Controls and Menu Items

[Mark Thorpe]

Hi Guys,
I understand Spike is just getting screwed down and all things are still in the air but I would imagine around this time you have a pretty finalized idea of the camera's physical layout. Is there any possibility that you could talk us around, or post images, of the external controls on the camera? Also give us a run down of the menu chapters and sub menus? Big question but this would help many of us to start in our mental preparations for the day when we actually take delivery of our cams.

If this is not viable now, could it be at least made a priority for the time when the production path allows?

Cheers,
Mark.

[Mark Thorpe]

I mean like an exploded diagram with all controls labeled etc.

Cheers,
Mark.

[Mark Thorpe]

Seems like that may be asking to hand over the keys to the candy store so hey, I'm sure we'll all get up to speed on that as and when the time is right.

Cheers,
Mark.

[RobRoySyd]

I mean like an exploded diagram with all controls labeled etc.

Cheers,
Mark.

Seem to me like a very sensible question. I was going to ask much the same and then I thought I must be dumb, surely this info is somewhere but it seems not so. Can I add connectors to that list as well. What they're for, how far apart etc. A basic dimensioned engineering drawing would be more use to those seeking to provide meaningfull feedback than 3D renders and photos.

I know this could be a bit of a Catch 22 situation, the design is in flux but one of the reasons I thought it was in flux was from feedback from here, but if we don't have the information to make the feedback...well, you get the idea I hope.

One small tidbit I've read is about the use of Mini XLRs for audio inputs, in my experience Mini XLRs aren't the most reliable connectors around. Plus that then means having mini to standard adaptors, hopefully using a short length of cable, but thats a XLR line plug & socket hanging off the camera which could be a problem putting strain on the Mini XLR. That's also compounded by having to use pretty tiny cable to fit into those Mini XLR connectors.

[Stephen Gentle]

Seem to me like a very sensible question

I agree. I would love to see a walkthrough of the menus and a drawing of the controls too.

-Stephen

[Stuart English]

In due course, yes. But you may be suprised how simple the menus become when running in a RAW workflow. Most of what we have come to expect in terms of camera menus are RGB and interlace domain video processing - such as black stretch, "film gamma" curves, vertical aperture, skin tone detail etc.

When you have a high dynamic range progressive scan sensor combined with a high dynamic range recording system, you become more like a film camera body - with minimal controls optimised for efficient operation, and with focus on the images rather than the camera electronics.

[Evin Grant]

Yummy, I love efficient menus.

[RobRoySyd]

In due course, yes. But you may be suprised how simple the menus become when running in a RAW workflow. Most of what we have come to expect in terms of camera menus are RGB and interlace domain video processing - such as black stretch, "film gamma" curves, vertical aperture, skin tone detail etc.

When you have a high dynamic range progressive scan sensor combined with a high dynamic range recording system, you become more like a film camera body - with minimal controls optimised for efficient operation, and with focus on the images rather than the camera electronics.

That's fine for those recording RAW, what about those recording 10 bit through SDI?

Still leaves the issue of look management. That mighn't be an issue for the indies but being able to define the final look to some extent on the day of the shoot could be mighty handy otherwise the DOP is going to be spending a lot of time in post.

There's still the question of audio gain controls or does the camera only accept +4 line level? If so fine, makes a lot of sense to me however I wonder how many realise they'll need to add a decent field mixer to get mics into the camera.

The question of physical layout is still there as well, power connectors, audio connectors, TC in/out connections, record button, SDI connections.

[Finner]

Being a shooter/director I always think "picture" first and it seems like the RED team is right on top of achiving fantastic menu options and outputs for many variations. It is the audio that concerns me most with this camera. Which is funny because I tend to always put audio at the bottom of my list. The mini XLR's just seem like a bad idea to me and if there are no external audio control buttons and the audio control is in the camera menus then audio could become quite a nightmere if dealing with it on the fly.

If size is an issue I feel even channel 1 audio XLR and channel 2 mini XLR would be better then 2 mini's.

[RobRoySyd]

Being a shooter/director I always think "picture" first and it seems like the RED team is right on top of achiving fantastic menu options and outputs for many variations.

