Video Assist on Set

[Chris Parker]

Hi there,

I am a video guy. I am wondering what the output will be for on set video assist. Will this be in the form of a BNC out? Is it a downconverted NTSC video feed, or strictly HD? Does it matter what format you shoot in for these video outs? If strictly HD, will there be an easy way to mount a downconverter, such as the Miranda box, on the camera?

Also, does the camera generate framelines? Say you are shooting 2K. Will there be accurate framelines for directors/agencies, etc. to KNOW what they will be getting on the TV when the edit is finished?

Really just looking for the planned on set workflow for video assist.

[Nick Shaw]

Red will have HD-SDI (on mini BNC) and HDMI, both at 720p, for monitoring. Guide frames will not be on this, but will be on the LCD and EVF. No SD monitoring output, or analog video out of any kind. You would have to use a down-converter.

This info, and more detail comes from Stuart's answer to me HERE (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8265)

Nick

[Chris Parker]

We (video guys) will NEED to have frame lines, similar to that on the video taps of arris and such, in order for this to fly on any commercial shoots. Simply having them on the EVF and LCD will not suffice, IMHO.

[Nick Shaw]

I do agree somewhat. Of course you could use an external down-stream-keyer to add frame lines, but it does seem un-necessarily complex. Since the HDMI and HD-SDI outputs are dedicated monitoring outputs, it would seem sensible to me if they were like the "test" outputs on a traditional video camera, and had overlays.

Can anybody from RED tell me if there is a specific reason those outputs can only be 'clean'? Or am I mis-reading Stuart's post?

Nick

[Graeme Nattress]

They're clean because of internal camera architecture, which is very complex.

But the SDI outputs are fully WYSIWYG, unlike with a video assist on a film camera where it's a viewfinder feed, which is necessarily larger than the recorded area.

[Evin Grant]

Use a grease pencil ;)

[Nick Shaw]

Fair enough Graeme. Shame though. It's only WYSIWYG if your intended distribution format will only ever be 16x9. What about 4x3 or 2.35?

A down-converter like the Miranda (http://www.miranda.com/product.php?i=266) can overlay guide frames, time-code and other data, so will probably be a very useful addition on set.

Nick

[Graeme Nattress]

Masking tape?

Graeme

[Nick Shaw]

Also a lot of monitors can overlay guide marks anyway. My edit suite HD broadcast monitor can show a 4x3 or a 14x9 frame over a 16x9 signal. No 2.35 though!

Nick

[Nick Shaw]

Yes I've put a lot of chinagraph marks on monitors over the years. Prefer doing it to other people's rather than my own though!

Trouble is chinagraph marks don't move when you switch over-scan on and off!

[Chris Parker]

Grease pencil. Good one.

Anyways, yeah, a Miranda box, or some sort of other switcher to overlay the actual frame lines will be NECESSARY on commercials for sure. I hope this is addressed by RED at some point. I guess when it comes out, there will be a good workable solution to this problem find its way to everyone. I certainly don't want to have to run video through a switcher everyday just to generate framelines.

[Michael Schrengohst]

RED as far as use goes could be no different than any other video camera.
When you shoot HDCAM or VariCam it is pretty much WYSIWYG. You might
frame differently if you know the output is SD. Video assist in the traditional sense would not be needed on a RED shoot. What would be needed is people who understand digital workflow and have the necessary equipment and skills to assist RED shooters.

[Graeme Nattress]

The HDMI feeds show the frame guides I think - but the SDI feeds are more designed for people who want to use the camera as a studio camera or to send output to tape.

Graeme

[Chris Parker]

I couldn't disagree with you more Red Guy. Video assist will be needed on any commercial shoot. The ad agency/client will need to see what they will be getting on TV. The director will need instant access to any shot taken at any time. Video prints will still be needed. Rough cut editing will be needed, and the ability to match frames for f/x shots will be needed. Audio will be needed to be played back in sync with the video. Etc. etc.

The additional assistance needed by the camera team will no doubt also be needed, but it will not supplant the regular video assist.

[Graeme Nattress]

Do they even still make commercials in 4:3 in the USA. In the UK (rest of Europe too, I think) they stopped doing that over 6 years ago.....

Video assist is a film term though. RED is already "video". What are people doing now when they shoot HDCAM or Varicam for a commercial?

Graeme

[Nick Shaw]

Do they even still make commercials in 4:3 in the USA. In the UK (rest of Europe too, I think) they stopped doing that over 6 years ago.....

Yes but we still have to protect for 14x9 for analog broadcast, and in fact also be aware that many digi-boxes belonging to people with 4x3 TVs are set to centre-cut the 16x9 to produce a 4x3 full-frame image.

Sadly wide-screen production is still a nightmare!

Also if your end result is DVD, you don't know if somebody will be watching it on a TV or a computer, so the over-scan area becomes an issue. For that reason I sometimes 'hard gate' DVDs to the action safe area.

Nick

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks Nick. I know how bad it is that people have their digiboxes incorrectly set up.

Graeme

[Chris Parker]

Although video assist is a term for film, it is now more of an accepted term for a service provided on most high end shoots, film, HD, or even those done on DigiBeta or HVX cameras.

Right now, on HD shoots, a Miranda downconverter is used so that an NTSC feed can be given to the video guy. There are usually a couple of HD monitors on set for the DOP and maybe the client, and then the regular bunch of video playback monitors on set too. It is a weird shoot when HD is used, as the workflow is not quite there yet.

I am hoping that with the addition of RED to the marketplace, this whole on-set workflow can be smoothed out significantly, because this is the main reason most commercials are still shot on film. Once a workflow exists that will instill confidence in the agencies, production houses, DOPs, etc., this will help tremendously in having digital technology become more utilized in the commercial production world.

Remember, the one thing any ad agency does is take risks. And this will keep them away from RED if a system is not set up to ensure that they know 'on the day' what they will get after the edit, framing wise.

I am more than happy to work with anyone at RED on this 'on-set' workflow that will be NEEDED for the big commercial shoots. What you get away with on indie features is one thing, the requirements of commercial world are far more substantial when it comes to on-set monitors, playback, etc. I am going to be developing a full package for this service, to go along with my two red cameras, and again, if anyone at Red wants to work on this, I would love it.

[Chris Parker]

On correction. I meant to say ad agencies do NOT take risks. Anyone who has worked on commercials, and watches as the agencies all work very hard to cover their asses as much as possible.

"Can we just cover it bigger."
"Now, can we cover it smaller."
"Can we just get one more for safety?"

etc. etc.

Anyways, point was, the on set workflow for RED must be flawless and efficient for DOPs, and agencies to buy into it.

[Graeme Nattress]

I guess the answer is to shoot wide on 4k and crop in post to practically any dimension you want. If that's not safety, I don't know what is :-)

skipdivils, keep the conversation going here - there are some good brains on the forum that will help figure things out. I've only ever been on very low budget commercial shoots :-) And even appeared in one "enjoying" my lunch.

Graeme

[Kyle Mallory]

Skip, couldn't this be as simple as the Miranda being distributed to your various SD displays? Otherwise, as I understand it, you could take the either of the EVF or LCD feeds from the camera into a down converter, and then send those out. You'd lose one of those camera feeds, but at least you'd get your markers.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I have to think that what you're asking for really isn't that different from studio and feature film production work... You still need one or more video feeds that get sent back to the director/producer(s)/script sup/video tech/etc., as well a [redundant] dailies, etc, in addition to those feeds needed for the DP and his crew. The unsung beauty of composite SD is that once you have it, you can send it anywhere and everywhere, with very little effort-- plug it into a UHF modulator, and throw a dozen $400 15" LCD TVs on set. For the HD junkies (your producers/director), you really only need a single monitor, so go all out and include a +37" 1080p LCD in your box, and drive that off the camera feed.

If nothing else, get a HD-SDI->HDMI converter, and run that into a HDMI distribution box (1-in 6-out). Might also consider that silly little BlackMagic HDMI box (Intensity for $250), that can do real-time mixing/overlays...

[Nick Shaw]

…as I understand it, you could take the either of the EVF or LCD feeds from the camera into a down converter, and then send those out.

Can you distribute the feeds intended for the EVF/LCD? I would imagine they are on non standard connectors, as they need to carry power, tally light, etc as well as 720p video. And that video signal may not even be in a standard format.

Nick

[Kyle Mallory]

... Certainly, as for coverage, I'd do as Graeme suggests and shoot 2k (or even 4k) and pan and crop everything-- use the BlackMagic box to create custom framing marks that equate to the a 1080p frame, within the 2k frame. Then you've got the resolution to take a subframe without having to explode anything, and still have the extra image information to go wide, and pan/scan/tilt/drop/digital-dolly-- without having to do multiple takes.

If you want to show "the clients" that image, I'd further recommend the 1080p, and a large-screen LCD. Once you mark off a 1080 mask inside a 2k or 4k frame, it will tend to get a little compressed on a small screen, and lose any detail in an SD display.

[Chris Parker]

KyleMallory....some good tips in there. Throwing out a UHF transmitter and 15-inch monitors everywhere again doesn't quite work on commercial sets YET. I have a Canatrans transmitter, which is about the best RF transmitter you can get in the world, and that still isn't as good as a hardwire, which is what COMMERCIALS need.

Also, if I were 'going all out' I wouldn't get a 37-inch 1080P LCD but rather a nice 20-inch Sony HD monitor for about $12,000. Need the underscan, blue tally, fine adjustments, etc.

Your point about it being similar to everything else, with the use of a Miranda box, makes tons of sense to me though. I think some experiments and tests are all that is needed to get it right. Also, yeah, 'stealing' the LCD feed (or better yet, splitting it, or even better yet, if the LCD had a loop-through video output on it???)

The big thing for me will be frame lines. Accurate ones. I am actually on set right now, selling Orange Juice of all things. And strangely enough, I just heard the client asking the director which frame lines on video will be title safe, and which will be transmitted on the 4:3 signal. It is a HUGE issue in commercials.

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am a HUGE Red fan, and believer, and I want to do my part to make sure it breaks into the high end commercial markets.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I couldn't disagree with you more Red Guy. Video assist will be needed on any commercial shoot. The ad agency/client will need to see what they will be getting on TV. The director will need instant access to any shot taken at any time. Video prints will still be needed. Rough cut editing will be needed, and the ability to match frames for f/x shots will be needed. Audio will be needed to be played back in sync with the video. Etc. etc.

The additional assistance needed by the camera team will no doubt also be needed, but it will not supplant the regular video assist.

I agree with you there. My way of thinking is to have a laptop outfitted with REDCINE so that all you are speaking of is actually done with the real footage. Low-res proxy footage should be able to be extracted pretty quickly and so no need for a secondary system to record on. I guess you could take a feed from the RED and record to a deck but then you have to digitize that to get it into the computer. We shoot P2 right now and dump to laptops as we go so we are working with the real footage. We have produced rough-cuts of spots and short sections of videos before the end of the shoot. On area I would like to expand on is getting realtime results with greenscreen footage.

[Chris Parker]

... Certainly, as for coverage, I'd do as Graeme suggests and shoot 2k (or even 4k) and pan and crop everything-- use the BlackMagic box to create custom framing marks that equate to the a 1080p frame, within the 2k frame. Then you've got the resolution to take a subframe without having to explode anything, and still have the extra image information to go wide, and pan/scan/tilt/drop/digital-dolly-- without having to do multiple takes.

If you want to show "the clients" that image, I'd further recommend the 1080p, and a large-screen LCD. Once you mark off a 1080 mask inside a 2k or 4k frame, it will tend to get a little compressed on a small screen, and lose any detail in an SD display.

Great advice. We are on to something now, and it is less than 2 hours since i posted my query. Wow, this group rocks! This is the best part of Red, the communal feel to it. You just know that the best and most efficient solutions will rise to the top....and fast. I like the idea of showing a 2K box (or 1080, or whatever the FINAL scale will be) over the whole image. Although it may be a little too small a 'window' within the frame. Anyways, I am confident this will be worked out, as we are well on our way. And again, when the camera hits the streets, all hell will break loose on solutions for this type of thing.

[Graeme Nattress]

You can set up all kinds of frame lines in REDCINE - yes.

Graeme

[Kyle Mallory]

According to the Red-One Pipeline Diagram thread, the EVF/LCD feeds are HD-SDI, and Graeme mentioned in that post being able to remote these feeds... Perhaps the question is, if these are non-standard connectors, will an adapter be made available?

All in all, thinking though it myself, I am (would be if I was in your shoes) leaning toward the Intensity solution, since it will give you more control over your display. A lot of this would depend on the On-Air software that comes with Intensity, but if it can do real-time graphic overlays, you could basically have Mac on your cart, and load up (and switch at any-time) different overlays whenever the client asks.

"What frame lines are title safe?" You could color code the various frame lines, even throw up a legend in the corner outside of the 1080frame (inside the 2k frame). Of hide it all, and when the client or director asks you for 1080 framing... click the proper overlay... When he wants to see if masked for 4:3.. click the proper overlay.

Keep in mind, this is my assumption on the abilities of the Intensity card and its software. This may or may not actually be possible.

[Chris Parker]

I agree with you there. My way of thinking is to have a laptop outfitted with REDCINE so that all you are speaking of is actually done with the real footage. Low-res proxy footage should be able to be extracted pretty quickly and so no need for a secondary system to record on. I guess you could take a feed from the RED and record to a deck but then you have to digitize that to get it into the computer. We shoot P2 right now and dump to laptops as we go so we are working with the real footage. We have produced rough-cuts of spots and short sections of videos before the end of the shoot. On area I would like to expand on is getting realtime results with greenscreen footage.

Well, I disagree a little here. When a director calls 'cut' and then literally one second later, calls 'playback at 60fps', there is no time for redcine to do its thing. The variable frame rate playback must happen within 3 seconds, or I am not doing my job.

Also, it is not a good idea to use the original footage for playback as time is better spent backing this footage up, getting it ready to transport to the post house, cleaning the drives for re-use, etc. Two separate jobs, really. Think of the laptop running redcine as the change tent. Instead of a 2nd AC changing mags all day, there will someone backing up, verifying footage, etc.

As for realtime keying, I just use a switcher now, and it is good enough to rough live shots in. Then, after cut, I will key it out in Final Cut (or whatever) and the render is now instant with my new macbook and final cut 5.1

[Scott Webster]

Skip,

Have you checked out the JVC 1080 LCD yet?

JVC 24" DT-V24L1DU
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/specs.jsp?model_id=MDL101631&feature_id=03

I'd be interested in any feedback from anyone that has used one on set.

[Finner]

This is a suprise to me that there will be no frame lines available on the village video feed. I just assumed that would be a given. This is a big big problem for any kind of higher budget shoot. Directors, Producers and Agency people like good quality feeds but frame lines are a must and not an option. They would rather live with a poorer quality feed before no frame lines any day. I am not a big video assist techie guy so I can not add any ideas on how to help frame lines work with the RED. All I can say for sure about it is if there are no frame lines and ability to see exactly what is being seen in the EVF and LCD this is a big problem.

Is there not a way to send the video signal out from another port the same as the EVF and LCD? Thus just having 3 of those ports.

Seeing exactly what the operator is seeing and shooting is so much more important then a high quality signal output. Hell I would settle for a black and white signal if it has frame lines.

[Chris Parker]

This is a suprise to me that there will be no frame lines available on the village video feed. I just assumed that would be a given. This is a big big problem for any kind of higher budget shoot. Directors, Producers and Agency people like good quality feeds but frame lines are a must and not an option. They would rather live with a poorer quality feed before no frame lines any day. I am not a big video assist techie guy so I can not add any ideas on how to help frame lines work with the RED. All I can say for sure about it is if there are no frame lines and ability to see exactly what is being seen in the EVF and LCD this is a big problem.

Is there not a way to send the video signal out from another port the same as the EVF and LCD? Thus just having 3 of those ports.

Seeing exactly what the operator is seeing and shooting is so much more important then a high quality signal output. Hell I would settle for a black and white signal if it has frame lines.

Amen! Exactly my point. The solution cannot be to add a Mac that is dedicated only to overlaying frame lines. In the run and gun world of bigger budget shoots, there is a Mac already needed on my cart. Sometimes 2. To add one just for overlaying frame lines will not suffice.

I am hoping a good real world solution will surface that will allow for very minimal addition of gear to accomplish this ESSENTIAL task.

[Dominic Jones]

This is a suprise to me that there will be no frame lines available on the village video feed. I just assumed that would be a given.
So did I - and I agree, it's a complete must...

Graeme, et al, I appreciate that you guys are doing an amazing job of packing some serious processor punch into that little box, but somehow this needs to be addressed. Frame markers for video village on set (particularly for the director) are an *absolute* necessity, imo.

A 3rd "operator"/evf feed on HD/SDI would be fine, if that can be done.

