Abolish this Forum Thread?

[mike70]

Gibby--I respect your expertise and all the help you've given, but maybe having a separate ENG/EFP forum thread is not such a hot idea.

Looking at what you've written in your sticky, we've got:

"non-hardlined EFP production – probably the most common form of professional production in the entire motion media production industry."

But now it's off the main camera discussion group and, worse, to my coming-from-film-mentality, it's described in decidedly "video" nomenclature: I make docs, and if I see the words ENG or EFP, I run in the other direction, thinking they don't apply to me. Using your sticky as a guide, we've got:

1.) ENG, to which I second Stuart's reaction, " yo, that's not what we do" .
2.) Hardlined "EFP", which I'm guessing is an extremely limited production mode, and then
3.) Mobile non-hardlined EFP, which I would so much rather have described as (take your pick) shooting in the field, mobile shooting, doc shooting, verite shooting, run and gunning, handheld-- anything but something that uses those acronyms which reinforce the fact that we're video shooters, not cine shooters.

Toss the first two out, and you're left with the most prevalent form of shooting segregated in its own thread, away from most of the red users. Sorry for the rant, and maybe I'm just reacting because the thread on doc shooting seemed (based on various postings) to be meeting a need before it was moved.

Since so much of what I'm saying appears to be just a guy coming from a film background who can't wrap his head around the fact that he is shooting video, I'll try to articulate the base of my concern: that you're playing into a hierarchy, whereby the "cine" users, meaning feature film shooters or commercials makers, discuss Red on the main thread, and us lower-class citizens come over to the "electronic field gathering" ghetto to discuss our issues. To put it differently, why isn't there a 4th listing, ESP, for Electronic Studio Production, and then we can all be back in the same thread again?

I'm glad to see Stuart ranges around all topics and so might continue to listen to all Red users, but I can't help think the very poll your taking won't be seen by a lot of people to whom it matters the most, precisely because field shooting has been marginalized.

[TimothyD]

Hi Mike,

I have to say that I was absolutely thrilled that this section was created.

There are many reasons, but mainly because for some of us, it is a bit overwhelming to sort through tons of discussion of cine techniques and gear that require a crew to use/accomplish.

I would say that the most important thing about this section is that it is clearly focused on one thing, people who shoot from the shoulder a large portion of the time and need a very different kit than someone who shoots with cine gear.

I can't tell you how many hours I have personally spent digging through cine related discussions on this board looking for tidbits of the specific information I was in search of. I love this section and come here first nearly every time I visit reduser.net.

As for ENG, while it is an afterthought and a black sheep to many, it is most certainly a huge part of what video cameras are used for, what is wrong with raising the bar?

I think the more the quality of broadcast equipment improves, the more the hacks who have no love for their craft will be replaced by younger, hungrier and more talented shooters. In the process television news outlets of all stripes will be forced to pay shooters a decent wage. I think it is worth promoting this camera to all segments of the production world. From my standpoint it is probably the first camera that could be used for all levels of production, outside those that require a small hand-held camera, and it sounds like Red has that angle covered as well:)

Bottom line, I really hope this section remains around, not just now, but for good. As soon as the pocket camera comes out there will probably be a need for a section totally devoted to people who are complete novices. I hope that they are given room too. We all have to start somewhere, and while I hope that having a Red will help me transition from ENG/EFP to a more cinematic style and body of knowledge as I grow with the camera, I really appreciate being able to talk with people about what I do in the present.

Tim

[Steve Gibby]

Mike70,

You’re a new guy on RED User and I’m having a hard time believing the audacity of your post above. In your opening post for the “What About Docs” you state that you’re not a shooter by trade, that your background is as a feature film editor, but that you shot your last doc with a DVX100. That’s not some real heavyweight EFP/ENG background that may qualify you to make judgments on the correct terminology for EFP/ENG genres, now is it? On my side of the ledger, I have over 30 years of EFP, ENG, and cine-style production experience, including over 800 national television programs that aired on 12 different networks, serving as an executive producer, producer, director, editor, scriptwriter, DP, cinematographer, and videographer. Comparing our backgrounds, do you really think you’re qualified to school me on EFP/ENG classifications and genres, like you did in your post? Obviously not.

At the time you started this “Abolish this forum?” thread, there had already been 967 page views of my “ENG and EFP Definitions and Explanations” FAQ, with the administrator of RED User (Jarred land) posting that it was a great post and making it a sticky, and absolutely no negative posts about the FAQ or disputations of the definitions of ENG, Hardlined EFP, and Non-hardlined EFP – after 967 page views of it.

Before I specifically address the points consider these bullet points:

- RED One was designed from the very beginning as a digital cinema camera that was also specifically designed to be re-lenses and re-accessorized for EFP and limited ENG production work. RED has stated exactly that since December 2005.

