Optical viewfinder option?

[Dan Hudgins]

Dual monitor option?

Dual monitor option?

I was wondering if in the new cameras there will be some way to get an option for dual monitor output so you can have two monitors for the viewfinder, one for full frame with overscan, and another for 1:1 zoom or larger 1:2 (2x) zoom, that way you can look at both without the time required to switch, and the director and crew can each look at the image mag that fits their tasks?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Is this harder with RED in 4k? Yes, but at iris levels of 5.6 to 11 large numbers of RED One shooters in those action movement genres have been using anticipatory eye focusing effectively for over 17 months now.
.

OK You stop down.

 

[Stephen Williams]

You ever tried to use an optical viewfinder in really low light? You can shoot fast film to get the shot... but what do you do when you can't see shit in the viewfinder? Just curious...

Jim

Hi Jim,

Just roll the camera, there is always something on the film!

Best

Stephen

 

[Steve Gibby]

OK You stop down.

There are a wide variety of genres and subject matter shot with RED One - and for many of them stopping down is the best choice. There's this mistaken notion among certain genres (and individuals) that all "real" cinematography is only done with wide open apertures and only involves narrative cinema genres. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who shoot a wide variety of genres shoot regularly in every aperture from wide open to way stopped down - and we know when to use each extreme, and every stop in between.

The above said, how about explaining what you meant by your "Ok You stop down" comment. Is it a sarcastic, elitist swipe at the genres of cinematography that necessarily stop down to shoot subject matter, or is it an acknowledgment that stopping down is the best choice to shoot certain subject matter?

 

[Tico Llaurador]

You ever tried to use an optical viewfinder in really low light? You can shoot fast film to get the shot... but what do you do when you can't see shit in the viewfinder? Just curious...

Jim

You know, Jim, with all due respect... you're using a really unfair example. An extreme situation, where pretty much no solution, be it optical, LCD or EVF, would really be ideal. I mean, not that any EVF or LCD would do much better anyway, but they would if you adjusted gain and such accordingly. So, in such a one in a long while case, a cinematographer would rely on the LCD or EVF to judge the shot, if that's the concept you're pushing. An extreme case, no matter how you look at it.

Still, all things being equal, there is *nothing* that beats looking through the taking lens. Perhaps not to operate the camera, like some people have suggested here, but just to be able to set up the shot in the first place. To me, that's GOLDEN.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion and, as usual, I'm bound to be wrong.

:whistling:

T

 

[John V]

Seems to me that this camera is being marketed more towards the film side and less the still side of things. Most still guys prefer to see what the lens sees, hence the slr vice the electronic viewfinder. Just one persons opinion.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Seems to me that this camera is being marketed more towards the film side and less the still side of things. Most still guys prefer to see what the lens sees, hence the slr vice the electronic viewfinder. Just one persons opinion.

I think this is because of lack of high resolution screens that would show 1:1 in real-time. DSLRs evolved from SLRs and therefore suffer from their legacy. I personally like focusing with 1:1 magnification and I would much rather see improvements around this solution rather than a different (optical) alternative. The idea of shooting with two LCDs: one for framing and one for focusing appeals to me greatly. I am not in favour of optical VF because of complexity, cost, inferior light performance and additional optical elements degrading the image and requiring cleaning and service.

 

[David Rasberry]

Based on previews of some of the new panel technologies coming online, we are only one or two generations and maybe two years from having EVF's that will provide superior resolution compared to a ground glass optical finder with dynamic range very close matching the sensor.
Personally I would much rather see what the sensor sees than what the lens sees. If its too dark to get a usable image on an EVF, its too dark to shoot.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I don't want a optical VF for many reasons but if I step back and look forward...

If the cameras:

turn on in under 5sec

Pull less power

Have VFs with bigger images

display 1080p

have a slightly faster read-reset time

I would never ever want for an optical VF

If I want to quickly look through a taking lens on a ground glass I use a directors VF... I can recomend

http://www.moviecamerasupport.com/

they are 'only' £1700 at the moment and allot less than the fictional Red option (provided by ??) (the are really nice configurable units from an ex-arri engineer)

Also unless the optical VF could be a traditional turning shutter affair I would be positively upset!