[Chris Parker]

Skip,

Have you checked out the JVC 1080 LCD yet?

JVC 24" DT-V24L1DU
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/specs.jsp?model_id=MDL101631&feature_id=03

I'd be interested in any feedback from anyone that has used one on set.

Have not tried that yet. It looks nice though. Seems to be the same model as the panasonic 1700W and the other 24" panny one. The options for HD monitoring are multiplying, and I like it.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Well, I disagree a little here. When a director calls 'cut' and then literally one second later, calls 'playback at 60fps', there is no time for redcine to do its thing. The variable frame rate playback must happen within 3 seconds, or I am not doing my job.

Also, it is not a good idea to use the original footage for playback as time is better spent backing this footage up, getting it ready to transport to the post house, cleaning the drives for re-use, etc. Two separate jobs, really. Think of the laptop running redcine as the change tent. Instead of a 2nd AC changing mags all day, there will someone backing up, verifying footage, etc.

As for realtime keying, I just use a switcher now, and it is good enough to rough live shots in. Then, after cut, I will key it out in Final Cut (or whatever) and the render is now instant with my new macbook and final cut 5.1

It has been awhile since I have done a film shoot with video assist. What are you recording too? And are we talking about a low-res black and white image that is just a tap off the viewfinder? I am sure some enterprising person here will figure out a RED ASSIST or something like that??

[Chris Parker]

It has been awhile since I have done a film shoot with video assist. What are you recording too? And are we talking about a low-res black and white image that is just a tap off the viewfinder? I am sure some enterprising person here will figure out a RED ASSIST or something like that??

Yes, the video tap is a shitty, albeit color, feed from the viewfinder basically. BUT, it does have frame lines that represent what the final image will be framed like after post is done.

Recording to a variety of different video assist recorders that are on the market. Basically a hard drive video recorder, usually only DV quality, that has instant playback in variable speed.

Some of the makers of these video assist digital units are now working on HD versions, which could work great with RED.

I can't wait till there is a great workflow that is 'set-ready' for RED, and all HD actually, that fits into the current commercial production environment. In fact, I am currently coming up with my own workflow with RED that could make agencies, producers, DOPs, production houses comfortable enough to use this new product.

[Rob Lohman]

The EVF / LCD output are not (HD-)SDI as far as I know. There is some standard signal going over those cables, so it does make sense you can hook up another screen with an adapter cable or something.

However, this is Stuart realm. Wait for him to tell you what will and will not work!

[Brook Willard]

Even if the HDSDI outputs don't support frame lines out of the box, it's only a firmware update away.

[Stuart English]

This is a good subject, but please don't panic just yet! We more than likely have you covered.

If someone can just recap specifically what is needed, in this application and who needs to see it, and how far away they are when they need to see it, on what they need to see it, then I can offer a comment or two about all of this....

And by that I mean a precise description such as - the camera operator needs to see surround view in the EVF AND the AC needs to see ??? on the LCD, AND the director needs to see ... AND the **** needs to see...

[Stuart English]

The camera already supports instant slow motion playback following off-speed capture. No NEED for an external device just to do that function.

[Brook Willard]

I think the concern is that the HDSDI taps going to video village may not have framelines. It'd be nice to add framelines [or simply black out everything but the selected output area] to that output rather than having to tape over the monitor. This would obviously have to be something that one could turn off because of the folks who may record HDSDI output.

As for the EVF/LCD, I'd hope that all the gadgets could be pulled up onscreen whenever the user decides to see them - be it the subject with overscan and framelines, no overscan, no framelines, focus assist, waveform, histogram, camera status ["footage" count], etc. All the toys. ;)

For example: the EVF could display just the subject, overscan and customized framelines but the AC could have both the subject and focus assist pulled up on the LCD. At a moment's notice they could click over to the waveform/histogram and camera status displays. Meanwhile, over at video village via HDSDI or HDMI, the director could be seeing just the HD output with framelines and a LUT.

[Chris Parker]

This is a good subject, but please don't panic just yet! We more than likely have you covered.

If someone can just recap specifically what is needed, in this application and who needs to see it, and how far away they are when they need to see it, on what they need to see it, then I can offer a comment or two about all of this....

And by that I mean a precise description such as - the camera operator needs to see surround view in the EVF AND the AC needs to see ??? on the LCD, AND the director needs to see ... AND the **** needs to see...

I don't know what the camera guys need to see. The video guy needs a feed with the accurate frame lines for whatever the final edit will conform to. The video guy will then feed that image out to the director, the client/agency, the sound guy, the props guy, and whoever else needs to see it. The frame lines must be accurate, as lights, prop guy's hands, etc. must know where the edge of frame is. If the frame lines are not accurate, then the props guy stages a shot where he needs to say, blow smoke in from just off the edge of frame, everyone needs to know where this is. As for the histogram, etc. etc., that is for the camera department only.

[Thom Steinhoff]

If you have the raw feed going to the drives and the framed feed going to the viewfinder, why not have a soft switch you set through menus which feed you would like on which external ports? Then, Everyone's happy.

Not sure if it makes sense engineering wise, but it seems like a simple solution.

That being said, It sounds to me what I would rather have for impatient, nervous, ad agency/producer types is an LCD monitor that recieves the unaltered feed, that has a few extra buttons they can continuously switch between reframes, lines, overscan--whatever makes them comfortable. This seems like an obvious product and I would think it must be out there somewhere.

[Chris Parker]

The camera already supports instant slow motion playback following off-speed capture. No NEED for an external device just to do that function.

I disagree. After a take, the camera department is busy re-working focus marks, changing focal length, tweaking various things. They do not, and WILL NOT, take the responsibility to playback the takes as needed. This is done by the video guy at the request of the director and/or agency.

Remeber, we are talking about standard (bigger budget) commercials here, not 'Jim's Car Dealer' spots for the local network. This is how it will HAVE to work if RED is to find it's way onto normal commercial shoots.

And this is the easy part. Give a video guy a feed and he will do the rest. Capturing to a digital device will be required, as playback should not be done from camera, for many many reasons. The first one being that a DOP will not tolerate his focus puller being made to playback takes when his skills and time are needed in between takes for other camera related tasks.

[Harry Clark]

Skip is right.
On almost all ordinary sized commercials (and music videos and some corporate films) in the U.S. there is a Video Playback department. They record, play back, make video prints, move monitors and video village around.
As a member of the Camera Department, I can guarantee that between takes I will be busy rechecking focus marks, working on exposure, tweaking lights. All this can happen while the Video Playback Department reviews the take countless times for the director, agency, client, and client's nephew who is visiting from film school. If the camera department is reviewing takes straight from the camera over... and over... and over... again, we will never "make the day". All the tweaking and work that happens in between takes will have to happen AFTER the reviewing is done.
Even on an HD shoot or a P2 shoot, playback is better done by someone else while the camera department moves on.
Surely this position and that workflow is not uncommon in the experience of the people who post here?
Having said that, I think that a Miranda or AJA solution that took the feed from the camera and laid appropriate lines over it could work.
On Arri, Panavision, and Aaton film cameras the video tap often now has a built-in processor that displays various frame lines, masks, and camera status info (user selectable) In most Panasonic and Sony broadcast cameras, this is also an option.
This should be a basic feature of any professional motion picture product.
However, if there is a smarter, new way of achieving this, I'm all for it. One thing about Red is that it will let us all leapfrog ahead in imaging electronically. Let's just not take a step backwards in workflow.
Cheers,
Harry

[Carl-August Savgård]

When I do Videoassist then everything has to go fast, really fast. I agree with the frame lines, everyone on the agency and client size are most of the time very conserned with the frameing (we know better and that it can be reframed in post) One thing that is important is to make sure is on the packshot they need to make sure where to put the logo and tagline/offer/copy. Then we need accurate frame lines.

[Chris Parker]

On Arri, Panavision, and Aaton film cameras the video tap often now has a built-in processor that displays various frame lines, masks, and camera status info (user selectable) In most Panasonic and Sony broadcast cameras, this is also an option.
This should be a basic feature of any professional motion picture product.
However, if there is a smarter, new way of achieving this, I'm all for it. One thing about Red is that it will let us all leapfrog ahead in imaging electronically. Let's just not take a step backwards in workflow.
Cheers,
Harry

Great point man. I totally did not think of the built in frame line generator on most of the Arri taps. This seems like the way to go. Then it would be up to the camera dept. to set them as per the shoot's requirements, and everyone is happy. I wonder if this feature is easy for the Red team to add? I also know of an external frame line generator, but I was just hoping this could be done from camera.

[Finner]

I disagree. After a take, the camera department is busy re-working focus marks, changing focal length, tweaking various things. They do not, and WILL NOT, take the responsibility to playback the takes as needed. This is done by the video guy at the request of the director and/or agency.

Remeber, we are talking about standard (bigger budget) commercials here, not 'Jim's Car Dealer' spots for the local network. This is how it will HAVE to work if RED is to find it's way onto normal commercial shoots.

And this is the easy part. Give a video guy a feed and he will do the rest. Capturing to a digital device will be required, as playback should not be done from camera, for many many reasons. The first one being that a DOP will not tolerate his focus puller being made to playback takes when his skills and time are needed in between takes for other camera related tasks.


As a camera 19 year camera guy I can say this is exactly right. The 2nd focus puller operator will not do these things and as for the video guy he gets the chance to plug in his wire to the camera and that is where things stop as far as him touching the camera goes. A focus puller will break a video guys fingers if he starts to mess with the camera. I have operated with focus pullers who will not even let the video guy plug in his cable to the camera they tell them to hand them the bnc and they will plug it in themsleves. I personally do not know of any focus puller that would let a video playback guy start to mess with the footage to play it back..

All these things need to be done at the video cart by the video playback guy. I know this sounds militant but it stops mistakes from happening.

[Nick Shaw]

I know that as an editor, not a shooter, I should not really be joining this debate, but I can't help adding my 2 penneth. Maybe, as Graeme said, the internal architecture of the video processing would not allow for each output to be independently switched to show different combinations of overlays. However, since the HDMI and HD-SDI monitoring outputs are 720p, the same as the EVF and LCD, I would think it would be a relatively simple internal routing issue to at least give the option to make them mirror exactly what is on the EVF. That would mean they would be switchable between 'clean' true 720p and the EVF 2540p scaled to 720p, showing 'look-around' and all selected overlays. That way the sound dept, and anybody else who needs to could see outside the frame, and see everything that the operator sees. That is effectively what happens with the video tap on a film camera. That is after all pointing at the same ground glass that the OVF is, isn't it?

Feel free to tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just an editor after all!

Nick

[Finner]

This is a good subject, but please don't panic just yet! We more than likely have you covered.

If someone can just recap specifically what is needed, in this application and who needs to see it, and how far away they are when they need to see it, on what they need to see it, then I can offer a comment or two about all of this....

And by that I mean a precise description such as - the camera operator needs to see surround view in the EVF AND the AC needs to see ??? on the LCD, AND the director needs to see ... AND the **** needs to see...


What needs to be seen:

Camera operator EVF: Frame lines of choice (some times even a combination like HD and 4x3tv together) also a signal that the camera is running. The option of shutter info, fps info, focus assist, sound levels and camera problem indicator. It would be nice if all these options could be independantly turned on or off as some are only needed in certian situations


AC LCD: exactly the same options as mentione above for the EVF are needed for the LCD with the ability to add or omit any one of them.

The camera feed out: for video playback guy, director, DOP, sound guy the same options as mentioned in the EVF with ability to omit or add which ever one is needed.

I feel one of the most important things is that each of the ports EVF, LCD and video out feed all have independant choice options of what they want on or off. Often the Camera Op, AC and Director will all want different information being displayed to them.

[Chris Parker]

What needs to be seen:

Camera operator EVF: Frame lines of choice (some times even a combination like HD and 4x3tv together) also a signal that the camera is running. The option of shutter, fps info, focus assist, sound levels and camera problem indicator. It would be nice if all these options could be independantly turned on or off as some are only needed in certian situations


AC LCD: exactly the same options as mentione above for the EVF are needed for the LCD.

The camera feed out: for video playback guy, director, DOP, sound guy the same options as mentioned in the EVF with ability to omit or add which ever one is needed.

I feel one of the most important things is that each of the ports EVF, LCD and video out feed all have independant choice options of what they want on or off. Often the Camera Op, AC and Director will all want different information being displayed to them.

Yep, there have been many times where a 4:3 frame line AND a 16:9 frame line needed to be seen at the same time.

And yes, in an ideal world, each display item would be able to toggle on or off on each and every port, EVF, LCD, and video output.

All your posts have been bang on, but hey, for someone who likes 'the dude' as much as you, it's hard to be wrong!

[Corrado Silveri]

Completely agree.
There is a sort of religious or military order on set, and in the most case is a must-to-do-this-way/no-compromise situation.
The agency guys (even the clients) are -from one side- very creative and funny and -from the othe side- very conservative, scary, traditionalist.

The RedOne must be consistent with this kind of approach, first of all. Even before what the camera can do "better" or "more" (in certain situation...).

Hoping that you can understand my poor english. Just my two cent.

[Nick Shaw]

In terms of frame lines, I don't think it is possible to predict all eventualities and satisfy everyone using presets. I know it's been mentioned before, but I really think that the option to up-load a 4520x2540 image file with an alpha channel, to create a custom overlay, would be invaluable.

[Stuart English]

Implied in these answers appears to be external rather than internal (REDCODE RGB or RAW) recording. What do you envisage - RAW recording via optical output or 1080p recording via single or dual link HD-SDI?

[Brook Willard]

I envision folks recording good 'ol 1080p out of the SDI port. Why? Don't ask me. If it's for anything beyond playback...

[Don Woods]

I would only use it for monitor or maybe a simple back up. From what we have seen and have yet to see how RED CODE holds up that seems to be the option for most Commercials at least to me..

[Nick Shaw]

People have said they don't want the camera department to be responsible for playback. That is a separate job for the video department. Fair enough, but does the mechanism for doing this need to follow the traditional film model? RED is a new way of working. How about this:

The playback operator has a remote control for the playback functions of the camera, enabling them to play back takes on all the external monitors, without going near the camera, while the camera department preps for the next setup. Alternatively, can a long FireWire 800 cable be connected to the RED-DRIVE while it is still connected to the camera? That way, the playback operator could browse and play shots on his own screen, and even download and archive them. If this could work over 802.11n, it would be even better.

[Harry Clark]

But Nick, then the playback guy essentially "hijacks" the camera. What if it's a more doc-like setting and the director/ DP wants to grab an unscripted moment while the agency looks at playback?
Also, I think the notion of Red being more liberating than traditional HD also implies FEWER cables running from the camera, not MORE.
HD-SDI to the VTR guy, who can downconvert or put frame lines on it, or whatever is the simplest method, in my opinion.
If it was a smaller type of shoot without the client apparatus, then of course playback from the camera is wonderful. But the original poster was talking about traditional commercials, which are usually well-staffed and expected to provide independent VTR playback for the agency.
Cheers,
H.

[Finner]

People have said they don't want the camera department to be responsible for playback. That is a separate job for the video department. Fair enough, but does the mechanism for doing this need to follow the traditional film model? RED is a new way of working. How about this:

The playback operator has a remote control for the playback functions of the camera, enabling them to play back takes on all the external monitors, without going near the camera, while the camera department preps for the next setup. Alternatively, can a long FireWire 800 cable be connected to the RED-DRIVE while it is still connected to the camera? That way, the playback operator could browse and play shots on his own screen, and even download and archive them. If this could work over 802.11n, it would be even better.

Playback from the original camera footage can just cause problems. At that point the stored footage is the only copy of what has been shot. Playback with this footage is a bad idea. Also the focus puller should be the only one with remotes or control of the camera.

Heres an example that may make you see where this would be a problem. Lets say someone had a remote that could control some aspects of your edit suite at will but they were in a different room then you and could access and do things while you were in the middle of editing. I think that kind of set up would last about 1 hour before you killed the guy with the remote.

The video playback guy just needs a video signal from the camera with frame lines and the quality of picture he recieves is not nearly as important as the frame lines and the ability to record it and play that footage back.

I agree that people need to be open to change but a lot of the set job model is there because it has been developed over many years and it works best. When I was new inthis bussiness some of the things I had to do as an assistant seemed like a waste of time and not necesarry but in time it all made sense as I saw mistakes made by others that decided to not follow the militant procedure. The procedure is a safety net for yourself on set.

[Stuart English]

O.K, a strawman.

If you don't trust the REDCODE capture for image quality, then you must make an external recording. If you record external to the camera you must provide the video recorder with a 100% clean feed - else you will record the frame guide lines. If you are recording to any decent DDR then adding framing lines to the monitoring output of that DDR are a piece of cake.

This setup avoids any playback from camera issues.

