Time for good tech reading before receiving the camera ?

[Antoine Fabi]

I am sure i am not alone here.

I lost some of my skills i had when i shot 100% manual still 35mm film photography.
Today, with real time monitoring, i dont question myself anymore about aperture/speed/ISO relationship etc... other than basic depth of field control. I rather watch the monitor and tell myself...OK looks fine !

What reading would you suggest to gain back these basic knowledges ?

thanks

[chuck colburn]

One book I always liked was Ansel Adams "The Camera"

[Anarri]

I suggest the RED ONE User Manual!

Hope they put up a PDF version before they start shipping...

[Justin Anderson]

I suggest the RED ONE User Manual!

Hope they put up a PDF version before they start shipping...

good idea. :o

[chuck colburn]

I don't think RED is going to include basic photographic technique in their operational manual.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

bootcamp: hawaii make it happen

[Anarri]

I don't think RED is going to include basic photographic technique in their operational manual.

Like chuck mentioned earlier, the Ansel Adam photography series is a great place to start.

:clown2:

[Antoine Fabi]

thanks, i'll try to find this book here.

[Paolo Tinari]

This is good to me: http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us/

[mezmo]

I am sure i am not alone here.

I lost some of my skills i had when i shot 100% manual still 35mm film photography.
Today, with real time monitoring, i dont question myself anymore about aperture/speed/ISO relationship etc... other than basic depth of field control. I rather watch the monitor and tell myself...OK looks fine !

What reading would you suggest to gain back these basic knowledges ?

thanks

Hi Antoine,
I suppose some kind of digitally modified zone system for Red would
help. Untill a 4/2K/HD SDI monitor/reference rig is developed, a spot meter
and your old 35mm still experience may come in handy.
You'll probably have to "learn" your Red like a particular film stock,
slide a compressed dynamic range window about in order to get the best possible
pictures in any given situation.
I'd suggest taking a bucket load of 35mm stills to practise this before
your camera arrives.
Shooting Digital Red in the early days could be sorta like what we do on a film shoot anyway, only with pixles.
A video tap on a film camera tells you nothing about the neg and I doubt
a 720p Red video feed will let you know too much about the 4K bayer file being recorded.
see what you think. Mezmo.

[kozmo]

I found this book helpful when I transitioned from film to H.D.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Definition-Cinematography-Second-Wheeler/dp/024052036X/ref=sr_1_3/104-1641661-4133556ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185812085&sr=1-3 (http://www.amazon.com/High-Definition-Cinematography-Second-Wheeler/dp/024052036X/ref=sr_1_3/104-1641661-4133556?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185812085&sr=1-3)

Richard

[Wade McDonald]

Since the RED One is closer to a 35mm motion picture camera, I'd suggest using Cinematography (http://www.amazon.com/Cinematography-Third-Kris-Malkiewicz/dp/074326438X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7557469-7220849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185816549&sr=8-1) (co-written by David Mullen, ASC), as well as Painting with Light (http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Light-John-Alton/dp/0520089499/ref=pd_sim_b_3/002-7557469-7220849?ie=UTF8&qid=1185816549&sr=8-1) for lighting.

I trained as a fine art photographer first and found the zone system (although I think the book by Minor White (http://www.amazon.com/Zone-System-Manual-Minor-White/dp/B000HMRZ04/ref=sr_1_16/002-7557469-7220849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185816745&sr=1-16) is more detailed, if not a bit more technical than Adam's Camera (http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7557469-7220849?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185816875&sr=1-1)) very helpful to understanding exposure (since each zone represents one stop of difference). To explain a bit -- in early b&w photography, it was all about the printing -- the negative was exposed, and as long as you got a good range of value, you could compress/expand the contrast in the darkroom as much as you wished -- a photographer was as much a printer as anything else... White, Adams, et al. helped design a system that you could use in the field to pre-determine how to expose certain values in an attempt to maximize the possible range... it's especially useful in motion pictures because all we really get to control is the the camera negative.

