It's LA-Dystopia right? Is there a "deeper meaning" wooooo? :shiftyph34r:

Gavin Greenwalt

07-14-2007, 02:21 AM

Hey we can't complain though - you put it within rentable range for us!

Bruce Allen

Hear hear! To Renting! *klinks champagne glass*

ChristopherKenworthy

07-14-2007, 05:39 AM

Very happy to get my DP to sort out the Exposure and ND issues. That's his job. In fact, all this talk about insane ISO ratings is making me think we can drop our Zeiss Master Primes and do everything with the Red Zooms and push a stop if ever we need to. Seriously. Not least because I like to use a 65mm, and well, they're hard to come by as primes.

FOCUS is more of a team effort, and my big question to Red Team is, what was that gear we saw at NAB? Are we getting a Red Follow Focus, is there a Wireless system/grip for focus? I ask, because I'd hate to spend a fortune on good gear that I don't need (if Red end up creating something better), or to get all that Redrock follow focus stuff and find out Red has better follow focus.

And to keep this on topic, I'm asking this because if there is a big NOOB WARNING about focus, it would be lovely to know the bag of tricks that Red will give us for focus. We know we'll have the magic focus assist, but what else?

David Mullen ASC

07-14-2007, 05:46 AM

There are limits to just changing the ISO ratings scene to scene (and certainly shot to shot) in terms of how much variation in noise level do you want. A certain level of variation from scene to scene is OK (it's like shooting slow film outside and fast film inside and that diffference in grain) but it's harder to get away with that shot to shot in the same sequence.

JD Holloway

07-14-2007, 06:41 AM

David,

In many respects it depends on what you are mastering to. 1080p for broadcast would have, for instance, more latitude for push/pull than 4k projection. Likewise mixing s16mm and 35 can work well enough for broadcast...but theatrical release?

...no thank you.

RobRoySyd

07-14-2007, 07:31 AM

I have always followed that dictum myself but lately I am wondering if maybe there is more to the story. I had the good fortune to attend a seminar at NAB that Jason Rodriguez (who is working with SI these days I think) gave on working in RAW color space. (I am going to paraphrase his comments here, if my memory is off my apologies in advance.) The short version is that the extra bits of info that cameras like SI and RedOne intake (largely to push down the noise floor from what I gathered) include actual image information that can be recovered from the blown out portions of highlights.

I will leave it to more technically proficient folks to explain how this is possible but from the images that Jason showed at the seminar it sure looked like you could extract details from pretty blown areas.

In any case, I plan to shoot to the left at first just to cover my arse.

I heard this as well. The difference now is that we can over expose without clipping. That means there's still detail that can be pulled back. Once you clip though, it's gone as always. I think part of the confusion is because both these cameras are recording more dynamic range than any LCD has got a prayer of displaying.

Antoine Fabi

07-14-2007, 08:21 AM

Tools that push the limits and versatility further are capable of the BEST and the WORST.

This is probably why Mr Jannard insists on these topics.

Be prepared to test, test and test. Exiting times...really !

I think there will be many different ways we can use the dynamic range.

I am more than impressed by the 8000 ISO performance.

Sean

07-14-2007, 11:25 AM

I saw David Lynch's new film. I thought it was lesson in how a great director can make a virtue out whatever crap he or she has to film with. But some of the shots were totally out of focus; I mean long medium shot on our lead actress as she delivers her lines.. out of focus.. I'm squirming in the back row trying not to shout out.. thirty seconds later.. still out of focus. Doubtless the DP walked straight out and shot himself there and then.

I didn't care about the soft focus in Inland Empire for a single moment. I was just riveted by the film. A lot of Redusers are trained to demand certain things that ordinary (and even far more discerning than ordinary) audiences just don't think about. The reviewers across the board, who raved about Inland Empire, never once mentioned focus issues. I never saw a review that mentioned it disparagingly anyhow. And even the most experienced film critics often have no clue about the technical aspects of film creation: one very experienced film critic in a major paper described Inland Empire as having been shot in "low-register HD"...whatever that is.