So now where's the problem? (just trying to understand the application)

[Stuart English]

If you DO trust the REDCODE capture for image quality, then the questions become : is there a video recording guy at all, if so what does he do?

Remote control of camera clip playback could be made available via RS232 hard wire or 802.11 wireless, framing guidelines for HD resolution images we can resolve. If you want SD resolution images, there are external converters for that.

So now where's the problem? (again just trying to understand the application)
__________________
Workflow Wizard

[Finner]

The focus puller 2nd assistant an operator are often too busy to do playback thus if the production has the money they hire a playback guy. Its pretty simple what the playback guy needs. All he needs is a signal coming of the camera with the shot and the frame lines. He will do all the rest with his equipment, no need for anything more complicated. It is also nice if there is an information area as well that shows shutter and fps info.

I believe we are talking about the same thing but your first post of these last 2 was a little confusing to me.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I understand the application completely. Perhaps what is needed
is a way to record to the REDDRIVE and a REDFLASH at the same time.
The REDFLASH should be external to the RED. Perhaps it can record from the HDMI port. Then the "video assist" guy is showing on a monitor what
was recorded from the camera. It would be simple to set-up frame lines
for 1080 or 480. Then the editor can transfer each good take from the REDFLASH as they go. That way the REDDRIVE is filling up and not touched until it needs to be changed.....

[Stuart English]

Finner thanks for that -

If you are using the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, I agree with you. Seems his job is to just to record a proxy of the actual master recording and play that proxy back for the director etc. (If as has been suggested HDMI is desired for that job, Black Magic have a $250 card for ingesting HDMI at 1080p or 720p resolution into a P.C / Mac)

But if you don't trust the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, then the HD-SDI signal from the camera must be free of any frame guidlines as this signal will be recorded as the master recording. In this case the recorder itself can generate these framing guidleines and SD resolution copies.

[Finner]

RED GUY. Either I am going crazy or I just do not understand properly but to me these suggestions are way off.

The focus puller needs to be the only one to deal with anything concerning the camera period. The video playback guy has his own equipment and does not deal with any part of the camera at all, he gets a signal line from the camera and that is it. He records on what ever the heck system he wants to or will work but he does not control any aspect of the camera.

I am not sure why the concept I am trying to explain is not being understood. It seems so simple to me. I will try and lay it out again.

The video playback guy gets a video line out from the camera that signal should contain a picture signal and frame lines that are chosen in the camera and the ability to display the fps and shutter would be great. He then records this signal on what ever equipment he wants to. This is used just for playback for the director and other people on set that want to review this footage. This is just for reviewing for performance and gets erased later. I can not stress enough that the video playback guy should have no access to any part of the camera other then the video line comming off of it.

[Finner]

Finner thanks for that -

If you are using the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, I agree with you. Seems his job is to just to record a proxy of the actual master recording and play that proxy back for the director etc. (If as has been suggested HDMI is desired for that job, Black Magic have a $250 card for ingesting HDMI at 1080p or 720p resolution into a P.C / Mac)

But if you don't trust the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, then the HD-SDI signal from the camera must be free of any frame guidlines as this signal will be recorded as the master recording. In this case the recorder itself can generate these framing guidleines and SD resolution copies.

I see, you are talking about using the out going signal out to actually record this to a deck to use as the main captured footage. It seems like to me the way you are developing this camera that this is a redundant feature that very few people will use.

What I think is way more important and will be used on pretty much every shoot will be a signal that will have the exact same options as the EVF and LCD. This feature is much more important then the HD-SDI signal.

[Harry Clark]

Finner is absolutely correct. The camera and its "negative" should be left alone.
The VTR guy should be provided a feed that contains some useful info (frame lines, fps, etc.) and record and play back. Whether this is HD or SD and where the framelines are generated is less important.
It's a quick, efficient system that works in film and HD. It leaves the camera original untouched. It frees up the camera crew and the imaging device to move along and finesse the shot, or get more footage.
As long as Red outputs some flavor of HD-SDI, an intermediate device can add framelines of your choice. An AJA downconverter would work.
But playing back from the camera won't fly on commercial shoots.
Cheers,
Harry

[donatello b]

RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?

[Finner]

RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?

Right idea except you want only one line comming off the camera and a splitter box to be at the video playback guys station that then goes out to other monitors.

[Steve Gibby]

RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?

To add to that, to not have to run another hardline, and minimize camera clutter, wireless it from the camera out to video village, to a splitter, then hook up as many monitors to the splitter as you please - each showing the frame lines. Interactivity as far as on/off switch of frame lines would not be available in video village, but the people there want to see the active framing that the camera op is using anyway.

[Matt Redmond]

Surely, if it matches, overlaying the guide frames "external" from the camera is a much better option. Trusting "pure data on a Hard Drive" for a lot of production houses is going to be a lot more scary than HDCAM-SR masters.

A lot of HD monitors these days have guide-frames. But if you don't trust that then I have another question:

"How much extra bandwidth is left on the HD-SDI feed?" Is it possible to also put "hidden" test-out data down the pipe which can be then translated by an external "test-out box"?

I've got no idea how complex, nor how expensive such an option would be, but it leaves things simple and clean at the camera end. Video guy can then have two taps out of the box - one with overlay data, the other clean to split off to whoever needs what.

Perhaps it only needs a few dip-switches to select which data is to be overlayed in the picture.

Not cheap I'm sure - but nice.

[Gbabymogul]

So current solutions may be :

a) run a wireless feed off of the EVF/LCD
to the video cats station. Or less ideal another line from the cam.
b) add frame lines to the 1080p dual link
feed - with the ability to turn them on
and off. Then whoever needs the feed
can get it.

Frame lines are pretty important (to understate the case). Even on a narrative shoot, for example, on a recent one; the director didn't leave the monitor while adjusting framing on set. Especially on large locations; you're not going to get the director to go over to the cam every time he wants to make frame adjustments. And yes, WYSISYG except for 2.35.1 framing, or if they're shooting variable fps and intercutting with other footage.

In short, frame lines for the 1080p dual link video out is absolutely essential.

In my wee baby mogul opinion.
:beer:

[Nick Shaw]

Heres an example that may make you see where this would be a problem. Lets say someone had a remote that could control some aspects of your edit suite at will but they were in a different room then you and could access and do things while you were in the middle of editing. I think that kind of set up would last about 1 hour before you killed the guy with the remote.

If their remote let them do things that clashed with what I was doing I agree. I do however often give an assistant network access to the bins in my project, so that they can work on sub-clipping and marking up takes. I would never give them access to the time-line I was working on.

In the same way I was envisioning a remote which gave the playback operator access only to the playback functions of the camera, and which would not interfere with 'camera side' operations. But maybe this is not possible. In that case, my second scenario would be more analogous to the edit suite situation, where the playback operator can browse the files on the RED-DRIVE, and download them or play them back directly from the RED-DRIVE, but using his own computer, not the camera's playback engine. That way what he is doing should not affect the camera department.

EDIT
This is a reply to a post from Finner two pages back (which I started typing then left for a while) so probably makes no sense in the context of where the discussion is at now! Probably best ignored! Sorry

[Finner]

If their remote let them do things that clashed with what I was doing I agree. I do however often give an assistant network access to the bins in my project, so that they can work on sub-clipping and marking up takes. I would never give them access to the time-line I was working on.

In the same way I was envisioning a remote which gave the playback operator access only to the playback functions of the camera, and which would not interfere with 'camera side' operations. But maybe this is not possible. In that case, my second scenario would be more analogous to the edit suite situation, where the playback operator can browse the files on the RED-DRIVE, and download them or play them back directly from the RED-DRIVE, but using his own computer, not the camera's playback engine. That way what he is doing should not affect the camera department.

EDIT
This is a reply to a post from Finner two pages back (which I started typing then left for a while) so probably makes no sense in the context of where the discussion is at now! Probably best ignored! Sorry


It's just camera guys are very touchy when it comes to anyone else having any kind of control of the camera. It just seems a lot more complicated then it needs to be. Video playback guys have their equipment and all they really want is a signal feed off the camera with some info (fps, shutter) to do their job. There is really no use making the camera more complicated in this area. I know with my camera I would never let a playback guy have any control of any of its features.

[Michael Schrengohst]

RED GUY. Either I am going crazy or I just do not understand properly but to me these suggestions are way off.

The focus puller needs to be the only one to deal with anything concerning the camera period. The video playback guy has his own equipment and does not deal with any part of the camera at all, he gets a signal line from the camera and that is it. He records on what ever the heck system he wants to or will work but he does not control any aspect of the camera.

I am not sure why the concept I am trying to explain is not being understood. It seems so simple to me. I will try and lay it out again.

The video playback guy gets a video line out from the camera that signal should contain a picture signal and frame lines that are chosen in the camera and the ability to display the fps and shutter would be great. He then records this signal on what ever equipment he wants to. This is used just for playback for the director and other people on set that want to review this footage. This is just for reviewing for performance and gets erased later. I can not stress enough that the video playback guy should have no access to any part of the camera other then the video line comming off of it.

I understand that. I was saying take the HDMI feed from the camera....
record on another box that RED can make...call it the RED FLASH BOX.....
The whole concept as exists for film/video assist is quite obsolete. In future the whole idea to have a spot cut together on location with footage direct from the camera will be the way to go....plus the whole advertising industry is in for a big shake-up anyway...but that is a whole nother topic.

[Corrado Silveri]

In future the whole idea to have a spot cut together on location with footage direct from the camera will be the way to go....

Sorry Red Guy... I think this is not correct...
Yep, the technology walk, but why "on set"?
Or you intend a "rough cut" just to test the sequence of the shots?
In this case, you're right (my opinion).

[Michael Schrengohst]

Sorry Red Guy... I think this is not correct...
Yep, the technology walk, but why "on set"?
Or you intend a "rough cut" just to test the sequence of the shots?
In this case, you're right (my opinion).

Yes, not a finished locked-in edit...unless you had a decked out
motor home with all the bells & whistles....
What I am saying is an edit with footage that is a mirror clone
of the actual footage, not a crappy black & white footage
with frame lines....You could have multiple sequences....
Here is your HD look Mr. Director - Here it is on a full raster 4:3 monitor...
here is action safe that the poor old 4:3 viewer will see.....
Here is your iPod version, here is the cell phone version....etc.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, not a finished locked-in edit...unless you had a decked out
motor home with all the bells & whistles....
What I am saying is an edit with footage that is a mirror clone
of the actual footage, not a crappy black & white footage
with frame lines....You could have multiple sequences....
Here is your HD look Mr. Director - Here it is on a full raster 4:3 monitor...
here is action safe that the poor old 4:3 viewer will see.....
Here is your iPod version, here is the cell phone version....etc.

Hi,

I never seem to work on jobs where there is any time spare to view multiple sequences! IMHO video assist slows down the whole process of film making.

Stephen

[Graeme Nattress]

Sounds like these people who are back-seat driving on commercials don't trust the professionals operating the camera. Stephen's comment is a good one.

I understand that the reality for many people is very different though. That's why it's great to listen to all the posters with their own experiences.

I like how we're all thinking of better ways that the problems outlined can be solved. It's been a great brainstorm so far, so let's see what we can end up with!!

Graeme

[Storyline]

I usually have active reticules for 16x9, 90% safe, and 4x3 active all at once. Furthermore, it helps to have the reticules available on at least two external taps in addition to the EVF, so that an LCD mounted on an arm and a feed to a video village can each see the frameline information.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I have spent many hours trying to construct the most efficent workflows for the RedOne camera system based on the minimum capabilities I can anticipate from the statements of the RedTeam so far. My plan includes a support van with computers, drives, monitors and at least one cart that can roll outside the van. I am figuring that the van will drive video village both by wire and wireless using the HDMI feed from the camera either wired or wireless depending on the logistics (and the as yet untested wireless HDMI system). If necessary I would assign one Mac to add frame lines and function as a DDR for immediate playback.

One of the van's primary functions would be to copy the data off the mags (RedDrives) for copying (x3) and verification so they could be erased and returned to set. I also imagine that some directors would want to do a rough cut so I would have a station for an edit guy. I plan to have a 1080p projector in the van for the DoP to check the image. Depending on the pace of the day the DoP could even have me tweak the image in RedCine and show him the results on the projected image and add that look to the metadata for reference by the colorist.

I am even thinking about an EZ-Up style tent that created a video village option off the side of the van with a 8 foot wide projected image, of course that may be a little mad.

[Matt Uhry]

Sounds like these people who are back-seat driving on commercials don't trust the professionals operating the camera. Stephen's comment is a good one.
Graeme

This can be true, but remember lots and lots of money is at stake and many people on commercials have little experience with any kind of production. I've had clients ask me if the crosshairs would be on the final image !

For the most part I've received a lots of respect and trust, you get this by heading off problems before they happen, which includes having a good quality flexible monitoring situation for the director, agency and clients. It's like the Producer, Director and DP are on stage and they are putting on a show that is designed to build a nice fuzzy feeling of creative consensus.

A dedicated video person will continue to be involved who may or may not be able to handle HD or generate framelines. But can record and play back SD and usually can do vari-speed and simple editing / comping.

I would try to avoid a situation where video playback in HD was expected from the camera at the agency's beck and call. The shoot would grind to a halt. But it would be very handy to be able to do it when you need to.

I think we got that.

How about a 3rd onboard monitor/ evf output? a special cable could split out the video signal with user controlled information / framelines / camera settings. This could feed video village. Kind of plays into the super modular-ness of the Red that we are all so jacked up on.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Graeme Nattress]

That's why it's great to get input from you Matt. Because of the way RED is designed, and it's price, it's going to be used in a very wide range of ways, some of which we may not have thought of. That's why I really appreciate the time you take to post back with comments and even put up with my sense of humour.

Your point about their being a show that is recorded, and a meta-show where the producer, director and dp are putting on a show for the creatives is a very good way to illustrate your point.

Graeme

[Evin Grant]

This is exactly what myself and a few other commercial Director/DPs I know are trying to fight with the data centric workflow. The HVX is great in this regard because it allows us to play back the correct timebase on shots for the client/agency without having to use a dedicated video playback guy. However it's goinng to be hard to get them to come over on the larger shoots, at least till Red is more ubiquitous.

[Stuart English]

" I usually have active reticules for 16x9, 90% safe, and 4x3 active all at once. Furthermore, it helps to have the reticules available on at least two external taps in addition to the EVF, so that an LCD mounted on an arm and a feed to a video village can each see the frameline information"

Understood. And understood that there will be many different setups for different applications, but for this one at least - if we can do all this plus provide a clean HD-SDI feed for recording to DDR / VTR we're good ?

[Ralph Oshiro]

There's no plain old composite video output on the camera, is there?

[Andrew Benz]

There's no plain old composite video output on the camera, is there?

No sir

[Finner]

This can be true, but remember lots and lots of money is at stake and many people on commercials have little experience with any kind of production. I've had clients ask me if the crosshairs would be on the final image !

For the most part I've received a lots of respect and trust, you get this by heading off problems before they happen, which includes having a good quality flexible monitoring situation for the director, agency and clients. It's like the Producer, Director and DP are on stage and they are putting on a show that is designed to build a nice fuzzy feeling of creative consensus.

A dedicated video person will continue to be involved who may or may not be able to handle HD or generate framelines. But can record and play back SD and usually can do vari-speed and simple editing / comping.

I would try to avoid a situation where video playback in HD was expected from the camera at the agency's beck and call. The shoot would grind to a halt. But it would be very handy to be able to do it when you need to.

I think we got that.

How about a 3rd onboard monitor/ evf output? a special cable could split out the video signal with user controlled information / framelines / camera settings. This could feed video village. Kind of plays into the super modular-ness of the Red that we are all so jacked up on.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

This is exactly how I feel.

I shot with the D20 just a few weeks ago (studio) and the typical monitor groupies (client/producer/agency) could not get enough of the HD linear signal the D20 was sending to their 43inch plasma. Matt I understand how this can slow production down on an exterior location but in a studio or all day single interior situation it was a winner. As far as putting on a show this got a standing ovation. So if Red can give the HD out signal from the camera a frame line options like the D20 this would be a huge benefit and a winner that would blow every film cameras video tap out of the water. This would with out a doubt be a big winner with some of the people that have a lot of say on what kind of camera is used to shoot a project.

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

I never seem to work on jobs where there is any time spare to view multiple sequences! IMHO video assist slows down the whole process of film making.

Stephen

Well, first of all, we are talking about commercial film making in this topic. For the most part. So, like it or not, video assist is here to stay.

As for true 'film-making', it is up to the director and the budget. 100% of big budget feature shoots now have video assist. Ask the director if he thinks it slows the process down, or if it gives him more tools to make the final project better.

I see your point though, as it is shared by many in the electric and grip departments!

