Build 15 & 16 news...

[Axel Mertes]

Get a focus puller and get him to bring a $5 tape measure. Problem solved.

[snip].

OK, go ahead an shoot the bald eagle or the lions, maybe from a little be closer, with stranger DOF.

Don't forget to have some reserve AC's for those who got eaten...

Axel

 

[jbeale]

Just my thoughts, which may or may not be welcome.

My background is physics and engineering. There are a lot of very smart people in both fields. Sometimes (ok, often) we fall a little bit in love with our own theories & designs. Once having formed that special relationship, we tend to give short shrift to proposed alternatives, excellent though they may be.

Of course, in engineering there are also economic and market realities to factor in. I often hear "better is the enemy of good enough" when feature creep is stalling delivery of a product.

The Red team has an impressive record so far. My suspicion is that they will deliver all (practical & feasible) requested features eventually. They may be a bit tired of adding, or even promising, new items at this particular moment in the design cycle.

Just my $0.02

 

[Finner]

OK, go ahead an shoot the bald eagle or the lions, maybe from a little be closer, with stranger DOF.

Don't forget to have some reserve AC's for those who got eaten...

Axel

If you can not judge if you are getting accurate focus with the shallow DOF on the long lenses needed in those situations then I would suggest finding another line of work.

As for eaten AC's on a commercial years ago I pulled focus on a running cougar that instead of running to the trainer with meat decided the camera, Op and I were more interesting. I almost pissed myself that day as he sniffed my ears.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Then they just want to frame the image, during the shoot. For that goal its much more wise to use an pure frame by frame autogained image, best in black & white to maximize contrast.

On a grayscale image you can then add - if wanted - a JVC style color focus assist overlay.

Good idea. Maybe that's why I gravitate to focus assist style shooting when I can. I really don't need a color display... but it's comforting to check.

I would agree focus and framing are constant and never ending, which is why I think putting resources into making focus easier is the smart thing to do. To sit here and act like focus is "done" is just ridiculous. That would be on my list of "never done". Jim often likes to repeat (and repeat) that the camera is under constant development... but now we find out the ONE thing we do more than anything else is "done". I'm calling bulls$%t on that one.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Lets face it:

Many of us don't have their EVFs yet.

Some may not be able to have them at all.

Sometimes the LCD is better option (e.g. on a steadycam).

So why is "wanting 1:1 zoom" something that is stalling the delivery of the product?

The product is delivered anyway, with a certain level of firmware functionality. We just want to get an apparent problem fixed or optimized, that some of us encounter. Hey, even some of those who have already the EVF ask for this!

I think we should all calm down now, let RED SWAT read those few wishes we presented, and consider the workload to implement the one or the other at some point.

All I know is that I've wasted a lot of time in my life with beta testing diverse products by discussions with the developers why "this" or "that" should be implemented. The discussions had often been taken more of the developers time than the implementation (nor args towards RED here).

So I think its better to calm down now and let them do their job, instead of forcing them to justify some words that have been said for whatever reasons.

We all learned one thing:

Everything is about to change, always!

Remember the metric lenses and you know the whole story.


Cheers,
Axel

 

[Joel Kaye]

They may be a bit tired of adding, or even promising, new items at this particular moment in the design cycle.

I think we all want them to squash bugs first. It would be interesting to see their list of priorities and how they are delegated. They've got growing pains.

For instance - should they be focusing on image quality right now? Or is it good enough? Or camera functionality - or is it good enough? Or Post workflow - or is it good enough? Or hardware? Or do they need enough people to work on all of those at the same time?

 

[Axel Mertes]

If you can not judge if you are getting accurate focus with the shallow DOF on the long lenses needed in those situations then I would suggest finding another line of work.

As for eaten AC's on a commercial years ago I pulled focus on a running cougar that instead of running to the trainer with meat decided the camera, Op and I were more interesting. I almost pissed myself that day as he sniffed my ears.

Finner, that was meant with irony involved, should have been more apparent...

I feel with you, regarding the cougar...

Axel

 

[Stuart English]

Focus / exposure

Focus / exposure

To sit here and act like focus is "done" is just ridiculous. ... I'm calling bulls$%t on that one.

To be clear, we have never said that we are done. But I will comment if its stated that you can't properly focus or expose on the camera, because these are not true statements. So take my verbal feedback that we don't intend to make major changes in these areas in this context, not that we a resting on our laurels.. when have we ever done that?