I'm sure Jim has various motives for warning about the challenge of focusing. Paranoia? ;-) Obviously there's a huge range in experience of Red purchasers (unlike users of a Viper who were invariably expertly trained DPs), and as such Jim might be concerned about people getting a nasty surprise when faced with the difficulty of shooting with such high resolution and shallow depth of field (e.g., "I hate my new camera--I can't even focus on my dog when he runs away from me."). But the beauty of democratized filmmaking (where Red is leading the way) is how so many more people of all walks of life can tell a story with the potential to deliver quality to a wider audience. And even then, I'm betting that most purchasers of Red, even when they're upgrading from a DVX100, will be very aware of the new challenges they're facing. It's still a $20,000+ investment. You don't just pick one up at Best Buy.

Michael Stanmore

07-14-2007, 12:52 PM

Thanks for the warning, Jim.

I've never even used a regular video camera before (only been in the post-production side of the biz). It will be interesting to see how easy it is for a NooB to just pick up a RED and start shooting.

WOW!!! How exciting for your first car to be a Ferrari! That's amazing. I call myself a noob and even I started out on an SVHS video camera 10 years ago...

Jannard

07-14-2007, 01:30 PM

Justin K Phillips

07-14-2007, 01:35 PM

My experience is with a DSLR and a crappy Digital8 cam. I think I'll do just fine. ;)

:P

Greg Voevodsky

07-14-2007, 01:55 PM

I know most professional cameraman do not use auto-focus. However, it looks like Canon might be breaking that trend. I still do not see the stigma of good auto-focus like 35mm still cameras or stabilization.

http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/aft.html

I'm curious if Red's focus assist will be similar to Canon's where the operator with a joystick or mouse positions the focus box where he/she wants focus and then the assist tells him which way to rack (forward or back).

Any news or RED's focus assist?
Would Canon's auto focus work with their PL super lense?

Curran Giddens

07-14-2007, 01:56 PM

WOW!!! How exciting for your first car to be a Ferrari! That's amazing. I call myself a noob and even I started out on an SVHS video camera 10 years ago...

Well, that could happen too. I've never had a car either....

I'm pretty exited about learning to master my RED. For my own projects I will have enough time to work on getting it just right. With my MoCo rig I will be able to perform the camera move first, without worrying about focus. Then I can playback the camera move while I work on getting the focus just right using the remote follow focus.

Chris Forbes

07-14-2007, 02:02 PM

I know most professional cameraman do not use auto-focus. However, it looks like Canon might be breaking that trend.

The cost of those canon lenses with auto focus vs. without is about 4 times higher. It is much easier to hire a good camera man.

Blair S. Paulsen

07-14-2007, 02:29 PM

I see that Graeme is on the boards right now so perhaps he will reveal a bit more about the "magic focus" ...

In any case, if it works in the manner it was explained to me I think it might be far more elegant and quicker than the joystick system.

My completely unofficial best interpretation of the waveform style focus assist is:

a waveform at the bottom of the EVF (and the LCD AFAIK) that reads high frequency detail in the corresponding portion of the image directly above that point on the waveform. My expectation is that I will be able to rack focus back and forth until the portion of the waveform under the subject I want in focus gets as tall as it will get and then I should be tack sharp.

If I have this right it should be a great tool for racking between two or more people in a shot since I can see the high point of my waveform move from right under subject one to right under subject two etc. It should also be good for tracking focus on moving subjects and other "as it happens" doco style gigs.

For set shots I am a big fan of tape measures but if time and/or crew is short I am hoping I can just trust the focus assist waveform.

I am wondering if the buttons on the side of the EVF will allow us to switch between the exposure histogram, the focus assist waveform and maybe audio meters along the bottom???