[Chris Parker]

This is exactly how I feel.

I shot with the D20 just a few weeks ago (studio) and the typical monitor groupies (client/producer/agency) could not get enough of the HD linear signal the D20 was sending to their 43inch plasma. Matt I understand how this can slow production down on an exterior location but in a studio or all day single interior situation it was a winner. As far as putting on a show this got a standing ovation. So if Red can give the HD out signal from the camera a frame line options like the D20 this would be a huge benefit and a winner that would blow every film cameras video tap out of the water. This would with out a doubt be a big winner with some of the people that have a lot of say on what kind of camera is used to shoot a project.

Again Finner comes through with the post that makes total sense. I think we are on our way to something here.

One thing that most on this thread are forgetting is that we are talking about the normal commercial shoot here. I have personally worked as a video guy on over 1000 commercial shoots over the past 10 years, and for anyone to think that the camera will EVER be used to playback footage on most high end shoots is silly. Just silly.

The remote control idea was interesting, but will NEVER work. The camera is an IMAGE RECORDING DEVICE. Not a frigging playback tool We are talking about commercials, where budgets are normally over $150,000. And can easily get over $500K or more. These shoots simply have a playback guy. This is a job that is needed.

And we playback guys don't ask for much. Just give us a feed out of the camera with accurate frame lines, and we'll be happy. Give us an HD feed with those same frame lines, and we'll be super happy. Give us an HD feed with NO frame lines. And we will be very unhappy.

So, give us a feed with framelines, and we will take it, run it to whatever recording device we choose to use. This should not concern you, camera people, as this is only for 'on-the-day' recording and playback, and I will erase it at the end of every shoot. This is what we are talking about in the thread. The on set playback. Not the master recording.

So, if us video guys have that feed with framelines, we will take it, run it through our cart, send it out to the clients/agency who are arguing over the placement of the last Cheerio in the bowl. We'll send a feed to soundguy who is reading the paper and waiting for more sync shots. We'll send it to teh director who is running rehearsals. We will send it an AD wireless (and hell, we'll even send it to his 2nds) as they place and rehearse background. We'll send it to the props people as they rig stuff for the next shot.

And yes, we will try our best to stay out of the grips and electric's way!

Anyways, you can see why framelines are so important right? When an A.D. is locking off an exterior background scene, he/she positions their 2nd's, and P.A.'s just off the edge of frame. I mean, I cannot count the thousands of times I have heard on set people yelling out, 'Am I out of frame yet?'

And no, the solution is not to say, "Well, this is RED, people are just gonna have to get used to a different workflow. The camera guys are gonna just have to get used to playing back footage. The agency is gonna have to get used to having no frame lines. etc. etc."

My whole point in starting this thread is to ensure that RED can find its way onto lots of commerical sets. I think this market is ripe for the picking by RED, over time. BUT, it must fit in, and improve, upon the current workflow. This is 100% essential. And it can. And it will. The post that Grahme I think it was, that said if we give you the option of a clean HD feed, or one with multiple, user-selectable frame lines, would the problem be solved?

The answer is most definately, YES.

[Nick Shaw]

Presumably you would want the HD feed to have the option of being derived by scaling from the full 2540p picture, ie with 'look-around'. Then frame lines within that could show where the 4k window was, where the 1080 HD window (ie 3840x2160) etc. But you would also need it to be possible to switch that 'overscan' off, so that the HD feed you got was identical to the HD that would be used in the edit.

Just trying to clarify.

[donatello b]

now i know we can ASK for the moon .. but lets get down to the BOTTOM line.

can you work with the two 720p outs ( with frame line ) to get images to camera op, AC, video village ?
plus we have 1080p out without frame line... will those 3 outs work for you ?

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Assuming that the outs for the EVF and LCD @720p are in use by the operator and the 1st (puller) then we have two likely candidates for the "meta-show" closed circuit world. I think just about everyone wants to keep the HD-SDI tap completely clean for direct recording purposes and hardline EFP apps. That leaves the HDMI tap (which I think the Red Team has always thought of as a monitoring port) available for the "meta-show". HDMI is becoming very common on consumer HDTVs and can be gender bent into DVI with a simple adapter for computer monitors so this makes it very easy and cost effective to procure monitors for on set use.

I am not a big fan of digging through menus but in this case how about a toggle between a clean out from HDMI and a marked up version (yes, setting the details of the exact markup you need will require a sub-menu - please don't shoot me). I am also hoping that the HDMI output is actually 1080 not 720 so it can put a more impressive image on a bigger client monitor - always nice to wow the folks signing the checks :D

Specific feature request: 1080 output from HDMI with optional frameline (and other camera data would be nice) overlays.

[Steve Gibby]

Specific feature request: 1080 output from HDMI with optional frameline (and other camera data would be nice) overlays.

Me and others already asked for 1080p out the HDMI on another thread, and optional menu framelines out HDMI would complete the equation. As of now the HDMI tap is 720p, but I'm sure they'll evaluate and do what they can within the time constraints. At some point they have to finalize the specs and produce the camera. By March we'll know what made "the cut".

[Nick Shaw]

I think just about everyone wants to keep the HD-SDI tap completely clean for direct recording purposes and hardline EFP apps. That leaves the HDMI tap (which I think the Red Team has always thought of as a monitoring port) available for the "meta-show".

From what Stuart said earlier, I think that there is both an HD-SDI and an HDMI dedicated to monitoring, separate from the Dual-Link HD-SDI (which can also be switched to Single-Link mode) for external recording or hard lined EFP.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

If the architecture of the RedOne makes adding framlines to the HDMI outs incredibly difficult than perhaps we need an off camera solution. I still think that a video playback operator can take either the HDMI or HD-SDI tap and run it through a computer (or an HD switcher with a DDR) to add the framelines and record a proxy it can handle for immediate replay.

During the morning set up the camera can shoot a test chart so that the video guy can check frame marker alignment, it would only have to be done once.

An AJA card or something similar could be used both for input and to drive a video DA for distrib all over a big set.

Yes this will likely require a desktop style computer on wheels/cart or a laptop with an expansion chassis for PCIe.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Nick, if you are right it just opens more doors.

[Steve Gibby]

That's a logical workaround Blair. Then if the HDMI was transmitted wireless from the camera to video viillage, it would reduce hardline clutter at the camera.

[Steve Gibby]

Nick, if you are right it just opens more doors.

Indeed...

[Finner]

Skipdivils

I have experienced all of what you mention many times. What you say is just how it is. First off I salute you for taking the abuse and punishment of being a playback guy for 10 years (In fact I felt kind of guilty reading your post and thinking about how I could of been a lot nicer to the playback tech on a lot of shoots). Your comment on how some are saying well this is RED and people need to learn to do things differently, well I agree that is the biggest load of crap ever. Shoots will already be choosing to do things differently by using a RED in the first place, but in high budget cinematography of any type having to "jimmy rig" this and that and tape this and just imagine this will not fly. If that becomes the case these shoots will just choose film or the arri d20. Jim has mentioned that he wants to be competitive with the top cameras in the world and for it to do that it needs the features you mention. By the way I am no means slamming team RED with what I am saying. I am amazed at the scale of project they are taking on in such a short time (I would have thought it was impossible before I heard of RED and began researching it.). It's just the features mentioned by skipdivils are what the RED ONE is going to need to be looked at on the same level as the D20, genisis and future others. I hope the RED team see's these suggestions as our input on this because we want RED to be the best.



Presumably you would want the HD feed to have the option of being derived by scaling from the full 2540p picture, ie with 'look-around'. Then frame lines within that could show where the 4k window was, where the 1080 HD window (ie 3840x2160) etc. But you would also need it to be possible to switch that 'overscan' off, so that the HD feed you got was identical to the HD that would be used in the edit.

Just trying to clarify.

Nick you are right about the HD feed needing to have the overscan as a must. If it is possible to have the a switch that could change it to the "identical HD feed as in the edit" would be a good feature that would be very nice but not needed on set if it is a difficult or expensive feature for RED to add.



Donatello

These things are high level features but in comparison to world class production cameras these are the standards the cameras have.

[Finner]

Your point earlier about the HDMI out having frame line menu options is bang on. This is exactly what the camera needs to be similar to the genisis and d20.


If the architecture of the RedOne makes adding framlines to the HDMI outs incredibly difficult than perhaps we need an off camera solution. I still think that a video playback operator can take either the HDMI or HD-SDI tap and run it through a computer (or an HD switcher with a DDR) to add the framelines and record a proxy it can handle for immediate replay.

During the morning set up the camera can shoot a test chart so that the video guy can check frame marker alignment, it would only have to be done once.

An AJA card or something similar could be used both for input and to drive a video DA for distrib all over a big set.

Yes this will likely require a desktop style computer on wheels/cart or a laptop with an expansion chassis for PCIe.

This idea will work and I had thought the exact same things if there is no frame lines option. Unfortunately compared to simply having it in the camera menu like other cameras makes this kind of set up system a little "bush league".

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Gibby, I wonder what the engineering equation is on the HDMI output resolution? I'm guessing that they have already sacrificed some CPU cycles to scaling a 720 output that runs to the EVF and LCD taps so they just figured they would send the same signal out via HDMI. Since they are also committed (can we use that term around here :rolleyes: ) to a 1080 output to HD-SDI is it really an extra drain on the CPU?

I really like the potential simplicity and cost effectiveness of using commodity displays that already have HDMI taps for client/director monitors. I think that sitting as close as folks usually do in a video village situation there is a perceptable difference between 1080 and 720. I know I won't be able to show them 4k on set but putting the best possible image in front of the people signing my check makes business sense to me.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Finner - agreed, its a clumsy fix but it does provide a central point for sending out vid all over the set which was going to require some sort of base station anyway. The playback guy wants to sit at a cart all day, nobody but the tech heads like us really care exactly what is on that cart or which tasks are happening there vs at the camera as long as their feeds are right. Moreover, it could allow the playback tech to create several customized feeds for different departments.

For large crew and union shoots the only difference is under the hood of the playback techs cart and we just added features.

[Steve Gibby]

Blair, I agree with what you're saying. If they can't up the HDMI from 720p to 1080p, then we'll need to accept that and move on. If 1080p is absolutely necessary or wanted for client/director displays, and HDMI is limited to 720p, then an HD-SDI tap solution will be the only way to go.

My other reason for wanting 1080p HDMI, beyond what you stated, is to be able to review RED One footage in 1080p easily on any 1080p HDMI-equipped HDTV set quickly and easily, without having to get to an edit bay to review footage.

Time and tech limitations will determine what makes the cut on features, and the RED staff has already performed miracles just getting this far down the road. I know they take the suggestions on this thread and the whole board as being constructive input from working pros. That said, they'll accommodate what they can, while still meeting their fiscal and production deadline needs. The field workflow needs raised on this thread are very valid, and I know RED is taking them seriously. I just thinks its entirely amazing to even get the chance to give input into the development of a new camera system. When was the last time we had that opportunity?

Postscript: Those of us who produce, and have regular occasion to bid projects, are familiar with the term "feature creep". Clients and network executive regularly come back at various stages of projects and ask for additions and revisions beyond the original agreement - thus "feature creep". RED has been taking input for about 13 months now, simultaneous with R&D for the camera. As they approach locking in the camera system specs we keep asking for more features. At some point they have to shut off the feature creep or the specs will never be finalized - and the camera production will be delayed. Then again, it's better business to delay the camera production and get it right, than to meet self-imposed deadlines and afterwards wish more features had been added. The decision seats for RED are difficult ones to sit in...and have been since the camera was announced.

All this said, I think the field workflow issues defined on this thread are weighty enough for RED to pay close attention to - something they have been doing (Graeme, Stuart, etc.). I know these guys and I know they've sincerely analyzed the input, and they'll do the best they can, while balancing that with the myriad of other factors they have to consider.

[Chris Parker]

Finner - agreed, its a clumsy fix but it does provide a central point for sending out vid all over the set which was going to require some sort of base station anyway. The playback guy wants to sit at a cart all day, nobody but the tech heads like us really care exactly what is on that cart or which tasks are happening there vs at the camera as long as their feeds are right. Moreover, it could allow the playback tech to create several customized feeds for different departments.

For large crew and union shoots the only difference is under the hood of the playback techs cart and we just added features.

Blair,

Your suggestion would work, but is really not feasible. Again, for RED to break into the 'film' world of commercials, it needs to work as a film camera does, with respect to video assist. A whole extra cart of equipment JUST to get frame lines is not efficient enough. There are frame line generators out there that are small enough to fit on our (video assist) current carts, and that would work better.

That said, I am very interested in you and your ideas, as I am working on a very similar setup for myself. Over time, I would love to share ideas back and forth to get the ultimate RED support system for on set workflow set up. Cheers man.

[Graeme Nattress]

I think in an ideal world, frame lines would be added downstream of the playback / recorder device, or as part of it's output. It would make sense to me that the playback / recorder records clean frames, and then, it should be able to output that clean feed with user-selectable framing guides, to be able to aspect ratio convert, letterbox, pillarbox etc. etc. That, to me, would be the most flexible approach. Of course, the playout section should have 2 or 3 independent feeds that all could be ganged together, or unique in their views or guides. To me, taking what the camera outputs in terms of guides is limiting, not enabling. Thoughts??

Graeme

[Chris Parker]

I also just want to try and post a few pics of a video setup. As you will see, the video cart can get pretty loaded as it is (depending on the number of cameras shooting) and there really isn't much room to add stuff simply to generate framelines. And to have an entire second cart JUST for this won't work, unless a 2nd person is hired to run it, and this is just silly if it is only to generate framelines.

Also, there is a pic there of a camera car setup, with a technocrane on the back. Video assist is setup on the top of the camera car, and the director, DOP, AD and me (the guy in the orange hat) sit up there. A feed is then transmitted to a client chase vehicle. Looking at this picture it is a good example of why generating framelines almost HAS to be done from within the camera. I couldn't imagine telling the AD that I HAVE to bring a cart with a full MAC system setup on the camera car somewhere to generate framelines. They would laugh at me first, then fire me, which, on a cold day like that, would be okay.

The fianl pic of of video village. You can see the client area, the video guy's cart, and in the background, the director's monitors. Imagine telling the camera department that because we now have a RED camera on set, we didn't hire a video guy, and they are responsible for wiring all that, moving it around all day, AND playing back footage. Not gonna happen.

Anyways, here's the pics, assuming I can upload them properly.

[Steve Gibby]

I think in an ideal world, frame lines would be added downstream of the playback / recorder device, or as part of it's output. It would make sense to me that the playback / recorder records clean frames, and then, it should be able to output that clean feed with user-selectable framing guides, to be able to aspect ratio convert, letterbox, pillarbox etc. etc. That, to me, would be the most flexible approach. Of course, the playout section should have 2 or 3 independent feeds that all could be ganged together, or unique in their views or guides. To me, taking what the camera outputs in terms of guides is limiting, not enabling. Thoughts??

Graeme

That's it...user selectable display features at video village, slaved off of the camera, but completely independent of the camera crew. Everyone should be happy then...

[Graeme Nattress]

It would mean someone inventing a DDR device that does that - or perhaps it goes in a distribution amplifier. I'm pretty much thinking out loud here.

Skip, thanks for the pictures - that's helpful indeed.

Graeme

[Finner]

An external frame line generator is not a good answer to this. Frame lines are an on set industry standard for monitors. I would guess that for every person that would want a clean feed of the HDMI there would be bare minimum 10 that would want it with frame lines. In the situation of a low budget local commercial or on a camera car like Skip mentions you need the feature of look around with frame lines as a direct camera feature. Now I understand if it is not possible for you guys to do it Graham (it is on the d20 though). If it is not possible to have both options (clean and look around frame lines) out of the HDMI port and only 1 is possible my vote would definately be for the look around with frame lines like on the arri as the clean feature would be something that would really hardly ever be used on set.

[Carl-August Savgård]

This is a good tread, I like it... =)

I know this is about asking for features but I think it's better to be shot down rather than never lift off. The thought that I have is timecode, can that be in-frame also, since we now are asking for stuff in-frame, on a VFX heavy commercial that I've been on we needed to sync up greenscreen with live action and the problem was the take that had been choosen, we needed to match stuff up on set. Then when editing the whole thing we would have saved like a day if we could have had proper timecode on the playback's comps that was done on set.

Then when I'm doing videoassist, there is most of the time a little break here and there, I like to do small edits and see how stuff syncs up, then if the director/producer like some of my edits, I would have accurate timecode so it's easy when they go into edit. (Saves a bit of time in the long run.)

Thanks for listening RED team. You rock. (The ones that reads all this rocks aswell.)