The hollywoodcamerawork site sells a good product for learning camera blocking. I've started suggesting it to both beginning directors and ac's.

The best resource for cinematography and lighting technique in general is, and always will be the ASC Manual and the ASC's publication American Cinematographer. Reading the articles and case-studies while watching the scenes they discuss is a great way to grow your craft by leaps and bounds.

I'm with Mezmo in that I plan to rate my camera at a particular ASA for a show and run with it like I would any film camera, but ultimately, the RED represents a giant leap forward in camerawork... you won't have to expose very carefully to get a good image (see the test images at iso 2000+!), however, practicing good photography technique will make the difference between a good image and a really luminous one, just as it does in digital still photographs. I think my light meter will still be on my belt for the foreseeable future.

Cheers to you for wanting to brush up on your technique! Respect!

W

[I Bloom]

Hi Antoine,
I suppose some kind of digitally modified zone system for Red would
help. Untill a 4/2K/HD SDI monitor/reference rig is developed, a spot meter
and your old 35mm still experience may come in handy.
You'll probably have to "learn" your Red like a particular film stock,
slide a compressed dynamic range about in order to get the best possible
pictures in any given situation.
I'd suggest taking a bucket load of 35mm stills to practise this before
your camera arrives.
Shooting Digital Red in the early days could be sorta like what we do on a film shoot anyway, only with pixles.
A video tap on a film camera tells you nothing about the neg and I doubt
a 720p Red video feed will let you know too much about the 4K bayer file being recorded.
see what you think. Mezmo.

If you are going from the zone system to digital cinema I suggest not investing to heavily in film style shooting techniques. Your camera is essentially a very expensive reflective light meter and I think the RED will have very good tools for determining exposure in the camera.

For documentary style shooting the accuscene mode one the viewfinder (I don't know what RED is going to call this) is going to immediately show you highlights and shadows (zones 10 and 1 at least) just as we now use zebras. That is usually enough to get a good image when you have no control.

For shoots with heavy lighting use a light meter while you are setting up lighting instruments to determine the overall incident levels in a scene, and thus predetermine your depth of field. But don't relie heavily on a spot meter as you might when shooting film, I think it makes things complicated rather than going right to the source...the camera. Get comfortable with reading the waveform on the camera itself (not on the HD Output). This will allow you to quickly determine where your midlevel exposures are falling.

One trick I use with a waveform on HD is to keep a black card with a horizontal slot cut in it. If you place this card infront of the lense and move it up and down vertically you can isolate exposures on the waveform. All of information you could gleen from a reflective meter is contained in this graph. Especially when lighting dramatic closeups, its great to place the slot across the eyes of the stand in. You can see immediately how much contrast you have and tweak your fill and eyelight accordingly.

I don't believe in just eyeballing a monitor to try to determine how you are exposed. Often we can get away with it, but it can cause serious problems for this reason: In a dark room a monitor will appear bright, thus when lighting a dark scene, like a lamplit interior, you are likely to think the image is brighter than it is, and underexpose. In sunlight the opposite is likely to happen. Instead anchor your work in some kind of measurement.

That's my suggestion.

IBloom

[Gregory Leno]

Hi Antoine,
I suppose some kind of digitally modified zone system for Red would
help. Untill a 4/2K/HD SDI monitor/reference rig is developed, a spot meter
and your old 35mm still experience may come in handy.
You'll probably have to "learn" your Red like a particular film stock,
slide a compressed dynamic range about in order to get the best possible
pictures in any given situation.
I'd suggest taking a bucket load of 35mm stills to practise this before
your camera arrives.
Shooting Digital Red in the early days could be sorta like what we do on a film shoot anyway, only with pixles.
A video tap on a film camera tells you nothing about the neg and I doubt
a 720p Red video feed will let you know too much about the 4K bayer file being recorded.
see what you think. Mezmo.

Mezmo,
The idea of a modified zone system for RED is kind of intriguing for me coming from the still side of the universe.
I'd be interested to hear more about how you would apply that system to a digital negative, as it is generally based on altering exposure and development times etc to bring out and compress the data in a given scene.