Greg Voevodsky

07-14-2007, 02:40 PM

Michael Brennan

07-14-2007, 02:42 PM

I think Jims warning regarding focus goes for everyone not just rookies.
Have a close look at blue ray or HD transmisson or movies on a large full res LCD.
There are numerous shots in many movies where the focus is not perfect.

A 4k digital camera combined with digital post and digital display will make focus errors a little more noticable.

Will be interesting to see if use of very shallow depth of field when shooting on RED, lets say eyes in focus but tip of nose and ears a little soft, common enough when shooting 35mm film to throw the background out, may be a little disturbing on large screen digital displays.

Perhaps confounded if the subject moves as little as 1/2 inch and the tip of the nose becomes sharper than the eyes.

Mike Brennan

Justin O'Neill

07-14-2007, 02:53 PM

Mick is right. I watch some OTA HD on my big CRT computer monitor and I'm constantly amazed at how often shots will be out of focus for a second. This happens occasionally on every single show I've seen so its not just the result of an amature focus puller. I can't imagine what it's gonna be like once we start watching shows in 4k.

David Battistella

07-14-2007, 03:30 PM

I see that Graeme is on the boards right now so perhaps he will reveal a bit more about the "magic focus" ...

I wonder if RED will have a great focus assist tool, like the one that exists on the HVX 200. That quickly zooms a portion of your frame and allows you to get a sharp manual focus.

I am all for manual apreture and lenses, but I like the great digital features that are offered with some camera's. The HVX has a pretty dead accurate focus distance which you can display in the viewfinder. I think with focus being such a critical issue, it would be great to have some of the new tools available.

I hope we are not talking about hardcore guys who just build an amazing camera, but wouldn't add some of the great features that enhance our ability to get great "in focus" shots in a multitude of situations.

The images we've seen posted from on set in the past couple of days are a good example of when you might want to use an electronic tool (not to autofocus) but to help you set your manual focus.

I am not sure there is a still guy in the world right now that doesn't rely on autofoucs for sports photography.

I hope that RED will be innovating in the areas of assisted focus and apreture too. The choice to leave out stages of ND built in to the camera assumes that every configuration will require a matte box, etc.

Not every shoot happens in the hyper controlled environment of a film set and some of these tools are very useful to small teams or one person operations.

We know that RED is not a rookie machine, but that does not mean we should be vaulted back to the days of our first Pentax K-1000's either. These tools just help us capture better images and I think that is the goal here, right?

David

Fergus Meiklejohn

07-14-2007, 03:53 PM

I can't wait to get my hands on the camera (ok I'm not alone..:nerd: )
It's going to be a real challenge but it CAN produce beautiful images! That's the thing.. Like film.

Phil Bates

07-14-2007, 06:35 PM

I am not the least bit concerned about users that have experience with 35mm film, or even a Viper or Genesis. My concern is for the shooter stepping up from an HVX200 or Z1. It certainly is going to be an eye-opener and a challenge to learn some new stuff. As long as they understand what they are getting into, I am sure it will be an incredibly satisfying experience. If these issues come as surpires, it might be a bit disconcerting. I just want all RED customers to be informed and happy.

Jim

Sorry if I am sounding like a broken record, but wouldn't sensor cleaning be just as a significant issue for someone upgrading from those cameras? A few dust spots on the sensor can ruin your whole day, and be surprising as well for someone used to fixed lens cameras.

Phil
wwww.artbeats.com

Shawn Nelson

07-14-2007, 06:53 PM

If I can only afford two NDs and a pol at first, what's the most important two NDs to get?

Gregory Karydis

07-14-2007, 07:28 PM

Focus. <---OK

ND's. <---No problerm

Exposure. <--- Erm... will look into this.

Jim <-- is this part of the warnings too?:sorcerer:

I come from the Eos 1D MkII and MkIII and the A1 (Z1's little brother) so I am a little freaked but I feel I'll be able to figure everything out :)

Thanks for the heads-up Jim

JD Holloway

07-14-2007, 07:50 PM

If I can only afford two NDs and a pol at first, what's the most important two NDs to get?

