ENG does not belonge here

[Jeff Kilgroe]

While "ENG" is not a great fit for the RED cameras, they are excellent for many EFP tasks. I would say that half or better of what I shoot falls into the realm of EFP. As noahvolek pointed out earlier in this thread, these cameras are amazing for photojournalistic work -- EPIC absolutely shines here. The EPIC is awesome for many documentary style tasks.

The 2/3" fixed Scarlet held a lot of promise as an ENG tool... Alas, it's no more.

[Michael Brennan]

In my UK/Oz perspective, ENG can be regarded as a subtype of EFP.
Other subtypes for EFP are doc, docu drama, magazine, current affairs and reality.
So we could delete it from the heading but continue to include it and all the other subtypes in discussions.
Or you could add "docs" to the heading to spread the butter a little more evenly.


Again from UK/oz perspective the terms "Hardlined" and "Non hardlined" are esoteric.
In Uk/Oz the long established terms of "Outside broadcast" and "EFP" adequately describe the key points of difference between truck based productions and autonomous, mobile units.
However language is evolving, a producer asked me recently to shoot with "full focus" :)


Mike Brennan

[Michael Brennan]

I think Stuart and David are missing a point here. Of course you can use these cameras in a documentary situation (meaning smaller or nonexistent crews and non-cine lenses). But for the great majority of non-fiction cable-fodder that is being made, there is no reason to. If you have a personal project in which you can spend the time and the quality of the image is very important to you, then this is a great camera. If you are doing documentaries for theatrical release or high-end documentary specials, with significant budgets, where production quality and image quality is very important, then it is a great camera.

If you are a one man band in tough production circumstances, or if you are just grinding out footage for low-end productions on the cable systems for a low budget, then I don't see any advantage to a Red system and in fact I think in many cases it would be a burden.

With all due respect to David, he doesn't make non-fiction films. It seems to me that Red made an important decision when they created the Scarlet with the price-point and features that they did, a parting of the ways, if you will. This is a professional camera. If you want to shoot run and gun low budget films with it, God bless you, but there are easier and cheaper ways to do that. That's all I'm saying. And I agree that the EFP/ENG term is really dated and actually has no meaning any more. Hard news is showing up shot on iphones after all (perhaps not by choice but there it is) and the ability to shoot anything in the field electronically has been the situation for a long time.

I love Red cameras and we own two of them, but they require special treatment (and introduce limitations) fi you are going to use them on the cheap.

+1
There are exceptions but craft is less appreciated in docs these days. As with using number of setups a day in drama, "shot gathering" is the measure of efficiency in docs and a short zoom compared to a 2/3 inch with 11x and availability of a lightweight 22x are serious drawbacks to shot gathering. But I'd include the current Scarlet in the kit for narrow DoF interviews if production can cope with mixed formats.
Scarlet with 2/3 inch or 1 inch +3k sensor with 120fps, good audio, viewfinder, replay ect would have made a worthy doc camera, but now others are rolling out 120fps (Sony HDC 2500 does 12bit output and 120fps @720p) so no doubt it will be available for other cameras eventually.



mike brennan

[Jack Cooper]

RED 1 Was not the tool for this job... Cinema grade camera
EPIC is a way off... Cinema grade camera
SCARLET ( EPIC s ) ... Cinema grade camera

RED stated that they are a cinema grade company...

So, what do you think ?

Bruno.

In pondering your question, I thought "what would we be taking away...?" The spirit of this board has always been "inclusion" as opposed to "exclusion". As such, I have learned alot about various topics from Gibby's experience and his willingness to share with the community.

Had your point-of-view been previously executed, myself, and possibly many others, would not have this wisdom.

Semantics of acronyms aside, one of the only reasons I come to this forum is to learn from the experience of others, literally around the world.

As such, as long as topics are fairly well organized, I support even a greater range of coverage areas. For one, our firm shoots HD AND RED, even though the networks barely require an HDV post-production format for our shows. Thanks to Gibby and the other 1000s of posters who give to the community. We value this exchange.

[Freya]

Steve Gibby has eloquently expressed the place of Red cameras in the ENG/EFP market, and there is a place for such a camera, and even more so with the DSCM concept. Sure, I don't see the nightly news shooting on a 4K RAW camera, but other than that, there is a WIDE variety of projects that fall under the ENG/EFP and documentary label that can use a higher-quality image and 35mm optics and don't need to turnaround an HD image immediately for delivery, nor stream live HD for hours straight. A "Planet Earth" type series is an obvious example. And many ENG/EFP projects have a mix of material in them, from talking heads to landscape shots or beautiful product shots.

Wow, my mouth fell open with severe cultural shock!

Here in the UK we would never consider documentaries like Planet Earth to be anything like ENG!
It's a massively seperate thing!

We have news, which is very different to documentary which is again considered very different to Reality TV.
These are all considered totally apart.

Live/Event broadcasting would be the one considered to closest fit into the ENG area.

To refer to David Attenborough in the same breath as ENG type stuff, especially to throw it in with the news, would be considered massively insulting and kinda disrespectful. I'm personally not bothered by it myself beyond the shock of it! However I'd never say something like that as it would be considered quite rude!

Stuff like planet earth is held in VERY high esteem! Reality TV quite the opposite although even that would be thought of apart from ENG.

I couldn't believe at first that you meant the same planet earth but then reading the thread more I realised you must do!
It would be a hugely contentius idea over here!