If you read what is being said above then no, there'll be no options in camera for changing the "look" of the image. I guess you'll be able to control shutter speed / angle and that's it. This will be exactly the same as shooting film, the only way to influence the look is by filters in front / behind the lens and by choice of stock and processing.

As an engineer I find this a great concept, the RAW data can be manipulated in post to your hearts content as nothing is burnt into the neg / RAW data.

Except this seems to be the antithesis of the traditional way of working, stock is chosen to achieve a certain look and filters might be put in front of the lens as well, depending on many artistic decisions, many of them made on the day of the shoot. All this is now being moved to post.

I can see issues with this concept, you light something based on how a certain stock reacts to light, in the digital domain you make lighting decisions in combination with camera setting etc. So now we have a camera that records everything but there's nothing, not even 35mm print stock that has the matching latitude. How is the look of the final image going to be evaluated on the set?
Being able to see the processed RAW footage live on set would seem a very desirable feature to me. With film and tests and an experienced DOP the look can be locked down on thhe shoot pretty well with film. I really think we need input from the creative people and DOPs on these topics. I got involved in a lengthy discussion with a DOP at NAB last over another digital film camera. At the time he thought the concept was a dog for these reasons (I disagreed strongly at the time but now grasp where he's coming from).

One possibility might be to record data (similar to how LTC is recorded) through one of the audio inputs. This could be read back in post to adjust the image based on the DOPs preferences from the shoot.

I'm far, far from very knowledgeable in these matters, no experience, just a lot of reading and trying to understand. Based on that I really think these issues deserve more disussion.

[GlennChan]

On the issue of the miniXLR connectors, it would be nice if there was an option to purchase a snake/breakout cable. It would come in two parts:
A- The breakout cable part. Connecting into the camera would be two mini-XLRs and headphone/return cable. The other end is a single cable.
B- Extension cable (this is a single cable). Goes into mixer.

If you need to detach audio, you just unplug a single connector.

See:
http://www.sounddevices.com/download/guides/xl10.pdf

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If you read what is being said above then no, there'll be no options in camera for changing the "look" of the image. I guess you'll be able to control shutter speed / angle and that's it. This will be exactly the same as shooting film, the only way to influence the look is by filters in front / behind the lens and by choice of stock and processing.


I think you misunderstood what Graeme was saying. There will be those controls, but they aren't going to be 'root level' operations. The menus will be designed assuming you aren't shooting RGB, but if you do it'll still be there, just less convenient.

Also you can *using some unknown pixie dust interface* upload LUTs to the camera and monitor/record RGB with them applied, which is all the control you could ever need. Hopefully therell be some sort of interface Ala the SI camera to create a LUT using a grading interface in real-time to get the general look figured out while you're shooting.

Using menus to massage an image is hugely inefficient even with the best of menus. The best approach is to use a dedicated grading application to create the look you want, and then upload it in a succinct LUT.

[Finner]

If you read what is being said above then no, there'll be no options in camera for changing the "look" of the image. I guess you'll be able to control shutter speed / angle and that's it.


Rob

IF you read what I said then yes! But being married to an engineer I understand how they can get so obsessed on there own point of view that they can't see any one elses. What I said was "...the RED team is right on top of fantastic menu options and outputs for many variations." No where in that quote did I say that the menu options or output variations would be from the camera. The options and outputs I was talking about was the entire process from shoot to final edit. I have shot 35mm film for a over 10 years now and have worked with some HD cameras for the last 4. The DOP you mention that was worried about not being able to see an accurate "look" of what the camera is seeing on set is clearly an HD DOP that has been stuck in the "HD black tent of hell" for too long.

I am very happy that RED is putting forward the RED digital cinema system the way it is. Build a camera that captures the image similar to a film camera (variable shutter and FPS) and then the rest goes to a colorist in post. This system will bring back the craft of cinematography and make better DOP's by having them trust their eye and have to know in their head what the post processing will give to the finished "look". The so called DOP hacks that have to run to the HD tent every time they set a new light will be expossed pretty quick with the RED one. So I guess I can see why they will be scared. You also mention film tests, well DOP's should do the same thing with Red but the Red has a greater advantage then film. The advantage of shooting a few shots and then in post applying many (maybe 20 or more) different looks to peg down the best one for the project. To do that in film you would have to shoot a lot of different stocks.