Given the flexibility of the camera to under exposure, I would think going a little heavy would be useful when you don't have much control. Use a N6 + N9. Use your Pol as a N3(ish). Outside mix the NDs plus Pol as required (just watch for ghosting in high contrast areas, use matte box tilt feature if you need to) Try and shoot F5.6-8 minimum until you get used to the setup (read: can pull your own focus like a champ) or have a focus puller.

My .02$

David Battistella

07-14-2007, 08:19 PM

If I can only afford two NDs and a pol at first, what's the most important two NDs to get?

I'd say you need three ND's a 3,6 and 9. That's one two and three stops of ND. You can use them one at a time or more depending on which matte box you have on the RED.

As far as I know the RED has no built in ND filters so these are going to be a must, especially for outdoor film when you need to create any sort of depth of field.

David

Ken Willinger

07-14-2007, 08:36 PM

I find I use the 3 and 6 a lot more than the 9 but it's good to have in the kit. I'd also recommend getting the same set as ND grads. I use these often.

David Battistella

07-14-2007, 08:46 PM

I find I use the 3 and 6 a lot more than the 9 but it's good to have in the kit. I'd also recommend getting the same set as ND grads. I use these often.

Yes at least 1 grad is a must.

d

Jason Rodriguez

07-14-2007, 10:03 PM

I will leave it to more technically proficient folks to explain how this is possible but from the images that Jason showed at the seminar it sure looked like you could extract details from pretty blown areas.

Hi Paul,

What I was demonstrating at NAB was the fact that low noise, wide dynamic range cameras like the RED and SI, etc. have more information than is needed to render a "proper contrast" image on a typical TV screen. For instance, the typical computer monitor/TV screen can show around 6-7 f-stops of actual contrast range. Some a little more. But the point is that to get a good contrasty image, where you have an perceptually linear increasing greyscale ramp, you're going to get around 6-7 f-stops. To show more of the ramp at any given time, you're going to have to apply some contrast reduction (dynamic range compression). So, now imaging you have this 6-7 f-stop "window" in your 11 f-stop camera dynamic range. You can slide this "window" around, very similar to the "print-up"/"print-down" process of printing a color negative for viewing on a contact or answer print. So, if for instance, you use Redcine to make a contrasty "look" that only presents around 6-7 f-stops, you can choose which 6-7 f-stops you're going to shoot with out of your 11 f-stop range. Of course if you shoot with the lower portion of that range, you're gonna get some noise, especially if you need to apply a toe to the bottom ranges . . . i.e., too high a contrast curve at the bottom bits will create a large gain step as you climb out of the toe of curve, so you'll get lower bits with high gain applied, and that could make some noise visible. But the point is you can create a scene file that paints the camera in such a way that there's a stop or two remaining in the upper highlights of the image . . . so while it may looked clipped because of the active LUT you're using, there is still RGB information in the highlights of the RAW image. Now again, in normal shooting, where I would think you want to preserve the good SNR of the camera, you're probably only going to save a half-stop to a stop in a normally lit scene, and most likely blow-out in a bright constrasty out-door scene. But if you're more agressive in how your LUT normalizes the RAW data of the camera, you can save more highlight information . . . but increasing highlight headroom means you're reducing the overall effective SNR of your image, so depending on the camera, this might work, and this might not work, i.e., the noise floor and how much of it you're willing to tolerate seeing is your limiting factor. But it seems like from the images that Jim posted, you should be in good shape with the RED.

Stephen Williams

07-15-2007, 02:49 AM

I find I use the 3 and 6 a lot more than the 9 but it's good to have in the kit. I'd also recommend getting the same set as ND grads. I use these often.

Hi,

As Red has a natve speed of at least 250 asa you will want a ND 1.8 (6 stops) to get you a T2.8-4 split on a sunny day. An ND 1.2 0r ND 0.9 (4 or 3 stops) will be useful when it's cloudy.