~ Greg

[Wade McDonald]

Mezmo,
The idea of a modified zone system for RED is kind of intriguing for me coming from the still side of the universe.
I'd be interested to hear more about how you would apply that system to a digital negative, as it is generally based on altering exposure and development times etc to bring out and compress the data in a given scene.

~ Greg

Greg,

For me at least, with a RAW camera format and workflow, you have the same kind of control (if not more) that you have in the darkroom, and a lot of the same things can apply, as it's all about using every bit of dynamic range you have. There are a couple of books on the subject using digital slrs but I haven't found any of them to be any good, myself. I think more than anything the most important bit of the zone system is to make you sit down and think about what image you're creating, how, and why, rather than flying by the seat of your pants. Of course, I'm sure i'm preaching to the choir! ;)

Maybe we should make a topic for this in the 4k workflow section... I bet we could come up with some cool ideas/applications of the complete zone system, not just the originating negative side.

W

[redhead]

This is good to me: http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us/

Thanks for that link!

[Michael Morlan]

If you are going from the zone system to digital cinema I suggest not investing to heavily in film style shooting techniques. Your camera is essentially a very expensive reflective light meter and I think the RED will have very good tools for determining exposure in the camera.

IBloom

And, as a D.P. or gaffer, what do you do when you are pre-lighting a scene ahead of the camera crew and there is no camera/waveform package sitting on the very busy set? You still have to learn to light with meters and your eye.

I always use my meters (incident and spot) and, after having gotten tuned into my look for a project, my eyes to light - even when a reference monitor is right there. The camera is the last place I look before shooting.

While, fitting an exposure into a "legal" system is a different deal and requires the use of waveform/vectorscope to assure a usable broadcast image, it's sort of irrelevant with the RED One's RAW acquisition, isn't it?

Learn your fundamentals children... or just hire me. ;-)

[I Bloom]

And, as a D.P. or gaffer, what do you do when you are pre-lighting a scene ahead of the camera crew and there is no camera/waveform package sitting on the very busy set? You still have to learn to light with meters and your eye.



For shoots with heavy lighting use a light meter while you are setting up lighting instruments to determine the overall incident levels in a scene, and thus predetermine your depth of field. But don't relie heavily on a spot meter as you might when shooting film, I think it makes things complicated rather than going right to the source...the camera. Get comfortable with reading the waveform on the camera itself (not on the HD Output). This will allow you to quickly determine where your midlevel exposures are falling.
IBloom

It's a matter of style, prelighting sets is a good thing. But for me things have to change once I see the frame.

When I've gaffed for other DPs on digital I find they make a lot of mistakes going off their spot meters. Sometimes it seems like they would like to pretend they are still shooting film.

On digital you need to be much more precise about your highlights and shadows as it is less forgiving (RED will be better but likely no exception) So I think you need to refer to the waveform anyway for the tweaks. I'm not saying don't use a spot, you definitely need one for things like NDing windows, but definitely don't go out and buy a really expensive spot-only-meter for RED.

IBloom

[Kiwi Red]

I don't believe in just eyeballing a monitor to try to determine how you are exposed. Often we can get away with it, but it can cause serious problems for this reason: In a dark room a monitor will appear bright, thus when lighting a dark scene, like a lamplit interior, you are likely to think the image is brighter than it is, and underexpose. In sunlight the opposite is likely to happen. Instead anchor your work in some kind of measurement.

That's my suggestion.

IBloom

Coming from years of still photography including processing and printing... when I moved into the world of moving images the best system of exposure I found and still use is the B&W viewfinder or viewing the monitor initially in B&W. This way you are able evaluate the tonal range and view it as you would a B&W photographic print. Detail in the blacks and whites etc... That works nicely when you have a smaller setup and not a lot of time. Of course it's fully dependent on your bars being set correctly!

[I Bloom]

Coming from years of still photography including processing and printing... when I moved into the world of moving images the best system of exposure I found and still use is the B&W viewfinder or viewing the monitor initially in B&W. This way you are able evaluate the tonal range and view it as you would a B&W photographic print. Detail in the blacks and whites etc... That works nicely when you have a smaller setup and not a lot of time. Of course it's fully dependent on your bars being set correctly!