[Nick Shaw]

Burned in timecode would indeed be useful. Although there is obviously embedded timecode in the Dual-Link HD-SDI output. Would that also be embedded in the monitoring output? It would be useful if it was, then as cnilsson says, on-set rough cuts and comps could be transferred much more easily to the edit. Many capture systems can read RP-188 embedded timecode.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I second Finner on that frameline business.

On a commercial shoot it is absolutely necessary to have proper monitoring with framelines. Monitoring for clients is different compared to monitoring for the camera department. The camera-department needs to know how the picture looks like technically, HDSDI will do this. The clients want to know what the picture will look contentwise. Clients are used to crappy videoassist on which you can say things like: "This is out of frame. The picture will be more bluish, like we had in the moods." 720p is plenty enough for any client monitoring.

So: HDSDI for clean picture monitoring. HDMI 720P with framelines for client/producer and all the others (like me) who need framelines.

Is this possible?

Hans

[Carl-August Savgård]

Sure there are Timecode on the HD-SDI, but I'm thinking that for most of the time I will still do video assist in DV. Superfast and easy to relay signal and I have the equipment. So I would prefer burnt in timecode. But hey, is only me?

For example: I don't know of a small form factor HD mixer that has a good price tag...
http://www.dv411.com/indigo.html - 15K
http://panasonic-broadcast.com/index.cfm?&CatID=4295&ClassID=1&PID=11831 - 8K

[Casey Green]

An external frame line generator is not a good answer to this. Frame lines are an on set industry standard for monitors. I would guess that for every person that would want a clean feed of the HDMI there would be bare minimum 10 that would want it with frame lines.

I have to agree with skipdivils and Finner...

I brought this topic up back in Nov. on DVInfo (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80097) as well as on my own forum and I am very happy to see it getting more attention here. As a 24-frame Video Coordinator and Playback operator, I have also witnessed how vital the Video Assist workflow is on all of the productions I've worked on. (Mostly these have been Features, 1 Hour Episodic, and Sitcoms). On this forum, I've noticed that there seems to be 2 very different views on how this should work - one comes from smart, logical thinking, and the other comes from real-world production experience (also smart, by the way :) ) . Both are definitely legitimate in their own right.

In the logical version, ideas have been mentioned such as playing back from the Camera, adding Framelines downstream, etc. Technically, these can work, but practically, they don't.

In the real world, when on set, there are certain procedures that have evolved over a long period of time for good reason. There are also specific jobs for specific people, and unions which regulate who does what. As mentioned here, Camera Operators will not do playback on Union shows. There will be a Video Assist operator, who will be expecting composite or HD output with framelines. Depending on the type of show, type of setup, and also the preference of the Camera Dept. and Video Assist operator, I have sometimes seen the Assist operator add custom framelines from their own cart, but this has been VERY rare.

The workflow is the main reason why the current method is in use today.

I think the root of a lot of the discussion here comes from the idea that the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs on the Camera were originally intended as recordable outputs, not necessarily as frameline monitor outputs(?). (The framelines would be in the viewfinder and LCD.) The idea of adding framelines essentially makes a potential recording output unusable in that manner. This, I believe, has led to the idea of adding the framelines downstream, which logically makes sense... therefore you don't lose functionality.

Unfortunately, the way most productions are run, this is not practical, and would disrupt alot of current workflow procedures and crew responsibilities. On the film shoots I've been on, there is a Video Tap on the cameras which outputs a composite feed with framelines (by cable or transmitter) to the Video Assist operator, who then routes the feed to the set monitors and records all of the takes to playback instantly when requested.

Also, something not mentioned here (as far as I can tell) is the needs of the Sound Mixer. Almost all Mixers I have worked with heavily rely on Video Assist and the Framelines to communicate to their Boom operators when the Boom is nearing entering the frame. They are in constant communication over a wireless transmitter, and if the mic gets to close to the frameline, the Mixer will tell the Boom operator. So the Video Assist operator will also be expected to wire a feed to the Mixer's small monitor(s). Doing this all in HD may not be practical, so the Video Assist operator may need to have a converter to go Composite.

I believe the best ideas I have heard so far are to have options for both the HDMI and HD-SDI (and SDI?) feeds to have an assortment of independantly toggle-able framelines (with modes for combined framelines (1.85 and 4:3, etc.) since many productions shoot for more than one viewing method.) Also, if possible, and I know this will be frowned upon by some, a composite output. This also was mentioned here before... keep in mind that many Video Assist setups have to travel long distances (carts located very far from the set, camera on a technocrane, etc.) I'm not sure the distance HDMI and HD-SDI can travel before needing a DA. (plus the additional costs of high-end cabling and DAs or converters). These are all real-world factors to keep in mind.

Thanks for being so open minded. It is yet another reason Red sets itself apart. And while Red is a ground breaking camera company, it must also respect and understand the current workflows in use today if it is to be accepted in many professional environments. I do not expect all of our feature requests to make it in, and understand how difficult a task is at hand, but I felt this was an important issue to chime in about.

[Nick Shaw]

I think RED are committed to digital only outputs. The idea of a composite output has been rejected on a number of occasions. This means that for people who need a composite feed to work with an existing video assist setup will need a down stream converter anyway. The Miranda down-converter (http://www.miranda.com/product.php?i=266&l=1) can also add burned in time-code and frame lines, so may in fact be the solution to many people's requirements.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, digital and HD only on the outputs. We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.

But please, this is a wonderful discussion and I'm personally learning a lot.

Graeme

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Thanks Nick. Perhaps the Miranda is the answer. If it actually lives on the camera it would add a little heft and potentially quite a bit of cable clutter but it is certainly less added kit than my Mac on a cart scenario, although it seems like there is already a playback tech cart anyway...

One thing that really hasn't been sussed out here with the Red Team is whether we can split off the on board LCD feed to mirror it; overlays, graticules and all off to video village / client world. Avoids the Miranda and if all it requires is a proper cable as a Red accessory that might be the easiest way.

[Casey Green]

Yes, digital and HD only on the outputs. We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.
Graeme

While I think it would be wise to add a composite output, I also respect the reasons for keeping the price down. My concern with the HDMI output mainly regards signal impedance (cable length limitations). Most standard HDMI cables have a signal impedance limit of around 15 feet. Heavier gauge professional HDMI cables have a longer range but max out around 50 feet. This can become a problem in certain production environments when trying to send a signal to a Video Assist cart which may be far off the set, or if the camera location is far away or difficult to get to (such as a Technocrane).

HDMI extender boxes and fiber-optic based HDMI cables are also options, but can be very costly and are probably not going to be available from most Video Assist operator's kits.

I have done some more research and have found a new brand of HDMI cable that is not too costly (~$220), support up to 1080p, and has built in amplification with a range of up to 150 feet, from a company called Accell. (They, of course, make other shorter lengths as well). This is starting to get close to what is required in certain production situations. If anyone is interested, you can check out their products at:

http://www.accellcables.com/products/installer/videoCables/HDMI/HDMI_hdmi_URcable.html

And here is a good article re: HDMI and these new cables.

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec05/articles/accell/hdmi.htm

Perhaps these cables could be tested in-house. If they work as advertised, they could be a valuable tool for Red users and Video Assist operators and help achieve the workflow we are hoping for.

The HDMI feed would come from the camera (with framelines) and from there, a Miranda box (or other down converter solution) could be used to get Composite Video feeds to other monitors on set which do not require an HD feed or to send to a UHF transmitter.

[Stuart English]

Lets recap what we have / what we need to have ...

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area (they have to if you want to record these outputs) These two HD-SDI outputs must also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, apparently requires some degree of user selection / control over frame guide overlays, and also has embedded digital audio plus timecode. If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything"

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have done some more research and have found a new brand of HDMI cable that is not too costly (~$220), support up to 1080p, and has built in amplification with a range of up to 150 feet, from a company called Accell.

There's always wireless HDMI... But still that's only around 150 to 200 ft. max if there are no walls or obstructions. And it's really only hitting the market now so it's not really a proven product.

The best bet is still fiber or HDMI encoder/decoder baluns that use smaller fiber or shielded CAT-5. None of which are that cheap... There's someone out there that makes an HDMI balun, I can't recall, but it works over two standard, UTP CAT-6 cables and support up to 1920x1200@60Hz with a range of over 200ft. Range is extended to 500ft with shielded cables... I wish I could remember who has it ($1000 for the transmitter and receiver pair). Intelix makes some and I think Gefen has them too, but those just use CAT-5 one shielded and one can be UTP, but the range is only 150ft. ...About $450 for the pair. DVI Gear also has long-range, low-impedence HDMI cables that handle up to 165ft without a repeater. Although it seems most installers over on AVSFORUM prefer using the heavier-duty standard cables from monoprice.com -- good stuff and dirt cheap along with a booster. And they're usually talking 100+ft runs in huge homes, sports bars, etc.. for projectors.

[Ralph Oshiro]

We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.Well, ya gotta love THAT philosophy! Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a plain ole' composite out for some cheap monitoring options (for actors, people's moms on set, etc.), but already knew it wasn't in the cards for RED from its published specs.

[Rob Lohman]

skip: would you mind explaining what we see in the two photos of the video cart and what each piece of equipment exactly does?

[Graeme Nattress]

No analogue composite!

[Steve Gibby]

There's always wireless HDMI... But still that's only around 150 to 200 ft. max if there are no walls or obstructions. And it's really only hitting the market now so it's not really a proven product.

I suggested wireless HDMI on Page 7 (Post #70) of this thread. Lots of new wireless HDMI product are hitting the market or about to. Some were just announced at CES. I did some quick checking (I'm not suggesting any of these are an exact solution for wireless HDMI RED One use, but they may be food for thought):

Avocent MPX1000
http://www.avocent.ca/pdf/0906-mpx1000-tp.pdf
http://www.connectivity.avocent.com/products/emerge/mpx1000.asp?WT.srch=1
Carries 720p at distances up to 3,000 ft (914 m) over standard 10/100 Ethernet; 150 ft (45 m) wirelessly through walls; up to 1,000 ft (304 m) line-of-sight with optional directional antenna. Transmitter $1,095, receiver $995.

Philips SWW1800
http://www.cinenow.com/us/news-2257.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Philips-Will-Produce-Wireless-HDMI-Adapters-44064.shtml
(1080p at a 25’ range, costs just $300)

I don’t think it will be long before there are a lot of wireless ultra wide band (UWB)HDMI solutions. UWB technology has been around for a long time with the military. UWB normal range is about 100’, and up to a kilometer with higher antennas. It is secure from interference. It uses frequencies between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz. UWB will also be legal in Europe shortly.

Bottom line is that more wireless HDMI solutions are being introduced, and are forecast to do so, cost is going down, range increasing, and size and mobility of units is decreasing. Somehow a good wireless HDMI system that can be adapted for RED One field use will emerge.

-----------------

HDMI sidelight:
Silicon Image VistaLane HDMI for PC to monitors and HDTV – can drive Apple 30’ Digital Cinema display at 10 bit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193401196

[Thom Steinhoff]

Gibby,

Wireless HDMI is is definately a great technology and will one day make a great wireless monitoring solution.

Looking over the specs I have concerns on how practical the current crop of offerings are for film makers and may be a few years before I think a lot of us (especially Jr. Gorillas like me) cut the cord.

Most are designed to remove the wires to your plasma or LCD so the transmitter is of unlimited size and the receiver is compact--we sort of need it in reverse--compact transmitter, "okay to be bigger" receiver.

Reading the Avocent one, the five pound, ac powered transmitter is 7"x17"x1.7"--sort of painful to deal with on the camera side--the Phillips one looks better but power may still be an issue. Looks like it would be pretty painful in the situations you would want it most (stedicam). Also, as they are not designed with cameras in mind--they may have loud fans cooling a baked in AC converter.

Hopefully someone will take notice and make a wireless transmitter more geared for camera use.

Who knows--maybe at NAB we will all be bowled over with an amazing showing from someone who gets it right that will have us all lining up with our credit cards!

Or maybe it is until next year when Jim and Co. reveal a new RED Wireless Monitor!

Thom

[Steve Gibby]

I second those opinions Thom. A battery powered HDMI transmitter that is as small as an audio wireless transmitter would be ideal, especially of it used UWB HDMI for longer range, secure transmission, etc. If added range was needed, an inexpensive relay antenna may be the trick. If the receiver was the size of a small laptop (preferrable much smaller) it should be OK on the other end. A splitter could then tree off to as many monitors as are needed.

Something tells me that there will be some very cool wireless UWB HDMI solutions rolled out at NAB this year, hopefully designed for logical use on the set - something beyond the consumer units in capability and durability, but still affordable. Something designed for cine and EFP use - with mobility kept in mind.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I have been banging the HDMI drum for months and its great to feel like I am part of a band ;) . The industry has been SDI/HD-SDI for so long and the either the chips sets are pricey or they figure the market for such specialty gear will pay more because the cost seems so high.

Wireless HDMI dev for on set use may not be very mature at NAB 2007 but there should be lots of prototypes.

[Casey Green]

Lets recap what we have / what we need to have ...

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area (they have to if you want to record these outputs) These two HD-SDI outputs must also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, apparently requires some degree of user selection / control over frame guide overlays, and also has embedded digital audio plus timecode. If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything"

This looks just about right. I would add that having independent control to toggle frameline options for the HDMI and HD-SDI "Preview" outputs would be ideal. This way you could use the HDMI for monitoring while using HD-SDI for recording and vice versa if desired. So that would be:

Dual-Link HD-SDI: Clean Feed (Active picture area only), w/ embedded audio and TC
HD-SDI: Active Picture (plus look around area / framelines), OR Clean Feed, both w/ embedded audio and TC
HDMI: Active Picture (plus look around area / framelines), OR Clean Feed, both w/ embedded audio and TC
LCD: All Available Viewing Options
EVF: All Available Viewing Options

Does this sound appropriate?

[Pete Horvath]

I agree that the camera (and not a downstream device) should generate framelines since accuracy of those are important (especially to cut down on user error if multiple cameras are being used).

I think in an ideal world each output from the camera would have independant user selectable choices for all the different monitoring aids. I'd also like to see a user selectable mask that gets placed over the image borders outside of the framelines. For example: The area outside of a selected frameline (since multiple framelines may be displayed at once) is masked out or even better, have an adjustable opacity.

And how about this idea for a 21st century camera: Every monitoring feature is added to a clean signal as metadata so people could turn on or off each feature downstream at the display device.

Cheers,
Pete

[Blair S. Paulsen]

As long as the downstream devices can read that metadata...

[Brian Ferguson]

Wow! I made it to the last page. I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.

[Casey Green]

I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.

While alot of HD monitors have frameline generators built-in, they usually are only for 16:9 or 4:3 modes. For most commercial shoots, I agree, this will be adequate. The Red Camera, however, is going to be used on many other types of productions, such as Features and Indy Films, which may need to shoot in other aspect ratios, such as 1.85, or 2.35, (and possibly for more than one aspect ratio at a time). These framelines will not be found on most current HD monitors and will need to come from the camera.

Also, some productions, such as certain Episodic TV shows, will often shoot with no Video Assist operator, since they are not needing to playback takes. In this situation, the Camera Dept. just hooks up a Video Tap to the video village monitors, which will require framelines from the camera.

Attached are some examples of possible Aspect Ratios and Framelines.

I think the key here is to try and accomodate as many shooting environments as possible in camera.

[Finner]

Wow! I made it to the last page. I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.


This does not help when the video playback person doesn't have a frameline generator(many don't) or when the shoot has no video playback person at all or when the playback person has to run and gun in a car or many other set ups and use a clam shell. Frameline generators in seperate from the camera is simply an aweful situation. A camera without this feature will be looked at as bush league from many working profesionals.

The camera really needs internal frameline choices.

[Don Woods]

I had a thought. I know I will be using the HDSID more for actual recording or for playback recording and the HDMI for all of my monitoring. That being said I know most the time I have a frame line generatior but the prob is I don't know of one that is feed by HDMI yet.. Another converter needed...

[Evin Grant]

Two words.... Grease pencil! ;)

It's the original frameline generator.

[Steve Gibby]

To me, this has been one of the most constructive threads since RED User was created - a true think tank. This is the way a forum should function, where constructive input, filtered through everyone's diverse experience in the field, is offered in a respectful way, for the common good of the community. RED One will be a flexible and versatile camera system - capable of being used in multiple cine style and EFP style environments. We all have the common goal of defining the most streamlined and logical workflow for each of the potential production genres, lens/accessory combinations, and posting options.

Very cool thread, meaningful professional input, solid think tank results, and everyone learning from each other...that's the highest and best function of an online tech forum.

Nobody is born knowing anything. The more we learn, the more we should realize we don't know. The learning should never stop for us in the motion media industry...it's a career long process...and it's necessary if we want to stay competitive in the workplace...

Nobody has all the answers...technology moves too fast, and there is simply too much to know...but RED One owners and users know where to get their RED One answers...right here on RED User...