Stephen

Steven Parker

07-15-2007, 03:51 PM

If I can only afford two NDs and a pol at first, what's the most important two NDs to get?

I always rate a pola as 1 to 2 stops lost depending on the shot/mood I'm in, so if you really can only get 2 NDs, maybe get an ND6 and an ND6 soft grad.

With a 3-stage mattebox you'd be knocking 3-4 stops off overall, and 5-6 stops off the sky if the shot calls for it.

Antoine Fabi

07-16-2007, 07:57 AM

I am not the least bit concerned about users that have experience with 35mm film, or even a Viper or Genesis. My concern is for the shooter stepping up from an HVX200 or Z1. It certainly is going to be an eye-opener and a challenge to learn some new stuff. As long as they understand what they are getting into, I am sure it will be an incredibly satisfying experience. If these issues come as surpires, it might be a bit disconcerting. I just want all RED customers to be informed and happy.

Jim

Jim,

Why would it be so different ?

I mean, doesn't it work quite like a DSLR ?

If not, maybe it would be usefull to write a little article on that topic before we receive our cameras ?

thanks

Zakaree Sandberg

07-16-2007, 08:04 AM

Will we be able to see true exposure on an external monitor?

David Battistella

07-16-2007, 08:26 AM

Will we be able to see true exposure on an external monitor?

The place to see true exposure will be in the histogram of the image. Anything that is on the monitor would be an preset look and not necessarily what the actual REDCODE RAW looks like.

The monitor is playing back the file as you have asked it to. I think this might be what some people need to get their head around. On one hand is it WHAT_YOU_SEE_IS_WHAT_YOU_GET, in that you could play back the file exactly as you are displaying it in the monitor. But on the other hand it is not, because what you are getting is really what is in the histogram of the image.

With RED some people will take the approach that they want to capture the best histogram with a "one light" on set and others might want to set up custom LUT's and just go with those looks that they see in the monitor. This will give you massive amounts of flexibility and control over the final image.

So much extra information is being recorded compared to what you are seeing on that the 720P monitor. It is only actually a true representation of that image (a 720P image).

David

Matthew Rogers

07-16-2007, 09:15 AM

The place to see true exposure will be in the histogram of the image. Anything that is on the monitor would be an preset look and not necessarily what the actual REDCODE RAW looks like.

I wonder if there is going to be user preset buttons that we can set the camera to do things...like one that would turn LUT's on and off so you can quickly see both sides of the image.

Matthew

David Battistella

07-16-2007, 09:46 AM

I wonder if there is going to be user preset buttons that we can set the camera to do things...like one that would turn LUT's on and off so you can quickly see both sides of the image.

Matthew

I think that this will be the point of having the histogram in the viewfinder. I am learning a bit more about this stuff as I read and go forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense. You can create baseline looks for any situaltion and eventually you will have the presets that you come back to or use all the time.

I think that Jim is warning that the camera is going to be a challenge for users who are used to many of the automatic features available in many electronic camera's. More care and attention is going to have to be paid to how you are exposing the image, focusing, and how much light is hitting the sensor, etc.

My take is that he wants people to understand that this is a professional level machine and there will be a learning curve for those who have relied upon the automatic features of these camera's. Or fallen to far into the point and shoot ease that video has given us.

Like everything elese with RED, we will have to redefine how we look at digital image capture. I think it's great and it is what I always love about shooting film. Film sort of forces you to make the ASA, apreture, speed, lens, focal length, considerations that video has only started to introduce seriously in recent years.

By and large video has been a "one zoom lens", medium. RED might help put some of the craft back into capturing images digitally. Maybe make us all a bit less lazy. We might not take so much for granted.

David

Antoine Fabi

07-16-2007, 11:03 AM

excuse my poor english and ignorance, but what are LUTs ?