I guess the main thing I am saying here is if a DOP shows great concern over not being able to see the image in hi-res on set don't hire him. For many years film cameras did not even have a video out put on them. It is the DOP's lighting ability and eye that create beautiful images not a HD monitor.

[Finner]

I think you misunderstood what Graeme was saying.

It looks like it is quite common for RobRoySyd to misunderstand what people are saying.

[Gbabymogul]

I am very hapy that RED is putting forward the RED digital cinema system the way it is. Build a camera that captures the image similar to a film camera (variable shutter and FPS) and then the rest goes to a colorist in post. The last I checked, Graeme (or someone with a RED logo;)) mentioned that there would be a full image processing pipeline out of the camera for monitoring. This came up when we were discussing the Vipers monitoring on set. So you can shoot 4K RAW, and monitor a 1080p RGB video out... with (my conjecture) either applying an external LUT or possibly uploading one to the camera. Yes, much of the RAW look will be determined in pre-pro meetings (applying LUTs, printing out stills for reference like Claudio Miranda is currently doing), but on set RGB monitoring will be essential for a variety of scenarios. Having worked with film myself for a number of years, I'm comfortable with a RAW workflow. It do see the benefits of on set monitoring of an RGB/ or non-destructive LUT applied image in certain scenarios...

BTW, I absolutely agree that shooting RAW will improve the essentials of storytelling ->composition, lighting, color etc...Talented DP's will be the first to benefit.

[Obin Olson]

THANK YOU STUART!! I can see you guys really "get" the raw picture! Away with all the nonsense!


In due course, yes. But you may be suprised how simple the menus become when running in a RAW workflow. Most of what we have come to expect in terms of camera menus are RGB and interlace domain video processing - such as black stretch, "film gamma" curves, vertical aperture, skin tone detail etc.

When you have a high dynamic range progressive scan sensor combined with a high dynamic range recording system, you become more like a film camera body - with minimal controls optimised for efficient operation, and with focus on the images rather than the camera electronics.

[Stuart English]

O.K lets take this one step at a time ...

Menus -

I didn't mean to say that we don't have any RGB domain controls, more that when you shoot RAW (using a high dynamic range tapeless recording system) many of the controls that we have become used to seeing on a video camera can be simplified. That includes physical switches such as auto knee, gain up/down, bars, VTR standby. It also includes complex RGB menus for black stretch, film gamma curves, color matrix, skin tone and vertical aperture etc.

[Obin Olson]

Finner, all is well, however as a pusher of the digital envelope myself, I see no downside to having LUT on the RGB 1080p HD output for a nice pro monitor...why not have BOTH? A good eye AND a great monitor picture?!

[Finner]

Sure a great picture on set is fine but I really don't care if it sits at the agency table or with the producers because I know what looks good to my eye and my meter gives me my ratio's so I don't really need to see it, especially because it will change durring the post process anyway. the main point I am trying to make is DOP's need to stop putting all their trust in a monitor (monitors can be adjusted by a camera assistant improperly but a but your eye does not lie. I even trust my eye more then my meter ratios quite often.)

[Stuart English]

HD "Video Assist"

Even if we are recording RAW, we still need to monitor in the Viewfinder or via HD-SDI and / or HDMI on set. Therefore we DO need and DO have RGB / 4:2:2 domain image processing. But do we need all of those RGB domain image processing menus to be in-camera?

In a file based solution such as RED its not necessary. Using "look" files we can create any color corrected 4:2:2 HD-SDI output (or for that matter 1080p or 720p RGB video for recording to the Digital Magazine) we desire for each scene off-line and then load that data into the camera via SD cards or via wireless or USB interfaces. Then we can tag this look data, plus any white balance adjustments we make while shooting as metadata against the RAW recording so that we can repeat the RGB image processing in post.