 

[Joel Kaye]

To be clear, we have never said that we are done. But I will comment if its stated that you can't properly focus or expose on the camera, because these are not true statements. So take my verbal feedback that we don't intend to make major changes in these areas in this context, not that we a resting on our laurels.. when have we ever done that?

That's cool. And I personally haven't said you can't focus the camera. As Finner accurately says, tape measures are available. In fact, I was pretty impressed with the LCD indoors. In bright light I found it a bit rough... but probably as good as any other LCD I've seen.

I'm excited about this camera. I really felt for the first time in a long time this weekend when I finally got to shoot - "Ok, I'm done looking for a new camera - this is the one. I'd still like her to behave a little nicer and lose a few pounds but I'm not kicking her out."

So - I'll keep tossing out ideas to make it work faster, better... and hopefully some will be achievable. I know technically some stuff is really tough to do. I think if you told us when things were technically tough we'd understand that. But if you just think ideas are not worth pursuing then I think that's where we're obligated to fight for our point of view.

If it's damn near impossible to meter raw sensor data for exposure then I think we'd go OK... it would be nice, but if it ain't gonna happen then let's move on.

 

[Barry Green]

There may be a bug with regard to 109 not showing up, (noted, thanks for the feedback) but the likelyhood that a value of 109 is there and is not accompanied by values such a 108, 107, 106 etc is extremely low.

I used the zebras in that manner to basically alert me whenever anything is getting near clipping, in an attempt to "expose to the right". The intention is to know when anything exceeds the 105 level, but the current implementation doesn't give you the option of setting up for "anything above 105", for example, because anything above 108 won't show. It makes it a little odd to roll exposure through the zebras because if you had a chunk of white that was overexposed, you'll only see the zebras on the rim of it, not on the big surface of it. As you iris up or down, that band of zebras will move across the white surface. Just seems like it should be possible to configure it to zebra out anything that's 105+.

 

[Barry Green]

As long as the REC709 clips first, then you have avoided sensor clip. As Graeme has explained before, that is a deliberate implementation on our part.

Okay, and good to know, but -- is this only relevant if your ISO is set to 320? As you ratchet up the ISO, the Rec709 clips earlier, even when the raw data is perhaps nowhere near clipping, correct?

Perhaps not a big deal, as I'll probably stick with 320 at all times. Do you know how much leeway we have from Rec709 clip to sensor clip? Is it right on the threshold, or is there a half-stop of leeway? Do 105-109 zebras mean a red light with a screeching halt, or just a yellow light and there's still some flexibility to go?

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

Enough with this crap of "get a great AC and tape measure and problem solved"...what the heck is that? It's like saying "let's ignore all the technology we have today to more accurately judge focus and rely on tape measuring"...we don't need anything else....just like we won't ever need more than 640K of RAM............. Aslo the RED is a Digital Cinema camera but you seem to forget that it was announced in forums like the DVX user and initially made it sound like it was a camera that will not only be design for 35mm cinema people but also for other kind of independent shooters. I don't see how it would hurt anyone who just wants to use a $5 tape to have also have more tools for focusing as well. If the technology is available (and it is!!) to help focus more accurately without the constant need of that "great Focus puller" then there is no reason not to have it implemented on the RED. Other lower end cams do it, it's only fair to expect the RED One to have similar or better focusing tools!

 

[Joel Kaye]

Perhaps not a big deal, as I'll probably stick with 320 at all times. Do you know how much leeway we have from Rec709 clip to sensor clip? Is it right on the threshold, or is there a half-stop of leeway?

I need to do a lot more exposure testing but with the exposure information changing along with the ISO I don't understand how that can possibly work right. If I put in ISO100 and nothing's clipping and I get home and have clipped data then the exposure system has failed me. That shouldn't be possible.

 

[Barry Green]

I need to do a lot more exposure testing but with the exposure information changing along with the ISO I don't understand how that can possibly work right. If I put in ISO100 and nothing's clipping and I get home and have clipped data then the exposure system has failed me. That shouldn't be possible.

Well, no, I'm saying that it might be possible to get the Rec709 to show that there's clipping but the recorded data would not be clipping. Not the other way around.

The idea would be that yes, the raw data was recorded raw and successfully, but then it is your intention to boost the gain in post, and after boosting the gain up to that level you'd force the system into overexposure. That would apply to going to ISO faster than 320, not slower.

So it actually does make sense from that aspect, which is that it's letting you know that the *processed* footage will clip, even though the raw footage doesn't. But by changing the ISO, you're telling the system you intend to implement that change, so it has to take that into account.

