Framing through EVF for 4k.

[Patrick Tresch]

For those who allready could work with REDONE how is it to frame on the RED EVF (I suppose in 720p) for an 4k picture?

I'm not talking about focus, but what you actually are seeing in the EVF is far less than what you have on the 4k raw picture. Pov of details, impression to be in the scene, and also contrast, colorimetry.

Arri D20 kept a shutter. You actually see through the lens, not a representation of reality (in video 720p) but reality (even through glass), the real actor, his breath, and feeling. Even if there is a shutter flickering, I think you have another relationship with the person in front of you... How is it to frame on this EVF? Do you have the feeling to be in the picture?

When you work with 6 to 8 stops you know what falls in darkness and what is visible. You know in wich latitue you can play. Do you have to calibrate your EVF and all your monitoring equipment in regard of the look you would like to achieve in the final print? How do you light for an image with 10,3 stops? Looking at an monitor? Using a Cell? What are your techniques?

I think shooting """neutral""" (grabbing everything possible) is great with this camera. But when your Work is to decide what is to be seen and what is to be hidden, making choices and playing with technical limitations, I think that with this camera the DoP work has to be redefined (((?))). Total freedom can sometimes be the creativity killer...:usd:

Thanks for your advise.

Patrick

PS: Jean-Luc Godard also knows about the REDONE. I wonder what he is going to do. He always used to have a small arri 35mm in his car, like a pen.

[Graeme Nattress]

What you see in the viewfinder is actually more of the image than 4k because we have "look around" which shows you what is going on outside the recorded frame. And it's what-you-see-is-what-you-get because it's showing you the light that hit the sensor.

For exposure control - you can use a light meter as normal. Works well. Or there are numerous exposure measuring scopes in camera. (Not switched on yet, but they're coming) and an exposure mode in the viewfinder too with false colours to show exposure.

Because you shoot raw, you capture the best image for the scene - then you fine tune which tones you can see in post in the raw conversion process.

Graeme

[Gabriel C.]

Does that mean that we'll be able to shoot with a more open aperture, because we can essentially "close down" the sensor, and thus have a shallower DOF without using ND's?

[Joel Kaye]

Does that mean that we'll be able to shoot with a more open aperture, because we can essentially "close down" the sensor, and thus have a shallower DOF without using ND's?

No. RED is a sensitive camera rated between 320 and 500 iso. You can't reduce the sensitivity electronically. You'll need the ND's.

[Graeme Nattress]

And you probably don't want shallower DOF :-) It's pretty shallow as it is.....

Graeme

[Gabriel C.]

Yeah, starting out I'll just have the 18-50 so I'm a little DOF weary. Looking at the footage released so far, it actually seems remarkably shallow, which is great, but I haven't seen the perfect shot to exemplify this.

Are we unable to reduce the iso?

[Graeme Nattress]

At the moment, no, but remember the ISO is just a rated ISO - you can "choose", in your head to rate the ISO of the camera differently and via readings on your light meter expose accordingly. However, pretending we have a lower ISO could lead to you clipping some highlights as what you're doing is playing around with how many stops under and over you have. I'm sure Jarred might explain this better.

Graeme

[Joel Kaye]

pretending we have a lower ISO could lead to you clipping some highlights

And you'd need to rate it like iso 50 to get shallow DOF in daylight w/o ND filters. I'm guessing that's a recipe for disaster.

[Graeme Nattress]

I don't see how changing the rated ISO effects DOF though, which is an aperture dependent parameter.

Graeme

[donatello b]

"I don't see how changing the rated ISO effects DOF though"

i think the poster is referring to at ASA 400 the light meter says F8 .. at ASA 50 it says 2.8 = less DoF ...

[Joel Kaye]

I don't see how changing the rated ISO effects DOF though, which is an aperture dependent parameter.

Graeme

Well in RED it doesn't, but with film different ISO's actually do require different apertures to result in a proper exposure.

That's the crux of the idea.