We're a world community...

Very cool indeed...

And thanks RED, for listening to the needs of those who will be using this new tool...we're not exactly used to being able to give input throughout the development of our tools...it's a breath of fresh air...

[Finner]

Two words.... Grease pencil! ;)

It's the original frameline generator.

Hi Evan

Grease pencils worked so so in the times of crt monitors, but I sure would not want to take one to a LCD or a large screen LCD or plasma.

[donatello b]

i've used a clear sheet of stiff plastic (very thin - it was shipped with monitor to protect screen ) on 26" LCD (16x9) - used thin tape ( got from AC) on plastic to outline TV area .. it worked better indoors then outdoors ( slight breeze shakes it )

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I agree that the camera (and not a downstream device) should generate framelines since accuracy of those are important (especially to cut down on user error if multiple cameras are being used).

I think in an ideal world each output from the camera would have independant user selectable choices for all the different monitoring aids. I'd also like to see a user selectable mask that gets placed over the image borders outside of the framelines. For example: The area outside of a selected frameline (since multiple framelines may be displayed at once) is masked out or even better, have an adjustable opacity.

And how about this idea for a 21st century camera: Every monitoring feature is added to a clean signal as metadata so people could turn on or off each feature downstream at the display device.

Cheers,
Pete

This all makes sense to me though I think it may take a while before very many of the downstream devices can read the metadata stream.

Here's a product idea that would rock on the RedOne (and perhaps some other cameras): basically I am thinking of something similar to the Miranda downconverter that lives on the Red Rail somewhere. The design priorities would be a bit different though-

The "box" needs to be kept as small as possible, similar in size to a wireless mic reciever (although it is actually a transmitter). It might have to be limited to HDMI input to keep the size down. It then transmits the signal wirelessly using UWB or some other reasonably standard protocol. A proper kit should include a repeater (a larger box that can boost the RF signal) and a main reciever box that can then re-distrbute the signal all over the set both by wire and wireless to monitors of various types/inputs. On many sets the main reciever box would be a part of the playback tech station.

One of the neat things about this topology is that any monitor could have a reciever piggybacked onto it that could read the UWB wireless signal and drive the monitor. For extreme mobile set ups all you would need is a clamshell or other small monitor with the reciever box on it.

Think of the set up like a wireless mic package only the camera is the sender and monitor(s) are the reciever(s). It all runs on 9volt batteries or AC as the situation dictates. When range is an issue you use the repeaters which could even live on the 1st ACs waist pack if the camera is on the move, I don't want a solution that puts too much weight on the camera rig.

The graticules could simply be a part of the metadata with the HDMI outs and the system designed to read them. The transmitter could include a couple toggle switches to select what goes out with a "pass through" option if that is being handled by the playback tech at the main reciever box / redistribution station.

[Stuart English]

I agree a good thread.

I'm going to repeat an earlier post, as some of our actual capabilities seem to be getting lost in translation..

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area. These two HD-SDI outputs also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, its understood that its desireable to also have some degree of user selection / control over programmable frame guide overlays, and these also have embedded digital audio plus timecode.

If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview (HD-SDI) output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything" i.e the EVF and LCD feeds both have fully programmable frame guide lines..

[Kyle Mallory]

Stuart, Graeme;

I agree with the the above, except that I think the "HD Preview" and the EVF/LCD should all share the same display options, independent of each other. Ie, in the menus, for each "overlay" option, you'd have the option of displaying it on "LCD", "EVF" and "Ext" (for Ext. Monitor).

You guys didn't mention of the "HD Preview" would be 720 or 1080?

Another option, for us geeks like me... XML files on the SD cards, for each display device (EVF, LCD, EXT) that would specify the options and the display positions (for things like timecode, audio meters, etc). :-) I gotta dream!

[Phil Becque]

Hi Stuart,

I've just read through this whole thread and what you have suggested (twice now) would seem to meet the needs of the commercial shoot guys. I hope one or more of them confirms that before my head explodes!

Best regards, Phil

[Stuart English]

Somewhere else I'd stated that the HDMI and Preview HD-SDI were always 720p - either 720p/50 or 720p/60. The reason for that is in effect there are two "viewfinder" output pairs - EVF and LCD, then HDMI and Preview HD-SDI; each pair having slightly differerent frame refresh, LUT and graphics support. As an HD-SDI signal, 720p has the advantage of being able to represent 4.5K 60fps images. If we had chosen to use 1080p we'd be limited to only 30fps.

In addition we also have "dual link" HD-SDI which are clean feed outputs at either 720p or 1080p resolution depending on what you are recording. As they are clean feeds these support LUTs but have no graphic overlay capabilities.

[Casey Green]

I'm going to repeat an earlier post, as some of our actual capabilities seem to be getting lost in translation...

Yes Stuart, I believe we would be in good shape with these options. (I agree with kylemallory that it would be ideal to have the menu settings to allow for control over which outputs have framelines and which type of frameline overlays each individual output has showing.

Menu Settings could possibly function this way (options in brackets) depending on what is possible.

HD-SDI is shown here as one example, and I'm sure I've left many things out... :) :

Output Settings:
HD-SDI:
Output Mode: [720p]
[1080p (not possible?)]

Viewable Area: [4.5K (2540p) Scaled]
[4K (2304p) Scaled]
[2K (1152p) Scaled]
[1080p]
[720p]

Framelines: [ON]
[OFF]

Framelines Aspect:
4:3 [ON] [OFF]
16:9 [ON] [OFF]
1.85 [ON] [OFF]
2.35 [ON] [OFF]
2.39 [ON] [OFF]
3.0 [ON] [OFF]
Etc. [ON] [OFF]
User Defined Aspect [H:W]

Look Around Area Opacity:
User Defined [0%-100%]


Just some ideas... I hope this is helpful.

[Stuart English]

Yes, thanks for that. And thanks everyone, good feeback.

[saru]

Though it's already been mentioned elsewhere many times, user selectable TIFF / PSD overlay support on SD-cards would be truly fantastic. If these custom-made graphics can be overlaid on the outputs (selectable for guide-purpouse only or actually recoded with), I think we can solve the issue discussed here or better yet make other hundreds of possibilities --- 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 3.00 - all the usual aspect ratios, custom frame lines, test patterns, logos, stations bugs, instant composites, et cetera..

[Chris Parker]

Yes Stuart, I believe we would be in good shape with these options. (I agree with kylemallory that it would be ideal to have the menu settings to allow for control over which outputs have framelines and which type of frameline overlays each individual output has showing.

Menu Settings could possibly function this way (options in brackets) depending on what is possible.

HD-SDI is shown here as one example, and I'm sure I've left many things out... :) :

Output Settings:
HD-SDI:
Output Mode: [720p]
[1080p (not possible?)]

Viewable Area: [4.5K (2540p) Scaled]
[4K (2304p) Scaled]
[2K (1152p) Scaled]
[1080p]
[720p]

Framelines: [ON]
[OFF]

Framelines Aspect:
4:3 [ON] [OFF]
16:9 [ON] [OFF]
1.85 [ON] [OFF]
2.35 [ON] [OFF]
2.39 [ON] [OFF]
3.0 [ON] [OFF]
Etc. [ON] [OFF]
User Defined Aspect [H:W]

Look Around Area Opacity:
User Defined [0%-100%]


Just some ideas... I hope this is helpful.


Genius! Pure Genius.

[Steve Gibby]

Again...this thread functioned like a tech thread should...everyone put up suggestions based on their experience...and it progressed to some effective conclusions...

Good stuff...

[Stephen Williams]

2.35 [ON] [OFF]
2.39 [ON] [OFF]



Hi,

Anamorphic has been 2.35 for many years now.
2.39 was dropped as negative cuts showed when projected.

Stephen

[Corrado Silveri]

Though it's already been mentioned elsewhere many times, user selectable TIFF / PSD overlay support on SD-cards would be truly fantastic. If these custom-made graphics can be overlaid on the outputs (selectable for guide-purpouse only or actually recoded with), I think we can solve the issue discussed here or better yet make other hundreds of possibilities --- 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 3.00 - all the usual aspect ratios, custom frame lines, test patterns, logos, stations bugs, instant composites, et cetera..

This will be my "dream come true".
Thanks to remind again this feature...

[Finner]

Yes Stuart, I believe we would be in good shape with these options. (I agree with kylemallory that it would be ideal to have the menu settings to allow for control over which outputs have framelines and which type of frameline overlays each individual output has showing.

Menu Settings could possibly function this way (options in brackets) depending on what is possible.

HD-SDI is shown here as one example, and I'm sure I've left many things out... :) :

Output Settings:
HD-SDI:
Output Mode: [720p]
[1080p (not possible?)]

Viewable Area: [4.5K (2540p) Scaled]
[4K (2304p) Scaled]
[2K (1152p) Scaled]
[1080p]
[720p]

Framelines: [ON]
[OFF]

Framelines Aspect:
4:3 [ON] [OFF]
16:9 [ON] [OFF]
1.85 [ON] [OFF]
2.35 [ON] [OFF]
2.39 [ON] [OFF]
3.0 [ON] [OFF]
Etc. [ON] [OFF]
User Defined Aspect [H:W]

Look Around Area Opacity:
User Defined [0%-100%]


Just some ideas... I hope this is helpful.

This idea is perfect. The ability to create your own aspect ratio would be fantastic and just another thing that would keep RED above the curve and future proof.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) As an HD-SDI signal, 720p has the advantage of being able to represent 4.5K 60fps images. If we had chosen to use 1080p we'd be limited to only 30fps. (snip)

Since this is a feedback forum I gotta tell you that placing the priority on retaining the "advantage" of being able to represent 4.5k@60fps in 720 world was more important than being limited to 30fps in 1080 makes little sense to me. What percentage of material do you imagine will be shot at the data rates that 4.5k@60fps would require? Since that format cannot be encoded in camera wouldn't that generate an uncompressed data stream of over a GByte per second? Having read a lot of posts on these forums I percieve that format will get very little usage, especially in the next two years.

I feel like the more critical issue is having a 1080 monitoring signal that will give me a better look at critical focus than 720 can. I can also blow up that 1080 signal on a larger monitor to get a more realistic sense of scale without getting soft.

Please tell me there are other engineering advantages to using 720 out of the HDMI and HD-SDI Preview taps instead of 1080. You guys are juggling chainsaws on a highwire with this whole project and I respect the hell out of you but this I don't get.

[Graeme Nattress]

Use of 720p for some internal processing would be to avoid the evils and complexity of interlace.

[Stephen Webb]

I feel like the more critical issue is having a 1080 monitoring signal that will give me a better look at critical focus than 720 can.

If shooting 4k, I don't see that 1080 would be much more use for focusing than 720 anyway.

[Stuart English]

Remember, you can get 1080p out the "dual link" HD-SDI port.

The choice of 720p as the HD Preview resolution is based on -

a) Frame Rates
For 31 fps to 60fps when recording 720p, 1080, 2K or 4K what do you do?
For 61 - 120fps when recording 720p, 2K what do you do?
Using 720p as the output resolution gives us a much better representation of motion than using 1080p at a max of 30fps would.


b) Monitor sizes
Most battery powered field monitors are XGA resolution 1024 x 768. It'll be the rare exception when you'll have space for a 1080p projector or plasma.
But if you do have the space, using the dual link HD-SDI at 1080p, and perhaps an HD-SDI to DVI converter will resolve that issue.


c) Focus
Judging critical focus isn't much different when using 720p or 1080p. That's also an EVF / LCD function, and for those outputs we have focus assist.

d) Framing
Framing and client feed again don't need maximum resolution, but they do need apropriate frame rate.


Usual caveat - all specifications subject to change.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Stuart, thanks for the responses - hope I was't too hostile. What was not clear to me in the earlier post was that the move to 1080 would flush all monitoring over 30fps, not just 4.5k.

It is hard for me, and likely others, to get comfortable with the power of a focus assist tech we have never seen. We trust you, we really do, but for us, getting the focus wrong is such a huge issue. I feel like 1080 monitoring is more insurance on set than 720.

I recently upgraded my digital projection from 720 (actually 768) to 1080 and on an 80" screen I see the difference (of course the blacks are also much better but that is a discussion for a different forum).

Looking forward to seeing the focus assist in action and laughing about this then :)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

a) Frame Rates
For 31 fps to 60fps when recording 720p, 1080, 2K or 4K what do you do?
For 61 - 120fps when recording 720p, 2K what do you do?
Using 720p as the output resolution gives us a much better representation of motion than using 1080p at a max of 30fps would.

...but HDMI does support 1080p @ 60fps. Moving away from HDMI back to full DVI spec allows for 720p/768p @ 120Hz too.

Sorry, but that was a nit I had to pick.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I don't know how many of you are familar with eCinema monitors but they are running a special right now on their DCM23. I don't want this to be a sales thing and I have no association with them other than I always liked their monitors but thought they were overpriced.

I'll stop now so Jarred (hopefully) doesn't have to delete this. If I have violated any forum rules I apologize in advance.

[Stephen Williams]

I don't know how many of you are familar with eCinema monitors but they are running a special right now on their DCM23. I don't want this to be a sales thing and I have no association with them other than I always liked their monitors but thought they were overpriced.

I'll stop now so Jarred (hopefully) doesn't have to delete this. If I have violated any forum rules I apologize in advance.

Hi,

Saw them at IBC 2 years ago, the best I have seen to date.

Stephen

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just curious how the eCinema LCDs would stack up against a decent CRT studio monitor. I'm not convinced that an 8bit color gamut on an LCD display is adequate for broadcast/film color grading. Then again, the latest 3rd-gen Samsung 30" panels being used by HP (and Dell any day now, and hopefully Apple very soon too) supposedly can show over 92% of the NTSC gamut. Also, does their DCM23 adjust it's refresh rate to match the fps of the input signal. I'd seriously consider something like this to replace my 13" Sony "HD" crt monitor if the color was close and it could properly display 24p without judder.

[Stuart English]

They are larger, but check out the "9 series" plasmas from Panasonic. My contacts there confirm that the glass is driven at 12 bit resolution. So 10 bit log video over HD-SDI should look pretty good.

Approx $8K for 52" with HD-SDI input (single link only unfortunately) option.

TH-50PF9UK 1920 x 1080, also pretty good TH-37PH9UK 1024 x 768

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Monitoring options I am considering for the RedOne and RedCine. The high cost, weight, energy usage and declining availablity of CRTs has led me to look at LCDs. The black levels have gotten much better on some LCDs and the resolution is typically excellent, with spot on geometrics. On my list-

The Panasonic BT series 26" LCD (IMHO the 17" lacks contrast):
Pros - has HD-SDI inputs, component ins, darn good blacks for an LCD, is built for professional use with a nice casing, includes a PIP scope for checking levels
Cons - limited to 768 by 1366 resolution, $5K list price, kinda big for field use

CineTal:
Pros: pretty decent image and some interesting workflow options that as I remember utilize an Iridias sloution. LUT management is a critical factor for digitial cinema applications and they seem to have the most evolved solution currently out there. If I am wrong about that I would love to be educated by anyone out there who has more experience in this area.
Cons: by the time you add the options that make it a true digital cinema solution the price gets over $10K quick

eCinema:
Pros: by far the best LCD image I have ever seen, at 23" and 19lbs. it is small enough for most field use, they promise that their calibration is so good it will match every other eCinema display anywhere, it exactly matches most professional frame rates. FFI:

http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/dcm23/dcm23_specs.htm

Cons: List price is around $17K (note they are running a promotion right now that drops the cost to less than half that)

I hope I don't sound like a shill for eCinema but they are aiming at the digital cinema crowd, which is us. See one for yourself, the image benefits from the best blacks I have ever seen this side of a CRT. Their boast of being able to match color via high level self-calibration tech could be a real benefit in many work-group situations.

The Red Team has promised LUT options driven by the metadata that sound terrific. Perhaps its time for a thread devoted to color look up tables? Accurate and easy to implement LUTs are a holy grail in my mind - if the RedOne can be a compliant partner in this quest it will have achieved yet another important milestone in the transition to electronic cinematography.

When it cost as much as a RedOne camera body the eCinema DCM23 struck me as rental only but if I can get one for under $7K it just might have my name on it. It sure could be a great reference monitor for putting the RedOne through its paces.

[GlennChan]

Just curious how the eCinema LCDs would stack up against a decent CRT studio monitor. I'm not convinced that an 8bit color gamut on an LCD display is adequate for broadcast/film color grading. Then again, the latest 3rd-gen Samsung 30" panels being used by HP (and Dell any day now, and hopefully Apple very soon too) supposedly can show over 92% of the NTSC gamut. Also, does their DCM23 adjust it's refresh rate to match the fps of the input signal. I'd seriously consider something like this to replace my 13" Sony "HD" crt monitor if the color was close and it could properly display 24p without judder.
The original NTSC primaries (the exact set of colors/chromaticities of red, green and blue) is pretty much obsolete.