If the Rec709 didn't "chase" the ISO then you'd have no way of knowing what your final product would look like (even though the ISO setting is optional and you could choose to ignore it, but the lights and iris were set with a certain ISO in mind). So the Rec709 has to adjust its clip and crush points based on the ISO. Yes? Otherwise your shots won't work after you run 'em through redcine.

 

[Dj Joofa]

If I put in ISO100 and nothing's clipping and I get home and have clipped data then the exposure system has failed me. That shouldn't be possible.

Well, no, I'm saying that it might be possible to get the Rec709 to show that there's clipping but the recorded data would not be clipping. Not the other way around.

But the other way around can happen. My understanding is like this, but I could be wrong. When you change the ISO from 320 to 100 and nothing else (no metering change yet), the signal recorded is still 320, but on the LCD it gets darkened to reflect the change to ISO 100. Now you do metering based upon the 100, and say, you open the aperture wider to bring the LCD image back to normal, which will have a corresponding effect of increasing the recorded signal. So it is possible that by the time the LCD image starts looking normal (no clipping), the recorded signal has increased so much that it clipped.

Did I make any mistake anywhere?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here's why I think 1:1 pixel zoom for focus would be extremely useful...

OK, you need to set focus on the talent's eyes. You've pulled your tape and her peepers are at 8ft. Now let's turn the focus ring on our lens...

 

[Joel Kaye]

(even though the ISO setting is optional and you could choose to ignore it, but the lights and iris were set with a certain ISO in mind). So the Rec709 has to adjust its clip and crush points based on the ISO. Yes? Otherwise your shots won't work after you run 'em through redcine.

I think I'd like the option of choosing that. On set I need to know exactly what I'm REALLY recording and really blowing out. Back at the ranch I can color correct it however. I sorta think ISO is irrelevant. I don't know why it's in there now that I think about it. I suppose you could calibrate a light meter to it.

But really - we want to expose to the right in most/all situations to maximize our data, right? Sometimes that means we'll purposefully let stuff blow out because the scene has a wide light range and what we need properly exposed is down in the shadows... so what's REALLY blowing out? For real.

I don't care about ISO. Whatever, it's just metadata. Probably just confuses a discussion like this.

 

[Finner]

Enough with this crap of "get a great AC and tape measure and problem solved"...what the heck is that? It's like saying "let's ignore all the technology we have today to more accurately judge focus and rely on tape measuring"...we don't need anything else....just like we won't ever need more than 640K of RAM............. Aslo the RED is a Digital Cinema camera but you seem to forget that it was announced in forums like the DVX user and initially made it sound like it was a camera that will not only be design for 35mm cinema people but also for other kind of independent shooters. I don't see how it would hurt anyone who just wants to use a $5 tape to have also have more tools for focusing as well. If the technology is available (and it is!!) to help focus more accurately without the constant need of that "great Focus puller" then there is no reason not to have it implemented on the RED. Other lower end cams do it, it's only fair to expect the RED One to have similar or better focusing tools!

It's not "crap" its simply how its done in the big leagues. Viper, genesis, d20, F23 all don't have the gimmicky focus devices that come on the prosumer, barely "pro" camera's. If you made a it to a major league baseball team you probably would not want to show up with your little league glove. The red camera is a big step up and as silly as some people may think a tape measure is it is by FAR the best tool for focusing and an industry standard for a reason. Those that are fighting against it tend to show a lack of experience. Learn to step up the ladder to a higher level or buy a prosumer camera with the gimmicky crap and stay at that level.

 

[Barry Green]

Did I make any mistake anywhere?

Obviously testing is warranted, but it's my understanding that the Rec709 accounts for that; it would move its "crush" and "clip" points down 1.67 stops. Right?

By setting a lower ISO, you're basically giving away dynamic range on the top end. By setting a higher ISO you're giving away dynamic range on the bottom.

 

[Axel Mertes]

I used the zebras in that manner to basically alert me whenever anything is getting near clipping, in an attempt to "expose to the right". The intention is to know when anything exceeds the 105 level, but the current implementation doesn't give you the option of setting up for "anything above 105", for example, because anything above 108 won't show. It makes it a little odd to roll exposure through the zebras because if you had a chunk of white that was overexposed, you'll only see the zebras on the rim of it, not on the big surface of it. As you iris up or down, that band of zebras will move across the white surface. Just seems like it should be possible to configure it to zebra out anything that's 105+.

I've seen the same and wondered if I or the camera was wrong here...

I can totally second that "bug report".

Axel