If you take this approach then the structure of the on-board camera menus is greatly simplified. Or you put all the RGB menus complexity back into the camera menus and do this setup there. I know which path I would prefer... but we have the system flexibility for either approach.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Rob

I am very happy that RED is putting forward the RED digital cinema system the way it is. Build a camera that captures the image similar to a film camera (variable shutter and FPS) and then the rest goes to a colorist in post. This system will bring back the craft of cinematography and make better DOP's by having them trust their eye and have to know in their head what the post processing will give to the finished "look".

The "HD black tent from hell" is only another great tool that shooting in HD puts at our disposal. I can't possibly understand how being able to monitor your image for a final look or a more accurate representation is by any means "hell".

I've always been and always will be a firm believer that the less that needs to be done in post to a picture, the stronger the skills of the DoP are.

[Finner]

I am still interested if full size XLR's could be done and if there will be external audio adjustment knobs?

[Gbabymogul]

HD "Video Assist"

Even if we are recording RAW, we still need to monitor in the Viewfinder or via HD-SDI and / or HDMI on set. Therefore we DO need and DO have RGB / 4:2:2 domain image processing. But do we need all of those RGB domain image processing menus to be in-camera?

In a file based solution such as RED its not necessary. Using "look" files we can create any color corrected 4:2:2 HD-SDI output (or for that matter 1080p or 720p RGB video for recording to the Digital Magazine) we desire for each scene off-line and then load that data into the camera via SD cards or via wireless or USB interfaces. Then we can tag this look data, plus any white balance adjustments we make while shooting as metadata against the RAW recording so that we can repeat the RGB image processing in post.

If you take this approach then the structure of the on-board camera menus is greatly simplified. Or you put all the RGB menus complexity back into the camera menus and do this setup there. I know which path I would prefer... but we have the system flexibility for either approach.

Forgive my ignorance Stuart, but are these "look files" just reference images plus metadata to tag RAW footage while shooting, or is there a way of applying the data to the 1080p video out, thereby real time monitoring RAW footage with the "look file" data ? And if not; is there a third party product that would accomplish that ?

Also, will the menu configuration be customizable at the factory, or do you have ways of accomplishing it after delivery ?

[Stuart English]

Audio on RED is full function - 4 discreet channels and industry leading 24 bit depth. We'll explain more at NAB about what we are providing beyond this.

The USB port on the camera allows us lots of flexibility to offer additional control surfaces for special applications.

Mini-XLR to XLR converting cables already exist, no need for dongles unless you really want to use them. Several wireless mics already use mini-XLR, so we believe that this is the future analog audio connector of choice. And it also allows us to package 4 discreet mic / line / 48V phantom power inputs into our body.

[Alexander Nikishin]

HD "Video Assist"

I know which path I would prefer... but we have the system flexibility for either approach.

Why not have both? I'm sure that many ENG or live event shooters would prefer to have more of an "on the fly" menu command system.

I think that's the beauty of Red, it covers all the bases for all types of shooters.

[Finner]

The "HD black tent from hell" is only another great tool that shooting in HD puts at our disposal. I can't possibly understand how being able to monitor your image for a final look or a more accurate representation is by any means "hell".

I've always been and always will be a firm believer that the less that needs to be done in post to a picture, the stronger the skills of the DoP are.


The HD tent becomes a problem when a DOP spends more time in it then working with their crew. The HD tent has become a crutch that a good DOP rarely or never needs. Sure its great to see your image but not at the expense of the time it takes for your eye's to adjust when all you have to do is understand how to get the most out of your meters and train your eye's.

I agree with your second point 100% when it comes to film. Not with the RED though which the "stock" or "look" is added after shooting. The DoP's strong skills with a RED camera will be his lighting understanding in combination with knowing how the "look" chosen will be effected by the lighting. But with the "look" or "stock style" being added to the RAW footage Post will become more critical then ever. As a strong film supporter it took me a while to start to like the "stock" changing to a post thing but now I am starting to get very excited about all the options it will give me. I will still use filters as often as I do with film trying to limit "post adjustments" and shoot pretty much the same way I do with film only I will have various stock options available to me in post.