Stick in a beam splitters and lower the sensitivity of the camera... f**k off (no thanks)

sorry to ramble

Michael L

 

[David Wyatt]

If you've got an optical viewfinder you obviously lose all the handy exposure aids, histogram, traffic lights etc in the viewfinder (some dedicated operators obviously hate all this extra info in the viewfinder but some operating DPs/lighting cameramen find it handy to be able to monitor exposure in-shot. This is a real situation of horses-for-courses - I suppose if some people really demand optical viewfinders then Red should maybe look into it as an optional extra & slap a requisite hefty price tag on it - at the level Deakins works they'll be able to afford it :wink:

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

P+S Technik "offer" of OVF for RED1 was an option to have additional VF and you could even run both simultaneously to compare images.

This could be unique VF system that consists electronic view finder and optical view finder on one digital camera.

Then you would choose what you want and like with VF for any particular shot.

 

[JonathanF]

An EVF cannot give you such a intense realtionship between you, the camera operator, and the action happing in front of you like an optical VF does. I can remember very well when Arri introduced with their 535 and 435 the new viewfinder generation. They where brighter and a had a wider, more dimensional feel, great experience. You will never have that with an EVF.

Hans,

You could not have said it better. Having shot both I can say, I am reasonably comfortable both ways, but I do feel much more in touch with the subject and there is without question more immediacy with an OVF.

If you've got an optical viewfinder you obviously lose all the handy exposure aids, histogram, traffic lights etc in the viewfinder (some dedicated operators obviously hate all this extra info in the viewfinder but some operating DPs/lighting cameramen find it handy to be able to monitor exposure in-shot.

This is really not true at all. The technology exists to put this information directly over an optical image. This tech has been used in 35mm still cameras for some time (the Leica M cameras finder markings being one very low tech but relevant example of how this can be achieved). LCD technology and prisms are your friend.

With all that said, an OVF with digital HUD style information overlay would be the coolest thing in the world.

Do I get a free one for coming up with the idea?

Back to my gin & tonic...

:J

 

[Stephen Williams]

The above said, how about explaining what you meant by your "Ok You stop down" comment. Is it a sarcastic, elitist swipe at the genres of cinematography that necessarily stop down to shoot subject matter, or is it an acknowledgment that stopping down is the best choice to shoot certain subject matter?

Hi Steve,

I wrote "How do you pull focus when the camera and subject are moving? What you see on a monitor is too late, focus has to anticipate action"

I don't see how saying "OK You stop down" could be described as an elitist swipe.

Best,

Stephen

 

[DAVID McNAMARA]

just a matter of choice

just a matter of choice

As I said you could choose between EFV and OVF in that case and only on RED1.

No any other digital or analog camera system would have it.

OVF could be a variant to get more "classic style cinematographers" to jump in RED "train".

There are times I will operate a film camera with an small onboard and times I need to look at lighting and composition through the lens. I just want a choice.

 

[JonathanF]

"OK You stop down"

Yeah, what if 1.3 is part of the look the director's after for the shot? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you tell him you think you should just 'stop down to 11 so you can focus.'



:J

 

[Pekka Varis]

Hi! I am about to buy a new monitor cos I broke my old red one monitor 2 days ago
They sell me a new 7" lcd from official red for €700 + shipping.

I would also love to use this edge highlight feature on my new monitor as well. Do you know is this official 7’’ LCD for your RED ONE [FONT=&quot][/FONT]the only one supporting this feature, or do I find such a feature on alternative monitors too?

Pekka Varis

 

[Mark Toia]

I have to say, that after doing a Red movie, and then a week later doing a 10 day shoot on Panavison, I think I like the Red finder better. I was on the other side of the fence until I spent some time looking through the Red finder. If you are thinking it's going to be like a varicam or F900 finder, then yeah optical is better.

Cheers,

Nick

Ditto