If you could actually push a button to make RED's sensor REALLY less light sensitive - as if it really responded to light just like film rated at ISO 50 - THEN you'd be required to open up the aperture to get a correct exposure... resulting in less DOF.

Since RED can't do that electronically we need ND's to do it physically. Make sense?

[Graeme Nattress]

OK, I get you.

Graeme

[MikeCurtis]

After today's experience, I'm coming to the opinion that (gasp!) shooting with a light meter may not be required - it may merely be a useful place to start from, but I'm gaining confidence I could shoot without it. I need an hour or two alone with the camera to get more confident in that statement, but I'm betting I'll be able to say that flat out pretty soon.

[Joel Kaye]

but I'm gaining confidence I could shoot without it - I'm betting I'll be able to say that flat out pretty soon.

I'd sure like to have that histogram feature even if it is possible to to estimate exposure using "The Force" once you get a lot of experience with the camera.

[Brook Willard]

At 320ASA, we had decent luck using Evin's LCD's built-in WFM. At higher ISOs [where the camera seems to apply gain to the HD-SDI outputs to emulate the exposure], noise could result in funny WFM readouts. Nothing bad, just potentially unusual. Since I don't know if that really is gain or what... I don't want to say much. I'm just looking forward to the built in WFM.

[Patrick Tresch]

Because you shoot raw, you capture the best image for the scene - then you fine tune which tones you can see in post in the raw conversion process.

Graeme


But framing and lighting on set depends on what look/technique combination you want to have.

Like a bleachbypass or Black/white. You should be able to see on set how ligth/colors handel. In the chemical process (16/35mm) you make tests before and know what latitude/color response you have and therefore your only tool are ligth meter and experience.

As your redcode can develop (reveal) in all different manner in (colorimetry/contrast/grain...) in post how can you take this or this decision on set? You could color match for every shot but you should have a consistency through 5 weeks of shooting and a lot of decision (also actuation) are taken depending on what you see.

Thanks.:innocent:

Patrick

[Emmanuel Cambier]

You would load a lut in the camera, I guess.

[Dominic Jones]

After today's experience, I'm coming to the opinion that (gasp!) shooting with a light meter may not be required - it may merely be a useful place to start from, but I'm gaining confidence I could shoot without it. I need an hour or two alone with the camera to get more confident in that statement, but I'm betting I'll be able to say that flat out pretty soon.
I've seen old-school DP's shoot 35mm without metering - no histogram there, just well trained eyes! It's not that wild a statement in that context - but it's good that digital acquisition is finally getting the latitude required to allow enough margin for error for that to be possible on anything but film.

I'll still be taking out the Sekonic, myself, but then I've always been a bit of a spot meter fiend, even on HD!...

[Dominic Jones]

In the chemical process (16/35mm) you make tests before and know what latitude/color response you have and therefore your only tool are ligth meter and experience.
Sure - no reason for that to be any different just because you haven't got a bath of dev to go through...

One of my personal bug-bears is the lack of testing that goes on in these digital days - just because you can see in the VF what the camera is actually recording (with standard HD/SD cameras, that is) in no way means you shouldn't have to test, especially with the huge amount that is now possible in the digital post pipeline.

You should be shooting for post, and that means testing (and taking the images all the way through the proposed post process) before getting on set, at least in my opinion - no one seems to be listening to me though!

All the more true with Red's RAW capture system, and the possibilities that opens up, by the way.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I'm curious, when RED ISO rated the camera, did they base it off 18% gray at a particular IRE level (like say 50 IRE) or did you base it off the highlight just before clipping?

[Evin Grant]

Now that I've shot with it I understand that you really can't pin it down like that. You need to base your ISO and exposure for the contrast of the scene. Much like the old Andsel Adams Zone system. A flat subjet might be ISO 250-350 where as a very contrasty scene might be 500-800. It really is something to get used to, trying to fit your contrast range into the proper shadow detail/Noise ratio you're looking for. It's kinda fun once you start understanding it.