[Stuart English]

"is there a way of applying the data to the 1080p video out, thereby real time monitoring RAW footage with the "look file" data?"

Yes. The look data is used to preset the RAW to RGB image processing chain in the camera, so viewfinder and HD-SDI / HDMI outputs will follow those instructions. As would the RGB video recorded to the digital Magazine if you choose 1080p or 720p on-board recording.

[David Fairbanks]

So I assume that you could modify and load the lookup table from you computer to the camera via USB or SD card. Which would also mean that you could load identical data onto multiple cameras.

[Gbabymogul]

"is there a way of applying the data to the 1080p video out, thereby real time monitoring RAW footage with the "look file" data?"

Yes. The look data is used to preset the RAW to RGB image processing chain in the camera, so viewfinder and HD-SDI / HDMI outputs will follow those instructions. As would the RGB video recorded to the digital Magazine if you choose 1080p or 720p on-board recording.

Fanfreakin'tastic :)

That's exactly what I was hoping for. It sure will reduce post-pro time if that's the approach you want.
Personally, I think shooting the 4KRAW footage with preapplied look files in 1080p vieo output will save a lot of time on set.

[Alex Boothby]

Personally, I think shooting the 4KRAW footage with preapplied look files in 1080p vieo output will save a lot of time on set.

Yes, and the more we become familiar with the nature and range of Redcode Raw, the more we will be willing to take risks when time is of the essence. Set a general LUT for your master, and then bang off your closeups without endlessly tweaking the camera settings.

(whoops - is "master" an evil word on this forum?)

Which brings me to my next question: Stuart, will we be able to toggle the EVF back to the pure raw data to "check the neg" so to speak? Or should we just check the histogram for that? Strangely I find a certain comfort when looking at raw.

[Michael Morlan]

HD "Video Assist"

Using "look" files we can create any color corrected 4:2:2 HD-SDI output (or for that matter 1080p or 720p RGB video for recording to the Digital Magazine) we desire for each scene off-line and then load that data into the camera via SD cards or via wireless or USB interfaces. Then we can tag this look data, plus any white balance adjustments we make while shooting as metadata against the RAW recording so that we can repeat the RGB image processing in post.

Okay, I just WET MY PANTS!

I added the looks files data path to my growing workflow diagram here:
http://austinfilmtools.com/pages/gear_red_one/red_one_workflow.htm

M

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The way I understand it the LUTs and some other fun facts can be inserted into the metadata at several points along the way. The idea is the "digital negative" - if you shoot 4k RAW (probably RedCode) that image info is the biggest, widest data set the system can read. Traveling with that image data is a non-destructive data set that can act on the image data as needed and be used as a reference later in the post chain. I plan to rent the best scopes I can find, shoot some chips, then take a meter like an EyeOne and read the values on the monitor I plan to use in the field then adjust the LUT until I get a reasonably linear relationship.

Will this be spot on, not likely, but it will make sure I keep in the ballpark of the look I want - then I'll tweak it the rest of the way in post.

Getting a look on set, and getting a look in post are not mutually exclusive options. Embrace the possibilities! Maybe you know you are going to crush the blacks in post, now you can put on a low contrast filter or shoot a flat ratio - knowing you'll pop the contrast out in grading. I want to pick a look in pre-pro then reverse engineer it. I am very curious to shot a little under (ETTR) then push it way left in post. Maybe pull a plate of everything over 70 IRE then blur it a little and blend it in with just the right compositing mode and tweak the opacity to taste, basically an extension of the old Trish Meyer "instant sex" effect with RAW data.

[Alex Boothby]

I'm starting to feel a future RED accessory coming on - albeit a bit of a vanity one. Imagine a jacked-up video I-pod for DOPs, which operates one program - REDCINE. The 'RED-pod' is loaded with the DOPs favorite LUT setups, which can be applied on set to stills grabbed from his/her current RED camera setup. While the final lights are being set (or the actors are finding their motivation or whatever), the DOP can fiddle with the current color setup, and can then export it back to the RED-ONE quicker than you can say "roll camera".