In current practice, you have SMPTE C (for NTSC countries) and EBU (for PAL countries) for standard definition resolution, and Rec. 709 for HD resolutions (both NTSC and PAL countries). The only place where NTSC gamut is used is in adobe photoshop, where it's the adobe color space; and that's print work, which isn't really relevant.

In terms of overall gamut, the CRT is 'limited' by flaring in its glass. If the CRT is putting out a lot of light, there will be more flare. I don't believe this is a big deal. Whereas I presume that an ecinemasys LCD would be limited by its black level.

In terms of bit depth, CRTs should have a slight advantage. LCDs lose performance after calibration LUTs (which they need to implement). Other factors are probably a lot more important... i.e. resolution (LCDs are better here), ability to display interlace (CRT+), good at multiple resolutions (CRT+), no calibration drift (LCD+), etc.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

They are larger, but check out the "9 series" plasmas from Panasonic. My contacts there confirm that the glass is driven at 12 bit resolution. So 10 bit log video over HD-SDI should look pretty good.

Some of the new Samsung and Pioneer plasma models take in 10bit or better via HDMI (better than 10bit with HDMI v1.3) and process internally at 12 to 16bit for display.

But if anyone wants details on how to donate to my "buy Jeff a 65inch Panny 9UK model plasma with HDMI and SDI interface boards" just drop me a PM. :D

[Mike Devlin]

CineTal:
Pros: pretty decent image and some interesting workflow options that as I remember utilize an Iridias sloution. LUT management is a critical factor for digitial cinema applications and they seem to have the most evolved solution currently out there. If I am wrong about that I would love to be educated by anyone out there who has more experience in this area.
Cons: by the time you add the options that make it a true digital cinema solution the price gets over $10K quick


We have a couple of the CineTal Cinemage 2142 monitors with WFM. I think the image is better than the eCinema (but very close). The waveform monitoring capabilities are great in the field. I think you will find the LUT capabilities very useful for seeing your "one-light" grading in realtime. We also use it as a dual link RGB switcher, since you can get it with two dual link inputs and one dual link output. It also has a 12v option. A cool box that serves many needs in the field, but as you point out they are a bit expensive. However when you add up the cost of all the boxes we replaced (Moniter, WFM, Switcher, LUT box, etc) it is actually a pretty good deal. We have found them to be quite rugged out in the field.

[mezmo]

I agree a good thread.

I'm going to repeat an earlier post, as some of our actual capabilities seem to be getting lost in translation..

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area. These two HD-SDI outputs also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, its understood that its desireable to also have some degree of user selection / control over programmable frame guide overlays, and these also have embedded digital audio plus timecode.

If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview (HD-SDI) output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything" i.e the EVF and LCD feeds both have fully programmable frame guide lines..



Thank you Stuart,
please don't mess with the clean Daul Stream HD SDI
outs with embedded T/code & Audio. Don't we need em for a portable
DDR option or 120 FPS recording to some kind of external device?
The HD Preview option sounds great with overlays and also embedded
audio & T/code for possible on-set rough cut HD editorial.
Down stream down conversion to SD should be left up to the user or
Video Village people if required. I was hoping Red would push us towards
a Digital and HD on-set viewing result that would become the new standard
over time.
This looks great.

Mezmo

[Thom Steinhoff]

Somewhere else I'd stated that the HDMI and Preview HD-SDI were always 720p - either 720p/50 or 720p/60. The reason for that is in effect there are two "viewfinder" output pairs - EVF and LCD, then HDMI and Preview HD-SDI; each pair having slightly differerent frame refresh, LUT and graphics support. As an HD-SDI signal, 720p has the advantage of being able to represent 4.5K 60fps images. If we had chosen to use 1080p we'd be limited to only 30fps.

In addition we also have "dual link" HD-SDI which are clean feed outputs at either 720p or 1080p resolution depending on what you are recording. As they are clean feeds these support LUTs but have no graphic overlay capabilities.

Okay. Recording is done. I'm a little indie with no video cart guy, and I want to play back off of the camera to a 1080i/1080p monitor off the HDMI port. Does this mean I am SOL and only able to the output off of the HDMI in 720p--even though I am not recording at the same time?

Could we modify the setup screens as wished for earlier to say:

HDMI Record output: 720p

HDMI Playback output: 720p / 1080i / 1080p

and it plays it back at your base speed (24fps/30fps) regardless of what speed it was recorded at?

I would really not like to be forced to take the redcode footage back to a laptop and let it CRUNCH for a while just to see the playback on a stunning 1080p monitor.

Or, when I first take the camera home and shoot some footage of my kids, I want to be able to run into my living room--trying no to trip, plug it into the HDMI port of my Sony xsrd 60" and see the best picture possible--only seconds after I shot it (720p just doesn't cut it!)

[Stuart English]

If Samsung et al can deliver 10 bit glass (maybe by NAB?) that will be a great step forward, but as I understand it CineTal and e-Cinema etc use 8 bit glass. All I was saying was Panasonic 9 series plasmas claim 12 bit resolution glass. Maybe others do that too, I can't comment on that.

The "10/ 12 / 16 bit" numbers quoted in flat panel display literature may only describe the image processing circuits that follow the HD-SDI or HDMI inputs - not the final drive to the glass itself, and they need to be treated with due caution. (It would be similar to quoting a 16 / 24 / 32 bit camcorder DSP resolution and not mentioning the recording section's 8 bit resolution)

Bottom line: ask the right questions to all your potential flat panel panel vendors... make sure that the bit resolution that you think is there, really is.

[Stuart English]

Dual Link HD-SDI is always / will always be a clean feed, no frame lines, no graphics.

[Stuart English]

Its not the way the camera is set up. But our camera platform is very flexible, so I wouldn't rule it out as a future possibility.

Meanwhile, $455 buys you an off-the-shelf solution to your request ..... www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hdlink/

[Graeme Nattress]

Or the AJA equivalent. THere's a few SDI to HDMI converters around now.

Graeme

[Stuart English]

Graeme is correct, there is also an AJA product

www.aja.com/html/products_converters_HI5.html

[Stephen Williams]

Just curious how the eCinema LCDs would stack up against a decent CRT studio monitor. I'm not convinced that an 8bit color gamut on an LCD display is adequate for broadcast/film color grading.

Hi,

I thought CRT's were also displayed 8 bit? could be wrong through!
What I found interesting about the Ecinema display was that multiple screens were identical. I have never seen this with CRT's

Stephen

[Graeme Nattress]

CRT's are capable of >8bit, but I'd guess that also depends on the input and the circuitry.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The "10/ 12 / 16 bit" numbers quoted in flat panel display literature may only describe the image processing circuits that follow the HD-SDI or HDMI inputs - not the final drive to the glass itself, and they need to be treated with due caution. (It would be similar to quoting a 16 / 24 / 32 bit camcorder DSP resolution and not mentioning the recording section's 8 bit resolution)

Yep. I know that most plasma displays on the market, even those that are a few generations old now, have 10/12/14/etc... bit internal processing. But the actual output or final drive to the glass is probably less than that. Often, manufacturers (LCD, plasma or other) don't like to disclose such things. I know the new Pioneer Elite and NEC glass is better than 8bit, but I don't know if that means 10bit or 12bit. Samsung is claiming 12bit glass on their upcoming models this year... I don't know if they showed any at CES or if we have to wait for NAB or what. The new models probably won't ship until June / July anyway.

Currently, the Panny 9 series (which also means the 60U/600U/600Z panels) do drive their glass at 12bits. The color on them is great, but there's also some things I personally don't like about Panny plasmas... Their internal processing tends to over-soften the image and the "clay face" artifacting is often problematic and can't be entirely compensated for. On the 9UK "pro" models, there are more controls for adjustments and the ability to add SDI input among other things. But the color on these panels is amazing... A good BluRay or HD-DVD transfer playing on a Panny 600Z 65" 1080p plasma is stunning.

[Steve Gibby]

Graeme is correct, there is also an AJA product

www.aja.com/html/products_converters_HI5.html

Input formats on that model are: 525i, 625i, 720p 50/59.94/60, 1080i 50/59.94/60

No 1080p input...

---------------------------
Blackmagic HD Link converter standards:

HD Format Support via DVI-D = 1080p23.98, 1080PsF23.98, 1080p24, 1080PsF24, 1080p25, 1080p30, 1080i48, 1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p59.94, 720p60

HD Format Support via HDMI = 1080p25, 1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p59.94, 720p60

----------------------------------------


Workflow scenario question: A lot of RED One users will be shooting stock footage and quickly shipping it off to their reps. Lets say I've shot stock footage in 4k REDCODE RAW in camera at 24fps and 30fps, and 2k REDCODE RAW at 60fps, and I want to simply spot check the footage on a DVI-D equipped LCD, or alternately an HDMI equipped HDTV, before dumping a copy of the footage off to an HDD to ship to my stock footage marketer, who will use REDCINE to process footage for licensing out. Workflow for spot checking the footage?

[Stuart English]

Yup. I'd agree with all of that AppliedVisual.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

CRT's are capable of >8bit, but I'd guess that also depends on the input and the circuitry.

Input and internal circuitry most definitely... I question the >8bit on a lot of CRTs these days because they're all digital internally and often use similar or the same processing and display driving circuitry as plasma displays. Plasmas use the same phosphors as CRTs, it's just a matter of electrostatically charging a gas mixture to release UV light and excite the screen phosphors (plasma) vs. a scanning electron beam to do the same (CRT). CRT displays have their own share of issues too... On Aperture Grille displays you have annoying "support wires", low phosphor persistence, etc... Shadow mask displays often have a softer image with warmer, richer color but have a harder time maintaining consistant color or avoiding splotches.

[Stuart English]

Gibby, this begs three questions -

a) where are you, and what monitor do you have with you?

b) is this playback from the camera itself or playbakc from REDCINE?

c) What do you want to see when you spot check the footage?

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby, this begs three questions -

a) where are you, and what monitor do you have with you?

b) is this playback from the camera itself or playback from REDCINE?

c) What do you want to see when you spot check the footage?


a) Monitors will vary in real mobile stock footage and b-roll shooting. Could be an LCD or an HDTV that is accessed. It could be a DVI-D capable LCD, or alternately an HDMI capable HDTV. Packing a monitor with you in those mobile situations is not always practical, as is getting back to your home workstation. In both situations, 1080p would be preferable. If I have to use a converter, then it should preferably be 1080p60 capable.

b) Both - playback would normally be from the camera, scaled down from 4k or 2k to 1080p (preferable) or 720p (second choice). At the stock footage reps or edit bay for the b-roll, it would be playback from REDCINE, so there’s lots of monitor and format options.

c) If it was REDCODE RAW, I’d simply want to check framing & focus, because footage dub will be processed by stock footage rep for each individual licensee's needs. If it was shot 1080p RGB, then full values on playback, in 1080p (preferable) or 720p (second choice)

------------

Need to check the footage, choose which clips to dub to HDD, then ship it off - all in a mobile environment. I realize that checking footage with a laptop, especially one with REDCINE, is an option, but quite often I don't have a laptop with me in real mobile situations. I realize that this "Video assist on the set" thread is somewhat threadjacked by this question, but then again it is still about monitors for RED One use. One day we may be working on a big set, and the next day out alone shooting as I've described. Whatever the solution, 1080p, and especially 1080p60 playback is optimal.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Perhaps we will have to "suffer" through 720p monitoring off the camera in any situation short of having a dual-link HD-SDI capable display at hand - for now. I don't think very many of us want to extend our wait for the RedOne (unless it was only an extra day or two) just for 1080 monitoring, no matter how badly we want it.

Perhaps the feedback on this thread, if representative of the community at large, which I believe it to be, is motivation to make this a high priority upgrade (firmware I assume) for the rig once it is shipping.

Being able to display a knockout image via HDMI at 1080p is a big sexy feature that will help us to turn people on (ya' know, people with checkbooks ;) ) to the image quality we all expect this camera to be capable of.

[Stuart English]

This is a good thread, and I appreciate the feedback. But I'll go over this one more time because the meaning keeps getting lost. You certainly can get a knockout 1080p image up on a monitor or projector.

The phrase "Dual-link HD-SDI" can mean one or both of two things - RED can support both.

a) Use of two links to provide 4:4:4 RGB monitoring at 1080p or -
b) Two duplicate outputs of 4:2:2 YUV (Y,Cr,Cb) at 720p or 1080i or 1080p.

To see 1080p you don't need a dual link capable monitor, any HD monitor with an HD-SDI input is fine. JVC makes a 1080P HD-SDI + DVI LCD for ~$4K (Note DVI not HDMI - are you sure you have an HDMI monitor that accepts 1080p/24 native and not 24p + 3:2 pulldown = 1080i/60 or maybe 1080p/60? - hence the Black Magic box specs perhaps?)

The HD preview output (HD-SDI and HDMI, its the same signal) provides a Surround View + active record area + select graphics + audio. Its designed to allow a quick check of framing and composition for the director and other on-set - think video assist for a film camera. We chose to include HDMI as an output in addition to HD-SDI as it lets you plug in a wide range of inexpensive computer monitors or 12" - 32" size consumer LCD and plasma TVs.

If anyone wants to research available portable / battery powered, HDMI based multiframe rate 1080p monitors that can accept 23.98, 24.00, 25.00, 29.97 and 30.00 1080p signals it would be a valuable addition to all of our knowledge bases.

What we have seen in HD-SDI and HDMI products have all been XGA or SXGA resolution, so its pointless to send them 1080p and also limit the frame rate we can display to 30fps - which is why we chose 720p instead.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip)

The phrase "Dual-link HD-SDI" can mean one or both of two things - RED can support both.

a) Use of two links to provide 4:4:4 RGB monitoring at 1080p or -
b) Two duplicate outputs of 4:2:2 YUV (Y,Cr,Cb) at 720p or 1080i or 1080p.
(snip)


Thanks for your patience Stuart & Graeme. What I failed to grasp until today was that the architecture of dual-link HD-SDI used for the "clean feed" would allow me to cherry pick just one channel to produce 1080p at up to 30fps, albeit limited to 4:2:2 color space.

This was important to me as I am about to pull the trigger on the purchase of an eCinema DCM23 that can only handle single-link HD-SDI input. It is too bad that Martin's very forward thinking product is not set up to handle dual link inputs, I would think that driving a monitor designed for grading with a 4:4:4 signal would make a difference. Perhaps it is a moot point if the glass can only be driven at 8 bits anyway?

Bottom line - the eCinema display looks great and its the closest thing to a BVM CRT I have ever seen and I just want to show off the RedOne's image quality the best I can.

[Thom Steinhoff]

Being able to display a knockout image via HDMI at 1080p is a big sexy feature that will help us to turn people on (ya' know, people with checkbooks ;) ) to the image quality we all expect this camera to be capable of.


I agree with Blair. Demoing the system goes a long way toward selling a new technology into the production and anything that inhibits the ability to properly review/demo the footage should be seen as an issue.

It won't be possible for laymen to understand why you can't just plug a camera that shoots above 1080 resolution into their HDMI 1080i/p TV and not be able to play it back in 1080--it will be seen as a camera deficiency. It will be "But I thought it has an HDMI? Oh, it shoots at 4K but only plays back at 720--great camera!" that will be the response.

Sort of like my first IMAX viewing experience of "To Fly" which opens with a tiny frame in the center of the screen before it fills the space with iMax. Someone in the theater screamed out "Sure you have the worlds largest screen--now all you need is the worlds largest movie!"

I'm okay with a breakout box monitoring to a 23" cinema display for now, and I definately don't want to hold up production on a convenience feature, but I think you should seriously consider this a deficiency and address it with future releases--hopefully a firmware release!

[Chris Kenny]

The HD preview output (HD-SDI and HDMI, its the same signal) provides a Surround View + active record area + select graphics + audio. Its designed to allow a quick check of framing and composition for the director and other on-set - think video assist for a film camera. We chose to include HDMI as an output in addition to HD-SDI as it lets you plug in a wide range of inexpensive computer monitors or 12" - 32" size consumer LCD and plasma TVs.

If anyone wants to research available portable / battery powered, HDMI based multiframe rate 1080p monitors that can accept 23.98, 24.00, 25.00, 29.97 and 30.00 1080p signals it would be a valuable addition to all of our knowledge bases.

What we have seen in HD-SDI and HDMI products have all been XGA or SXGA resolution, so its pointless to send them 1080p and also limit the frame rate we can display to 30fps - which is why we chose 720p instead.