Craig Bowman

07-16-2007, 11:30 AM

An L.U.T. or Look Up Table evolved out of the world of indexed color systems where an index number in the table repesents an expanded value which usually takes up a significantly larger number of bits. The values in the image are then substituted by the index values in the table. To get back the original values you just "Look Up" the index value in the table and retrieve the corresponding expanded value.

Using this concept, you can then change out the expanded values from the table and store it as a new table. When the new table gets "Looked Up" from the index numbers stored in place of the old original data the entire look of the recreated image will change.

This is the way LUT were originally used and it also performed a very simple form of compression. However, you can be crafty with the RAW data so your original data isn't actually destroyed by a set of index values but applied through an intermediate data set like a frame buffer. The original data is kept safe. Kind of like an adjustment layer in Photoshop. It doesn't alter the original data directly so you can change things without corrupting the original data.

A variety of LUTs can then be stored to give different mappings or "Looks". Since I don't have the exact details yet, the way Red will technically perform mappings is in their domain. All you have to know is that you can save a data file which will change what you see when applied without permanently corrupting the original data.

Hope this helps.

Antoine Fabi

07-16-2007, 11:41 AM

So we do mapping of the original RAW data and save a LUT ?

...and LUT=specific look ?

thanks a lot Craig !

Matthew Rogers

07-16-2007, 11:55 AM

I think that this will be the point of having the histogram in the viewfinder. I am learning a bit more about this stuff as I read and go forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense. You can create baseline looks for any situaltion and eventually you will have the presets that you come back to or use all the time.

I think that Jim is warning that the camera is going to be a challenge for users who are used to many of the automatic features available in many electronic camera's. More care and attention is going to have to be paid to how you are exposing the image, focusing, and how much light is hitting the sensor, etc.

The histogram will be wonderful to work with again--zebras are a pain to work with in some situations. Plus, they don't really tell you how your overall exposure--just what broadcast limits are. The thing is, even when your in the field, many time you will have a monitor to check things (subtle things like color and whatnot) and the histogram will not help a ton with that.

What I'd like to be able to do is have it so the producer who is sitting behind a monitor will see the "correct" image, but be able to turn that off and on quickly.

I'm starting to think that many people, including "pros" use auto features more than I thought. After getting burned with auto iris one time, I shoot everything manually...iris, focus, white balance....am I crazy?!

Matthew

Antoine Fabi

07-16-2007, 12:02 PM

yeah,

Zebra shows a fixed value, a "too late" value, only one at a time.

Will the RED histogram be real-time ?

Craig Bowman

07-16-2007, 12:05 PM

So we do mapping of the original RAW data and save a LUT ?

...and LUT=specific look ?

thanks a lot Craig !

Yes the LUT = specific look.

Its going to be as simple as where you see value x replace it with y. Literally the bit size of the index value can be equal to the bit size of the looked up value where x is the value in the RAW DATA and you change it to the looked up value y when sent to a viewed output stream or a new file. The LUT is a one to one mapping and it in fact does represent a specific look. One look per table. Apply table to the raw data on the fly!

Tweaking the data to make the appropriate LUT is where you will spend a lot of your time.

Craig Schober

07-16-2007, 12:07 PM

I'm starting to think that many people, including "pros" use auto features more than I thought. After getting burned with auto iris one time, I shoot everything manually...iris, focus, white balance....am I crazy?!

Matthew

i think it's really about your subjects and the workflow that they dictate. i used to be all about manual control but then i was on sticks with prepared actors too. when you have 20 minutes to setup and a crew to help light and pull focus, you better be using manual settings for everything and why not. no one is going anywhere too soon. but look at some eng, nature, sports, documentary work and time becomes the most valuable asset. sometimes the only way of "getting the shot" is to prepare as best you can and then rely on the auto settings to come through. it can mean the difference between getting no usable footage and getting ok stuff.

Antoine Fabi

07-16-2007, 01:06 PM

Yes the LUT = specific look.