The real advantage is not so much to save the crew time (which it won't) or to nail the look for on-set playback, but rather to give the DOP a portable and convenient tool to communicate his/her look to the dailies colorist. I find more and more DPs are spending more and more time shooting DSLR stills, pulling them into a laptop and then prepping them in photoshop so that the midnight one-light guy doesn't screw up the look. (note: if you can't find your DP on set, check A) craft service table; B) extras wardrobe.... and more and more frequently C) in the camera room mucking with gamma curves.)

First problem with the RED-pod is that it will have to run on Intel (I think Greame or Stuart mentioned that). Next problem is monitor calibration. Too bad I-pods don't come with a CRT screen, eh.

I know what you're all thinking - pure genius!!! I've just described a tiny laptop. For my next feat I'll invent a portable hard drive which plays back MP3s directly into your headphones. Where's the nearest (US) patent office? :)

[Alex Boothby]

BTW: good post Blair.

[Brook Willard]

I am very curious to shoot a little under (ETTR) then push it way left in post.

ETTR = slight overexposure, not under.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Boothba, one of the Red team members has already stated that the Red One will be able to ingest an SD card containing LUT files and the like.

No need for a large ipod like unit when it can be done on a simple 1" card. :)

[Alex Boothby]

True - but in the future it would be great to conveniently tweek color setups and test LUTS off camera - which would require a display. Sorry, I think Apple's ads have done a number on me. I can't stop dancing.

[Alexander Nikishin]

True - but in the future it would be great to conveniently tweek color setups and test LUTS off camera - which would require a display. Sorry, I think Apple's ads have done a number on me. I can't stop dancing.

Ah I see, that's why I posted earlier in the day saying that I wouldn't mind having an intuitive image control menu in-camera in addition to being able to upload LUT data.

I'm with you on the idea. :)

[Martin Drew]

And it also allows us to package 4 discreet mic / line / 48V phantom power inputs into our body.

You have me whooping for joy with that announcement Stuart. I had resigned myself to line-ins only which would have meant adding another box on the side of the camera to handle mic pre for an on-camera mic.

Have you fixed how level control will be implemented? Will it be a menu item or a physical control on the camera?

Martin

[Chris Gearhart]

Just, . . . wow.

[Finner]

Have you fixed how level control will be implemented? Will it be a menu item or a physical control on the camera?

Martin

Great question. This is one thing I have been really concerned about because if sound level controls are a menu thing I can see it becoming a big pain in the butt.

[Trevor Meier]

Using "look" files we can create any color corrected 4:2:2 HD-SDI output (or for that matter 1080p or 720p RGB video for recording to the Digital Magazine) we desire for each scene off-line and then load that data into the camera via SD cards or via wireless or USB interfaces....


The USB port on the camera allows us lots of flexibility to offer additional control surfaces for special applications.

IF RED makes their API available, a third party (or RED themselves) could develop a camera remote. This could be a hardware device or in software (say, in Java or some other platform-agnostic language). Run it on a laptop, a PDA or a cell phone, connect via USB or better, wirelessly (via bluetooth or WiFi connected to the USB or SD slots).

There's three 'domains' this could be useful in: camera control, metadata, and audio control. One device could operate in all three domains, or if the crew is large enough, it could be divided amongst departments:


Camera Control is given to the device operated by the First AC. Camera start/stop, enter timecode, frame rate, load "look" LUT, etc.

Metadata read/write is given to the device operated by the Script Supervisor: use it to input metadata (Scene number, take, etc.) to create a digital slate (a la David Fincher's S-Two tapeless workflow); use it to read the current metadata for entering into digital or analog script notes.

Audio control is given to the audio guys: remote audio level metering, remote level control and/or remote fader control of audio levels using a simple USB device like the tascams: http://www.tascam.com/Products/US-224.html
(You could even stream audio to the camera from a digital mixer over the USB ports... But USB audio is notoriously unreliable)


This would feed into the data-centric workflow we're talking about over in the 4K workflow forum (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2443)