Well, I think the first choice in terms of those "inexpensive computer monitors" you mention is probably the 23-24" widescreen LCD panels from companies like Apple and Dell, which have basically emerged as the poor man's HD monitoring solution. These are, of course, native 1920x1200 displays, and they'll do 60fps just fine. 720p is not exactly going to look great on them.

Without 1080p over HDMI, driving these screens at 1080p goes from requiring a $25 HDMI-to-DVI adaptor to requiring a $450 HDLink. Given what a respectable camera package will cost, an extra $450 isn't a huge deal, but it just seems like an odd decision to ship the camera with an HDMI port, but not support the most appropriate resolution for some of the most common devices people would probably want to plug into it.

[Stuart English]

These are good choices when driven from a computer, but quite apart from the issue of portability and battery power for field use, I don't think you can drive these monitors with 1080p at 23.98 / 24 / 25 directly.

To quote from the Black Magic Design web site - www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hdlink/

"Because most computer displays are limited to approximately a 60 Hz refresh rate, HDLink will automatically apply pull-down to allow video frame rates to be displayed"

[Casey Green]

For anyone interested, I've started a Framelines thread... perhaps we can all list which Aspect Ratio overlays, etc. that we would like to have included...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=506

[Chris Kenny]

These are good choices when driven from a computer, but quite apart from the issue of portability and battery power for field use, I don't think you can drive these monitors with 1080p at 23.98 / 24 / 25 directly.

To quote from the Black Magic Design web site - www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hdlink/

"Because most computer displays are limited to approximately a 60 Hz refresh rate, HDLink will automatically apply pull-down to allow video frame rates to be displayed"

Yeah, you'd have to add pulldown. Don't you have to do this at 720p for many devices as well? Pretty much any computer monitor would require it, and my understanding is 24 Hz support is sufficiently rare even on televisions that e.g. Blu-ray players implement it on their end for sets that don't have it.

I'm a little surprised the HDMI interface on the camera isn't just running at 60 Hz all the time and drawing new frames as necessary within that signal, the way a computer would. Wouldn't that be a more flexible approach? If the display has to actually sync to the capture frame rate, how do you deal with external monitoring/recording of off-speed shots?

[Stuart English]

Yes that is the way it works - constant 720p / 50.00 or 720p / 59.94 - 60.00

[Chris Kenny]

Yes that is the way it works - constant 720p / 50.00 or 720p / 59.94 - 60.00

But single-link HD-SDI only handles 30 fps at 1080p, right? So is the problem with 1080p monitoring output basically that you can't go above 30 fps on single-link HD-SDI, and the HDMI and single-link HD-SDI outputs need to carry the same data, therefore in order to be able to run both monitoring outputs at a consistent 50/60 fps you have to limit monitoring to 720p?

Just trying to understand the issues involved here.

[Stuart English]

Yes, these are tied together - its the same signal, two physical outputs. So yes this is the technical reason, but that is more a symptom than the cause if you follow me. The cause is that this output signal isn't designed to do what you are asking it to do. Its an HD resolution "video assist" - showing Surround View + recorded video + limited (framing) graphics - not a maximum quality monitor or record video feed w/o any of the above.

We also have two additional HD-SDI feeds - the "dual link" HD-SDI output. Use one or both of those to monitor or record 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 RGB 1080p.

[Evin Grant]

So the HDMI is not separately addressable during preview. What about playback? Does this mean we cannot play anything higher than 1080P out of the camera itself, even durring playback? Say if we hooked up the camera via HDMI to DVI adapter to a 30" Cinema display?

[David Limpus]

With computer monitors like the Benq FP241w with a HDMI input and the specification having a vertical frequency of 50 to 76 Hz. I what be curious to see if it would resolves most frame rates.

http://benq.com/products/LCD/?product=1010&page=specifications

Will have to test it with a Decklink multibridge pro hdmi output when Benq resolves a 1:1 scaling problem.

[Stuart English]

"Does this mean we cannot play anything higher than 1080P out of the camera itself, even during playback? "

Yes, 1080p is the highest video resolution available from the camera during playback and this is provided from one or both of the "dual link" HD-SDI's. If you want to see 2K or 4K images you do that from a computer and REDCINE.

"With computer monitors like the Benq FP241w with a HDMI input and the specification having a vertical frequency of 50 to 76 Hz. I what be curious to see if it would resolves most frame rates"

Yes, that's very typical - so the only video frame rates that fall into that range are 50Hz, 59.94, 60Hz (plus 72Hz). Not 23.98, 24, or 25, or 30Hz....

[Chris Kenny]

Yes, these are tied together - its the same signal, two physical outputs. So yes this is the technical reason, but that is more a symptom than the cause if you follow me. The cause is that this output signal isn't designed to do what you are asking it to do. Its an HD resolution "video assist" - showing Surround View + recorded video + limited (framing) graphics - not a maximum quality monitor or record video feed w/o any of the above.


Yeah, I get that, and it's certainly a reasonable decision, but like I said, it does torpedo what would have otherwise, I think, been very popular monitoring options (those 23-24" computer monitors).



We also have two additional HD-SDI feeds - the "dual link" HD-SDI output. Use one or both of those to monitor or record 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 RGB 1080p.


There is that... though you can't do frame guides, etc. on that feed right? Any possibility of having an option to do letterboxing to 2.35, etc. on the dual-link HD-SDI, or does it always just output the full 16:9?

[David Limpus]

Stuart,
Left field question can a monitor use a vertical frequency 2 or 3 times that of the frame rate with HDMI? eg 120Hz monitor displaying 60Hz signal. If so, can that translate into a 24P displayed at 72Hz?

[Stuart English]

"HD Preview is a HD resolution "video assist" - showing Surround View + recorded video + limited (framing) graphics - not a maximum quality monitor or record video feed w/o any of the above."

Q: Its a reasonable decision, but it does torpedo what would have been very popular monitoring options (those 23-24" computer monitors).

A: But you can feed the HD-SDI dual lin output via an AJA or Black Magic converter ($500 approx) which converts 1080p to DVI at ~ 60Hz...

Q: Any possibility of having an option to do letterboxing to 2.35, etc. on the dual-link HD-SDI, or does it always just output the full 16:9?

A: If its 1080p, by definition its always 16:9.
__________________
Indie4K.com: a blog about digital workflow and the coming digital cinema revolution.

[Trevor Meier]

Can you connect one of the 1920x1200 displays out there (say, an apple 23") to a 720p HDMI input (via an HDMI->DVI adapter) ?

If not, suggestions on affordable, colour accurate 720p displays would be welcome...

[Stuart English]

You should be able to (I'll check this out) but for a native pixel-to-pixel display, just search for an SXGA or WGXA (slightly higher - 1600 x 1200 resolution) monitor with DVI input -

For example, from the Dell site -

Samsung 941BW $220

Dell E207WFP $280


From the Apple site -

Apple 17" monitor

[Jim Arthurs]

One thing bears mentioning and this thread is a good example of it... we're starting to see more and more "no, it can't do xxx, it does yyy".

This is a GOOD thing in disguise... it means certain items have passed from "anything is possible" to the hard realities of whatever silicon has been chosen. It means the camera is coming together. The more we see this "specificity of limitations" mentioned by the team, the more real RED is.

Food for thought.

[Graeme Nattress]

It's very real all right :-) But in a camera of finite dimensions, you have to be very careful on how you spend your space / power / $$ budget to get the most optimimum camera. You're witnessing that process here! Quite frankly I'm amazed that we've got 4k RAW in there to REDCODE, and after that everything else we put in just adds to the amazement.

Graeme

[Steve Gibby]

Good point Graeme...of all the jaw-dropping features of RED One, and there are many, IMO the most stunning feature/development is REDCODE RAW, and then more specifically 4k REDCODE RAW in-camera at 27MB/s....

[Rodrigo Lizana]

What are people doing now when they shoot HDCAM or Varicam for a commercial?

Graeme

With the Varicam we view the "live" footage on a Sony CRT PVM14L5 multiformat monitor (720p60) and record it on a VHS for review (downconverted using an AJA HD10M3). We use gaffer tape to mask the monitor which is really a pain in the ass. Having the VF "frame guides" would be fantastic.

Regards

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Use a grease pencil ;)

or.. im sure they have sticker guidelines u can simply stick on any monitor.. maybe a 4k 2k 1080 guideline set all in one.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I guess the answer is to shoot wide on 4k and crop in post to practically any dimension you want. If that's not safety, I don't know what is :-)

Graeme

BINGO.. shoot everything.. mask what u want later.. post composition:bleh:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Wow... now that was a marathon read...

Long term it does seem like intelligent displays is the way to go. Clean signal + Digital meta data. It would of course have to be standardized so that all monitors could take it. Ideally here is how I would setup the standard.

Use existing HD-SDI outputs but along the bottom 1 pixels encode your metadata. That would on a 720p signal give you more than 5KB of data assuming you encoded using 5 IRE brackets. You could then define a custom frame guide using [x,y] start [x,y] end values.

[Anders Holck]

There is no need to use the image for metadata, HD sdi supports extensive metadata packets.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Problem solved. ;)

[Rodrigo Lizana]

I really don´t care that much for having such a great/final image on set. I´m used to film where videoassist is a humble tool just to check focus, composition and performance. Having a HDMI output for videoassist on a consumer LCD is luxury for me. What I´m really concern of is how are we going to playback that HDMI feed of the camera in a cheap/portable and reliable way without using the camera. Graeme ??

[Shawn Nelson]

Aren't there some consumer HDMI DVRs aimed at being able to record high def tv shows?

[Stuart English]

Check out Black Magic ..http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

[Michael Brennan]

Check out Black Magic ..http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

A few weeks ago I installed this card but it disabled my Kona 3 card.
Took it out and everything was OK.

Mike Brennan

[Chris Parker]

so it's now over a year since this thread started. still, we are limited to 720P output on the camera.

is there any word on when we'll get 1080p output? or better yet, any word on RED's '4K delivery system' that is upcoming?

i was a part of a 2-day demo this week for local DPs. the number one question by far was 'how can we accurately monitor our true image on set?' 720p is not the answer for them.

[Johnny Johnson]

i was a part of a 2-day demo this week for local DPs. the number one question by far was 'how can we accurately monitor our true image on set?' 720p is not the answer for them.


Sorry, skip.. am I the only one who doesn't get this question? With RAW data, there is no need to get an accurate image since everything is/should be done in post. As long as the framing is right.

Do directors and DP's say the same thing for shooting on film? Maybe its about time the DPs in your area dust off their light meters and get back to some "traditional lighting by eye!"
(thats how Peter Suschitzky would put it anyway!)

[Finner]

so it's now over a year since this thread started. still, we are limited to 720P output on the camera.

is there any word on when we'll get 1080p output? or better yet, any word on RED's '4K delivery system' that is upcoming?

i was a part of a 2-day demo this week for local DPs. the number one question by far was 'how can we accurately monitor our true image on set?' 720p is not the answer for them.

Skip,

Love ya man but any DP that said this is not a DP. Like mentioned the image being RAW means there is no way to accurately monitor on set. A 720P output kicks ass on any film camera video tap available in world. Suggest to the DP's that told you this that they may want to go back to film school and take the light meter course again.

[Chris Parker]

hate to break the news to you guys. but these are real DPs. the 4 grand a day commercial kind. they want to look at a waveform or histogram to check their image.

rather than telling them to go back to film school, i opted to ask the question. seemed reasonable enough...

putting a waveform or vectroscope on a 720P image is pretty much useless.

but yes finner, i do agree that if considered as simply a video tap, 720p is totally fine. better than any film camera indeed. but we aren't talking about film now. we are talking about digital cinema. and the other digital cinema cameras all have better than 720p coming out.

also, technicolor was displaying a sweet-ass on-set cart for colorizing and creating looks. this simply will not work with a 720p output. now, if we could get a nice 4:4:4 10-bit feed from the camera, we'd be talking....

personally, i agree with you guys. shoot RAW. worry about MOST of the other stuff later. but since i am the lowly data technician/video assist guy who works with these DPs, i wanted to get as much info. to them as possible.

also, since this technology is so new, they are looking for a 'comfort blanket' of sorts. if we could provide that for them, i would. simply put, it would get me more work...

also, a nice 4:4:4 10 bit log output from the camera that is clean for recording would help a lot too. hell, a 4:2:2 1080p output would be a good solution for some, but that is an entirely other topic :)

[Chris Parker]

Sorry, skip.. am I the only one who doesn't get this question? With RAW data, there is no need to get an accurate image since everything is/should be done in post. As long as the framing is right.

Do directors and DP's say the same thing for shooting on film? Maybe its about time the DPs in your area dust off their light meters and get back to some "traditional lighting by eye!"
(thats how Peter Suschitzky would put it anyway!)

honestly. i suggest you check out this thread. it is more along the subject i was getting at....

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9214

but i guess everyone on that thread is a hack too right.....maybe we should just all light by eye.

[Jon Corcuera]

Well I don´t know how come we are in such a trouble having a 720p goin out.
Skip you say that DOP´s that earn 4k per day need a 1080? who they work with? I might give a call.
Now lets get serious, the spotmeter it will be necesary no matter what the outgoing signal unless we have a raw outgoing and the DOP learns to read it with acouracy, but the 709 will never be able to give a perfect reading no matter if it is a 720p or a 1080 or a 10000. I am guessing that every dop will prefer the benefits of the log system (redlog, log 685 or log 985) for pospro so monitoring the 709 with a AStro(waveform) or whatever just doesn´t look quite de ideal if you are going all the path with 709 in pospro (you might take ths decition for cheap TV workflow) then the false color looks to me as good as any other tradicional monitoring system.
Knowledge of area system + spotmeter = total control of RAW cameras
And the RED is not an sception.
Jon Corcuera

[Dj Joofa]

but the 709 will never be able to give a perfect reading no matter if it is a 720p or a 1080 or a 10000. I am guessing that every dop will prefer the benefits of the log system (redlog, log 685 or log 985) for pospro so monitoring the 709 with a AStro(waveform) or whatever just doesn´t look quite de ideal if you are going all the path with 709 in pospro (you might take ths decition for cheap TV workflow)
Jon Corcuera

It is helpful to have more resolution (1080 v.s 720) to see more detail, however, that has no inherent linkage to Rec 709. If Rec 709 is not looking ok to you, it may have to do with how the white point of the Rec 709 was selected by a camera manufacturer.

In Red camera's case, Graeme Nattress has already pointed out that setting EV to -0.4 resolves the full range issue for Rec 709. I posted some comments about this on the following link and you are welcome to have a look:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=165251#post165251

[Jon Corcuera]

Hi joofa (good independent posts, keep going, is my way of going as well)
I agree with the detail matter but i was talkin about exposing in wich detail doesn´t have to much to do.
About the -0.4 i was already doing it by placing 250 ASA in redalert/redcine :D
But I just don´t see the 709 at this point as a good place to value the colours it might be just me but I see realy bad some colors. So I will steel recomend to use the spotmeter an informe then about my doubts about the rec 709 perfect transformation of the signal. Until next week I wan´t have my hands in the red one, is ok because I am preparing a Genesis, Red, Dalsa Origin(not confirmed yet) and D-20 (not confirmed yet when they are close to introduce the D-21 it looks stupid but ...) Test and still have shoots to work in so i might just wait until the big test for use it to check the 709 again. (any sugestion about the big test PM i will be realy glad to get another point of views).

Jon Corcuera
DIT/AC

[Chris Parker]

Maybe its about time the DPs in your area dust off their light meters and get back to some "traditional lighting by eye!"
(thats how Peter Suschitzky would put it anyway!)

Hey Johnny, would YOU tell your DP that? I have worked with pretty much all the top commercial DPs in Canada, and several from abroad on RED since it's release. Although they understand they are supposed to light with their meter, many of them rate the camera differently. Some rate it at 320. Some at 250. Others at 160. ALL of them realize the usefullness (or lack thereof) of lighting from the monitor, but they still want to know how what they see on their meter corresponds to what the monitor is telling them. The good ones learn this correlation and continuously improve their use of this great tool (RED).

Or, like you guys said, I could just laugh at them, tell them to dust off their meters, go back to film school and rate the camera at 320. I actually like working though, and prefer to work WITH them to optimize their use of this camera system....

[BradWright]

Hi there,

I am a video guy. I am wondering what the output will be for on set video assist. Will this be in the form of a BNC out? Is it a downconverted NTSC video feed, or strictly HD? Does it matter what format you shoot in for these video outs? If strictly HD, will there be an easy way to mount a downconverter, such as the Miranda box, on the camera?

Also, does the camera generate framelines? Say you are shooting 2K. Will there be accurate framelines for directors/agencies, etc. to KNOW what they will be getting on the TV when the edit is finished?

Really just looking for the planned on set workflow for video assist.

What guide lines do you need? I can add them in software in real time if you want to feed it into a Mac on the set. You can use an MX02 and MacBook Pro.