- In my nationally published interview with Jim Jannard in April 2006, Jim specifically talks about the additional EFP and ENG capabilities that RED would build into RED One. Here’s a link, read it for yourself: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/6388.html

- In multiple threads on DVX User, DV Info, and RED User, dating clear back to late 2005, and up to the present, the RED Team has repeatedly discussed and confirmed the EFP and limited ENG capabilities of RED One in those terms – EFP and ENG. Use the search tool on those three forums and see for yourself.

- For about a year now the official RED web site, on the “Cameras” page, has stated about RED One: “Shoot lightweight ENG style, or load it up to shoot a feature film”. Link: http://www.red.com/cameras.shtml

- A B4 2/3” adapter and 1080p and 720p have been in the planned spec for RED One from the very beginning, as has the ability to extract and export 1080i form REDCINE. Why? In large part to fully enable the EFP and limited ENG capabilities of RED One.

- RED User is an official RED Digital Cinema web site. The administrator of his site (Jarred Land) and the remaining RED Team readily acknowledged the need for a separate EFP and ENG for RED forum.

I could go on with several pages of bullet points defining RED’s acknowledgment and planning of EFP and limited ENG capability for RED One – and RED naming them in those terms EFP and ENG. RED One is and always has been planned as a digital cinema camera with specifically planned for EFP and ENG capability. If new people to RED don’t understand that, they need to do their homework and use the search tool before trying to educate those who have been backing RED from the beginning about RED’s capability and genre use terminology.

I’m going to stop this post here and begin my next post, which will specifically address the points you made in your post that opened this thread.

[Steve Gibby]

Looking at what you've written in your sticky, we've got:

"non-hardlined EFP production – probably the most common form of professional production in the entire motion media production industry."

If you care to research that statement, NAB is a good source, you’d find out that is a true statement. If you have a problem accepting that, it still doesn’t change the facts.

But now it's off the main camera discussion group and, worse, to my coming-from-film-mentality, it's described in decidedly "video" nomenclature: I make docs, and if I see the words ENG or EFP, I run in the other direction, thinking they don't apply to me.

If you were following the board directions, your “What about docs” thread should have been posted on the EFP and ENG for RED forum in the first place. You admit that your film mentality made you essentially not want to “lower” yourself to admit that docs are an EFP genre – in essence an elitist bias against anything “video”. Well, that’s still not going to change the fact that when docs are shot with an electronic medium (video), they are correctly classified in the EFP genre. If docs are shot with film and cine-style techniques they are not EFP, but rather cine-style docs. Let me remind you that RED One is an electronic camera, thus docs shot with RED One are classified as EFP. Nobody can or ever will “film” anything with RED One.

Using your sticky as a guide, we've got:

1.) ENG, to which I second Stuart's reaction, " yo, that's not what we do" .
2.) Hardlined "EFP", which I'm guessing is an extremely limited production mode, and then
3.) Mobile non-hardlined EFP, which I would so much rather have described as (take your pick) shooting in the field, mobile shooting, doc shooting, verite shooting, run and gunning, handheld-- anything but something that uses those acronyms which reinforce the fact that we're video shooters, not cine shooters.

Why do I get the feeling you didn’t even read through my EFP and ENG for RED FAQ? ENG is clearly and accurately described and delineated. Did you happen to notice under the ENG definition where I specifically state: “IMO RED One is of limited use for this market…(then I defined why it is of limited use)? There are some limited uses for RED one ion ENG, and I listed those. The ENG definition is there to dispel the confusion on the difference between EFP and ENG for newcomers to motion media, and for people like you who come from the film world to RED and need to know EFP and ENG definitions. Hardlined EFP an extremely limited production mode? Ah..not really. Massive amounts of television programming fits within the definition of hardlined EFP, and with 12 volt power, genlock, RS232, and dual HD-SDI buses, RED One is quite capable of being integrated into hardlined EFP workflows – with the addition of intercom, return video, and a few other workarounds. In your point #3 your anti-video elitist attitude surfaces again. All those other terms you used merely describe subdivisions of Non-hardlined EFP – every one of them! They are all correctly within the definition of non-hardlined EFP. So…because you have an elitist prejudice against EFP, then the entire motion media industry and also RED User shouldn’t categorize those subgenres as EFP?

Toss the first two out, and you're left with the most prevalent form of shooting segregated in its own thread, away from most of the red users. Sorry for the rant, and maybe I'm just reacting because the thread on doc shooting seemed (based on various postings) to be meeting a need before it was moved.