I do the same thing. I'm hoping that RED has a B&W mode on their EVF. Some DP's also use a black and white monitor on set because that seems to reduce the amount of art by committee.

IBloom

[Gregory Leno]

Greg,

I think more than anything the most important bit of the zone system is to make you sit down and think about what image you're creating, how, and why, rather than flying by the seat of your pants. Of course, I'm sure i'm preaching to the choir! ;)
W

I agree... Preach on :innocent:



Maybe we should make a topic for this in the 4k workflow section... I bet we could come up with some cool ideas/applications of the complete zone system, not just the originating negative side.

W

Sounds good. You want to start it?


~ Greg

[mezmo]

Hi Greg Leno,
I'm on the other side of the planet hence the deelay in reply.
By modified zone system I mean a system suitable for Red and
perhaps more for it's higher end post paths.
A system that DP's could use to determine the best possible ISO,
exposure, shutter speed for Red and it's wide dynamic range in
any given scene.
A system that's fast and reliable.
Most digital files for larger productions will end up back in RGB land
and in boxes like scratch,I.Q,nucoder ect. Directors change minds
and shots have to be recoverd from dark areas,detail rescued from hot
parts of the frame. Post production "printing" if you like.
Getting the best possible Bayer file and having an easy system to
determine what is the best file on set could be very important.
You could "bracket" every shot you shoot but this is usually time
consuming and not at all practicle on a film set.
Red seems to be behaving quite well in the hands of expierenced DP's
on various test shoots taking place at the moment.
I suspect they are also using the more traditional methods of determining
exposure and dynamic range windows.
Not having met the camera I don't know exactly how a zone system would
work for Red or how you would implement it in the digital system.
The principals should be somwhere near the same for film and RED.
Hence the idea for a modofied Red zone system.

[chuck colburn]

I thought he was asking about the relationship between ASA, shutter and apereture.

[Antoine Fabi]

you're right Chuck,


I remember the relationship but not the equivalents, the numbers.

The rest is a lot easier to remember.

In the meanwhile, i'll shoot a lot of stills with my old Leica.
...but i dont even remember how to properly use my old GE light meter... hee hee...

With the RED ONE, will i need an external light meter ?

[Gregory Leno]

Hi Greg Leno,
Most digital files for larger productions will end up back in RGB land
and in boxes like scratch,I.Q,nucoder ect. Directors change minds
and shots have to be recoverd from dark areas,detail rescued from hot
parts of the frame. Post production "printing" if you like.
Getting the best possible Bayer file and having an easy system to
determine what is the best file on set could be very important.
You could "bracket" every shot you shoot but this is usually time
consuming and not at all practicle on a film set.
Red seems to be behaving quite well in the hands of expierenced DP's
on various test shoots taking place at the moment.
I suspect they are also using the more traditional methods of determining
exposure and dynamic range windows.
Not having met the camera I don't know exactly how a zone system would
work for Red or how you would implement it in the digital system.
The principals should be somwhere near the same for film and RED.
Hence the idea for a modofied Red zone system.

Yeah I think I underestand the idea of what you are proposing. And I think it 's a great idea. I'm just not sure I understand how it would be implemented in the digital "neg" and onto the "print" which in this case could either be a film out print or any given monitor or projector.

In the still world a Zone system, and its derivatives, were used to squeeze as much info out of a scene onto a neg and then onto a print.
In Red's case I am wondering how much a system like that is needed given the sensors wide latitude and the ablity to use curves to pull that info out all ready.

It does leave the question of how to determine the best possible exposure for a given situation. Which is what I think you are talking about.
The old "expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows" maybe one way to look at this. I'm just not sure how to use it here. I mean how do you "develop" for the shadows in Red's workflow other than just pulling it out in the curves.

Maybe Graeme can shed some light on what is the best approach here. (no pun intended)

~ G