Its going to be as simple as where you see value x replace it with y. Literally the bit size of the index value can be equal to the bit size of the looked up value where x is the value in the RAW DATA and you change it to the looked up value y when sent to a viewed output stream or a new file. The LUT is a one to one mapping and it in fact does represent a specific look. One look per table. Apply table to the raw data on the fly!

Tweaking the data to make the appropriate LUT is where you will spend a lot of your time.

Craig,

Exiting post work.

Does it refers to the same process called "color matrix" ?

Where can i read about all this tech vocabulary ?

thanks a lot.

Michael Brennan

07-17-2007, 01:19 AM

The top reason in my view to have a LUT for your monitor is to judge how your exposure and lighting is interacting with the scene. This is a very creative tool that can be shared with makeup wardrobe and set design.

By not "baking in" your preference for the cameras colour balance and contrast you have scope to tweake colours a lot and exposure (lets call it brightness) a little in post under proper viewing conditions.

Mike Brennan

Steve Sherrick

07-17-2007, 06:27 AM

Jim,

That is an important message you have put out there. And I think it is one that sinks in with soemone like myself who hasn't shot film in a number of years and will be re-exploring the topics you have mentioned. I expect to have a fairly steep learning curve, but it seems like the payoff will be quite rewarding.

Setting up this forum has been instrumental in getting up to speed on a lot of things. Many thanks to all those involved in setting up the site and to those who fill its pages with vast amount of knowledge.

Steve

Bokes

07-17-2007, 06:37 AM

will focus be any more difficult than using a 35mm adaptor with a HVX?

Zakaree Sandberg

07-17-2007, 07:57 AM

coming from dvx/hvx and some 16mm
(but not enough to consider myself a film dp)
I am going to suffer through this learning curve.. Which is ok.. I usually teach myself everything anyways... the histogram stuff might freak me out a bit.
I know its been discussed in another way.. but if there is anyone in OC,LA,SD area wants to start a RED breakfast club.. that meets once or twice a month, and goes over everything they have learned about red... ID BE DOWN TO JOIN!! Learning from others will get us all up and running much faster:)

Kevin Halverson

07-17-2007, 08:47 AM

.. but if there is anyone in OC,LA,SD area wants to start a RED breakfast club.. that meets once or twice a month, and goes over everything they have learned about red... ID BE DOWN TO JOIN!! Learning from others will get us all up and running much faster:)

This is an interesting idea and one that I would be interested in, though with early call times, perhaps evening meetings might be a bit easier than a breakfast ones? My background includes still and motion film (everything from sub miniature to large format), video (DVX, HVX, SDX, F900, etc) and a bit of VFX work. I have no doubt that there is a large community with a lot of talent in this area that might be willing to participate and share their experiences. I would be interested to see if there are others interested as well.

Brook Willard

07-17-2007, 10:59 AM

will focus be any more difficult than using a 35mm adaptor with a HVX?

My personal guess is yes... it will be more difficult. Since the HVX has such a low resolution, minor focus mistakes are covered up. If the sensor can't resolve to the level of detail required to see the focus mistake, the focus mistake is invisible.

Accordingly, it seems to me that focusing will be a touch more difficult on the RED ONE... merely because it's going to show more detail [higher resolution] of the missed focus.

With that said, with the focus assist and great monitoring... it might not be so bad after all. In the end, none of us have experience with the camera yet... so only the RED guys know how it is.