You posted your “What about docs” thread in the wrong forum, I suggested that it be moved to the right forum for it, a moderator agreed, and now you have a problem with that. You’re new to this RED User, you’ve made a grand total of 7 posts, and already you know better than the moderators and longtime members about how the board should run and where threads should be posted?

Since so much of what I'm saying appears to be just a guy coming from a film background who can't wrap his head around the fact that he is shooting video, I'll try to articulate the base of my concern: that you're playing into a hierarchy, whereby the "cine" users, meaning feature film shooters or commercials makers, discuss Red on the main thread, and us lower-class citizens come over to the "electronic field gathering" ghetto to discuss our issues. To put it differently, why isn't there a 4th listing, ESP, for Electronic Studio Production, and then we can all be back in the same thread again?

Again you reiterate your film against video bias. Welcome to media convergence. RED One is a convergence camera: its electronics are closest to DSLRs, but also based off digital video technology, even the viewfinder is an EVF. RED has a distant relationship to film cameras only in that it can use the same cine-style lenses that film cameras use – but it also uses 35mm still lenses, and B4. 2/3” HD ENG lenses. So you come form the film world and expect everything to be categorized the same as the film world, even though in digital cinema almost all the technology is based off from the DSLR and digital video industry technology? And you suggest Electronic Studio Production as a fourth category when it is already correctly categorized as an integral part of Hardlined EFP. Let me make something really clear: EFP and ENG production people are not second-class citizens in the motion media industry, with RED, or on RED User. They may be in the eyes of some close-minded, strictly film shooters out in the industry, but RED One is a digital cinema and EFP camera – not film. The sooner that film industry people can lose that ridiculous, decades old bias the better. I work in both industries extensively, and as a producer/director I never stand for that type of anachronistic attitude on my set. I only hire open minds, good attitudes, and true convergence people. RED isn’t a film camera –it’s a digital cinema and EFP camera based on electronic technology. In digital cinema, film people are migrating over to video technology, not vice versa.

I'm glad to see Stuart ranges around all topics and so might continue to listen to all Red users, but I can't help think the very poll your taking won't be seen by a lot of people to whom it matters the most, precisely because field shooting has been marginalized.

Let me tell you something about Stuart. He has an extensive EFP and ENG industry background. He was one of the key executives at Panasonic that developed the Varicam, HVX200, and other EFP/ENG camera systems. He also agrees with my definitions in my EFP and ENG Definitions and Explanations sticky on this forum. RED one can and will be used in a vast array of cine-style and EFP style production genres. If a few film types choose to be snobbish and refuse any EFP or ENG work it merely proves my assessment that the only real limitations on RED One use are the attitudes and skill sets of the users.

Summary
As a multi-decade pro in the film, television, and photography industries I clearly see the irreversible course of media convergence. I still work in all those industries and I don’t have biases or prejudices against any of them. RED One is designed to enable modularity, flexibility, and utility – across multiple genres and sub-genres of Cine-style and EFP style production. If you choose to niche yourself into a narrow range of production, fine, but when you criticize the work genres of other RED User members, and deride their workspaces, IMO you’ve crossed the line. So you tried to school me on EFP and ENG genre classifications, and I think after these two posts of mine just the opposite has occurred. Rather than dive into RED User rocking the boat, I’d suggest that you ease into it, use the search tool, read all the threads, understand that there are some very knowledgeable pros here, and check your biases at the door.

[Brainstorm]

Gibby, as you already know, there are hundreds of people reading this forum who appreciate your contributions tremendously, as well as those of other intelligent and informed posters to this dedicated section of the forum.

Mike70's "suggestion" would be supported by VERY few people on the board in my opinion. I hope Mike considers your rebuttal enough to end this discussion. It deserves no further consideration.

It's more than audacious. It's just plain rude. "Us lower-class citizens...." Bah! Personally I feel the building of a dedicated thread for EFP/ENG and RED shows recognition of the differing needs and demands of various users, not a relegation to the "lower class".

Best Wishes
Brainstorm

[mike70]

Thanks so much, Gibby, for your thoughtful response. No rudeness was intended, and if such was taken, I apologize.

I merely wanted to test the waters to see if others felt as I do that segregating the topic on a separate forum would limit discussion. I was not disputing your statement that EFP non-hardlined production was not true--on the contrary, I was saying that because I agreed that it was true, maybe it should not be moved away from the main board because that would marginalize it. Based on Timothy's and Brainstorm's responses, anecdotally that seems not to be the case--in fact, Timothy is saying that for him the opposite is true--and I will happily continue to learn from those with more experience than I--even if I still have a problem with the nomenclature.

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks for your response Mike…and the kind words Timothy and Brainstorm.