The BBC specs have all sorts of exclusions for stuff like varicams because the nature teams felt they needed them. Thats the kind of weight they carry. Even high end drama doesn't get that kind of deferance.

love

Freya

[Freya]

I think we should rename this section "documentary". It could then be a place to discuss both the technical and practical aspects of all types of field production where you carry your kit.

er Yeah! I know what you mean!!!

Wow!

love

Freya

[Steve Gibby]

Freya,

I'm sure you simply misunderstood David's comments. ENG (electronic news gathering) was not what he was lumping Planet Earth into. His reference to "EFP and documentary" just before he mentioned Planet Earth is the obvious category he placed the series in - and rightly so, because Planet Earth was shot in a mobile EFP style, using primarily EFP camera systems, and was a natural world documentary - mobile EFP (electronic field production) is exactly what was done on Planet Earth. I assure you Dave knows perfectly the difference between ENG and EFP, and also knows (like he expressed) that Red cameras have been, and will continue to be used widely for EFP work.

But all EFP work is not shot in a documentary style. Tons of non-documentary productions using EFP equipment (with no MB or FF), and shot using traditional EFP techniques (eye focus, zebras, etc.) are shot worldwide each year.

On this thread myself, Dave Mullen, Stuart English, David Batistella, Jeff Kilgroe, and others have emphasized that Red cameras are not well suited for ENG (electronic news gathering), but depending on how they're accessorized, and the skills of the operator Red cameras can make very good mobile EFP (electronic field production) cameras.

Some in this industry are fond of characterizing all mobile EFP work as being low production values and shot in a hurry like ENG (news). Simply put, that's a crock of crap perpetuated by elitist attitudes among portions of the motion media industry. I assure you almost all of my ASC friends like David Mullen, Peter Collister, etc. have deep respect for professional EFP shooters - and the feeling is mutual in return. We all need to give respect, and expect respect in return - its a two way street.

IMO most of the same guys who want to criticize EFP work somehow think they're a better camera person based on the niches or styles of the motion media industry they work in. Its usually not the true professionals, but rather the mid-level pseudo-pros with a chip on their shoulder - and their wannabe/sycophant/newbie followers who feel they need to impress the biased veterans they work with by adopting the same myopic view of the motion media industry.

The terms ENG and EFP are not synonymous and they will always be with us in this industry - just as the word "film" and "filming" will always be with us. How many people do you see daily here on Red User who say they "filmed" or are going to "film" something? Lots. Where do you put the film into a Red camera? Ah...nowhere because in technology Red cameras are most like a DSLR, next most like an EFP camera, and only faintly like a film camera. That said, I think I'll go out today and "film" something in "mobile hybrid EFP style" :-))

So why get all hung up on a quest to somehow do some revisionist history on the motion media industry and expunge the legacy, contributions, and term of EFP? Let's all quit quibbling over semantic terms, check our egos at the door, give each other respect, and simply go out and shoot some good images!

This "EFP/ENG for Red" forum has been right here on Red User since 2006. The title of the forum was chosen by Jarred at the very beginning I would guess to give a place for those who are interested in discussing EFP (and yes some limited ENG) possibilities with Red One. I wrote the sticky (March 2007) at the top of this forum on EFP and ENG definitions to help others who are new to Red cameras, and also new to the EFP industry to understand the difference between EFP and ENG, and the difference between mobile EFP and studio EFP. Now after all these years of this forum being here, and all the informative posts by others and myself, its really ludicrous that a thread was just posted here titled "ENG does not belonge here"!

I think this thread shouldn't have been here in the first place, is divisive to the diverse Red User community, and should probably be closed at this point.

[Terry VerHaar]

Oh - and next we are going to get rid of people under 5' 6", blondes, those with Restless Leg Syndrome, and anyone whose last name has fewer than 7 letters... just because.

[Steve Gibby]

Imagine the nerve - those pesky EFP and ENG underlings just won't go away, so:

[Freya]

Steve, I think it is you misunderstanding me! I have never ever hear the term EFP used in the UK ever! The concept is in itself kind of alien. I have no problem with the term per se or the ideas, it's just that they are very, very alien over here, so it comes as a shock.

For example you say:

"Some are fond of characterizing all mobile EFP work as being low production values and shot in a hurry like ENG (news). Simply put, that's a crock of crap perpetuated by elitist attitudes among certain individuals and portions of the motion media industry."

That kind of idea doesn't exist over here. I can't explain it to you very easily because the things I'm saying to you are as alien as the stuff you are saying to me is!

I'll try and explain:

I've never heard the term EFP used.
ENG is not that commonly used a term either in some ways but it would never be discussed alongside the stuff you call EFP, ie there would not be any kind of catergory of EFP/ENG because they would never be considered together.

Natural History isn't even considered to be quite like other documentary formats. It is held in VERY high regard and considered over stuff like drama. So the idea that cinematic/drama people would look down on natural history, er no! You have to understand it is very high status, commands huge budgets and is prime time tv.

Natural History would never be considered along stuff like News and Sport. Completely different worlds. Same for event programming like concerts etc.

It's just a different way of looking at things and a big culture shock for me because I'd never even considered the possibility of a world where it might be different like you are describing. It's shaken me up because I realise it's one of those things that is there in our society and I'd never questioned till now.

I don't mind the idea so much, I'm not worried about offending David Attenbrorough (or I would call him Sir David Attenborough, he has been knighted by the queen don't you know!) but it's strange sometimes to realise how caught up you are in a certain way of thinking, and you don't even know it!

love

Freya