Zakaree Sandberg

07-17-2007, 11:03 AM

This is an interesting idea and one that I would be interested in, though with early call times, perhaps evening meetings might be a bit easier than a breakfast ones? My background includes still and motion film (everything from sub miniature to large format), video (DVX, HVX, SDX, F900, etc) and a bit of VFX work. I have no doubt that there is a large community with a lot of talent in this area that might be willing to participate and share their experiences. I would be interested to see if there are others interested as well.

ill make a post on the reduser LA section:

Häakon

07-17-2007, 07:12 PM

My personal guess is yes... it will be more difficult. Since the HVX has such a low resolution, minor focus mistakes are covered up. If the sensor can't resolve to the level of detail required to see the focus mistake, the focus mistake is invisible.
That's true, but thanks to the increased sensitivity of RED, it means we won't have to be shooting everything at f/1.4 anymore! :pinch: That HVX+M2 soaks up light like nothing else! Having a wider range of focus to play with makes things much easier, and that should more than compensate for any lack of resolution the HVX has. Chances are a lot of people will be smooshing their RED footage down to DVD-resolution in the short term anyway for mass distribution.

Brook Willard

07-17-2007, 07:54 PM

That's true, but thanks to the increased sensitivity of RED, it means we won't have to be shooting everything at f/1.4 anymore! :pinch: That HVX+M2 soaks up light like nothing else! Having a wider range of focus to play with makes things much easier, and that should more than compensate for any lack of resolution the HVX has. Chances are a lot of people will be smooshing their RED footage down to DVD-resolution in the short term anyway for mass distribution.

True, but lower stops aren't always selected for the available light - it's often a creative decision. That said, few people shoot everything WFO on purpose. ;)

Shawn Nelson

07-17-2007, 08:00 PM

Okay, so I'll go for 2 or 3 NDs plus a Pol and an ND grad to start out (and then rent as necessary). Which ND grad is the most useful to start?

Warren Kommers

07-17-2007, 08:06 PM

Okay, so I'll go for 2 or 3 NDs plus a Pol and an ND grad to start out (and then rent as necessary). Which ND grad is the most useful to start?

That's subjective of course to taste and lens focal length but I find myslef using the n6 soft edge the most. Hard edges start to get a bit Top Gunish. Especially the colored ones!

In the case of a bright sky or something hopefully there is enough highlight detail in Red that most of that grad use can be a acheieved with more controllable power windows later in CC/DI.

Shawn Nelson

07-17-2007, 08:07 PM

yeah, .6 soft grad was what I was thinking

Brook Willard

07-17-2007, 08:12 PM

The .6 is what I use most of the time as well... that's probably your best bet.

Kyle Spicer

07-17-2007, 08:44 PM

Suggestions on the best quality filters to use for 4k image recording?

Brook Willard

07-17-2007, 09:09 PM

Any good filters built for 35mm use should be fine. I'll likely get 4x5.65s for my kit when I finally build one. As for brand... who knows? Tiffen comes to mind, but there are many companies out there that make fantastic filters. Buy whatever you can afford and whatever works with your mattebox.

Shawn Nelson

07-17-2007, 09:59 PM

I can't find any 4.65s, do you mean 4x5.65?

I am strongly looking at the 5x5 Cavision matte box. I saw it at NAB and loved it. They say that in the far back filter stage (closest to the lens) that it can hold either 4x4", 4x5.65", 5x5" or 5.65x5.65" filters. If I were to get a 4x4 circ pol, will that be sufficient coverage for the Red zoom?

David Battistella

07-17-2007, 10:12 PM

If I were to get a 4x4 circ pol, will that be sufficient coverage for the Red zoom?

The 18-50 is going to be 105mm thread, so you could get ND and maybe a circular polarizer for that.

David

Scott Webster

07-17-2007, 10:26 PM

Do you have any rental houses in your area? See what size they predominantly run with and base your kit around that. That way you will always have the option of hiring in any 'fruity' or additional filters should a shoot require them. Make sure you get a grad filter holder 4x6, 4x5.65 Vert etc with the Matte Box you buy. Filter frames are not always compatible between matte boxes. What works in a Chrosziel will not always work in an Arri etc.

I'm betting that soft F/X diffusion filters will become essential part of filter kits with the Red.

If the Cavision has a round pola retaining ring in the donut you may want to consider that instead as it means you don't lose a filter stage.