There are some growing pains involved with the merging of the formerly separate workplaces of film, video, and still photography. We're all in the process of having to re-evaluate our workspace, workflow, and tool kit. I try to read every new post of every thread, of every forum on RED User on a daily basis. After all these years in the motion media industry I still approach each day hoping and knowing that I'll learn a lot of new things that day. Technology is moving so fast that it takes a daily effort to even stay up with its pace.

As everything converges there are bound to be frustrations and concerns. And with RED One being a poster child for camera convergence, people from disparate backgrounds are attracted to RED. The term "diversity", which gets so highly used in the media, is definitely applicable when analyzing not only RED, but also the people interested in RED. The motion media worldwide community here on RED User is rapidly becoming just that - a viable, networking community. We're not only diverse in backgrounds, but also in ethnicity, nationality, goals, and dreams. We can and should all learn from each other. Everyone is important here. RED User is a unique community where a full spectrum of workers from multiple industries, acclaimed veterans to college students, all mixes it up to compare notes.

This particular forum has actually had a lot of traffic, but there should still be more RED User members visiting here daily. In time there will be, as they realize that "video" and “TV” aren’t diseases, that there are multiple viable EFP revenue streams available to them with RED One, and that it doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation when they define themselves - its ok to just be a comprehensive motion media industry person, and not be limited in identity to just being a film person, a TV person, or a video person. My goal for many tears now has been to be a balanced motion media person who draws inspiration, technology, techniques, and jobs from the whole range of image-making genres: film, TV, video, and still photography. Thus I don't view the image-making industry in terms of camps or separate disciplines - its all one big beautiful industry to me.

Again...thanks for your post. Best of luck to you in your pursuits and professional goals…

Cheers!

[Paul Hazlett]

i like a sectioned off eng section since alot of the issues we have to discuss are easy to find and dont relate to alot of others questions
that get asked. simple as that and very helpful

[Ken Corben]

...I'll try to articulate the base of my concern: that you're playing into a hierarchy, whereby the "cine" users, meaning feature film shooters or commercials makers, discuss Red on the main thread, and us lower-class citizens come over to the "electronic field gathering" ghetto to discuss our issues.

I have to give a special shout out to Gibby for even taking the time to edify the masses on RED EFP. He isn't getting paid to do it - it comes from a genuine desire to pass along his experience to the next generation.

I am glad this thread seems to have sorted itself out but I gotta' say I laughed out loud at this statment cuz' sometimes the premise is true. The "class" difference in genres still can be encountered in real world situations. I gotta' share that when I am working on an "upper class" project as an AC or operator for a feature - MOW - series, the camera department always wants to hear about my latest "lower class" production for Shark Week or Nat Geo etc. Helps the monotony of the 18 hour days. I often get asked why I am even working on a set. It's simple really - I love all types of filmmaking, the smell of film and coffee in the morning and I am there to watch and learn from the DP. (BTW - this is where my nickname Sharky originated - a Gaffer started calling me that and it stuck).

As Gibby so eloquently pointed out, I think the blurring of the lines in the convergence of the technology in the two genres is really happening faster than most may suspect. Here are two current examples of EFP blending with Features.

Example One: From the trenches of the "electronic field gathering ghetto" is Oscar winning filmmaker Jacques Perrin's current digital feature project OCEANS. He and his talented crew are filming an 18 month epic undersea journey - the cameras - highly modified cinealtas. Keep in mind this is slated for theatrical release!

Example Two: Another brilliant award winning documentary filmmaker in the Natural History genre, Adam Ravetch, is releasing a non-fiction theatrical feature later this year comprised of digital acquisition seemlessly blended with film originated footage.

I can tell you right now with out having seen any of it projected digitally or in 35mm that these two master story tellers will take the audience on a submersive experience with powerful storytelling - probably yield a few awards and even an Oscar nomination - again - and NO ONE in the majority of people who make our careers possible by paying the $10 to see it will say, "did you see that slight digital aliasing on the fringes of the overexposed tail fin?"

[Finner]

Hey great big film snob here and I learned my lesson. Years of working with film cameras made it hard to adapt to sony 900's, veri cams, and vipers among others. It caught me off gaurd at first but as producers started moving toward HD it was either sink or swim. I would not want to show people my first few HD projects but I can now say with out a doubt I can shoot a show/ commercial / music vid with a good HD camera and if it is played at a persons home in SD across their cable line you can not tell if it is film or HD. The only way you can tell is if the DP struggled with lighting HD. Don't get me wrong I light HD differently but I can make film or HD look the same in your home. All these cameras are is tools and the RED looks like it may be the tool that allows us to not tell the difference between film and 4k on the big screen. I am looking so forward to my RED as I know it will give me the opportunity to explore new things and it will do that for everyone from the ENG guy to the big budget filmaker. I laugh a bit when I think that Peter Jackson may be at home excited about his camera as well.