Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

there is no stupid question when we talk about the myghty EPIC

Carlos Dueñas said:
There is a possible way that the design can change to a reflex model, so we have an optical EVF ?? :Angel_anim:
Click to expand...

No...and why would you want one on a digital cinema camera?
 
That question has been answered here a lot of times - but you could always ask Arri if you like! ;)

An OVF option would be great, but frankly I think the cost of adding a high quality OVF and mechanical shutter assembly would make it untenable from Red's PoV (taking into account their pricing strategy), so don't hold your breath!

I've got high hopes for the 1080p bomb-EVF though, considering the quality of the current 720p version...

Dom.
 
Carlos Dueñas said:
optical will allways be better, and prices are allways a subjective thing, i believe...thanks for the answer
Click to expand...

I'd rather have an EVF with a 1:1 zoom function any day instead of a OVF. Plus with an EVF you see exactly what you are capturing.
 
Optical viewfinders have their strong points and their downsides, same as EVF's. I'm sure it will be possible to permanently put one on the Epic, there will be some limitations, especially if you decide to use a pellicle. You should expect it to add $15,000 to $25,000 to the cost of the camera. The question should not be can it be done ( yes ) or should Red do it ( no, and they won't ) but is it worth it to you ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Optical finders have higher resolution. In essentially every other way, they're unambiguously worse. You can't get overlay displays, you can't zoom to 100%, they don't tell you much of anything useful about how the sensor is registering exposure or color, they add weight, they have to be physically attached to the camera, they cost more, they require physical shutters which limit lens design options, prevent the use of large shutter angles, and introduce additional moving parts that can break....

Given that even with the resolution of an optical finder you're still not going to be able to focus 4K (5K, 6K) entirely by eye, I really don't see how all of those tradeoffs are justified.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Optical finders have higher resolution. In essentially every other way, they're unambiguously worse. You can't get overlay displays, you can't zoom to 100%, they don't tell you much of anything useful about how the sensor is registering exposure or color, they add weight, they have to be physically attached to the camera, they cost more, they require physical shutters which limit lens design options, prevent the use of large shutter angles, and introduce additional moving parts that can break....
Click to expand...

They also work regardless of whether the camera is powered up, they overscan regardless of framing format, and they don't tear or strobe when panning.

There are good and bad points about anything. Viewfinders, optical or electronic, are no exception. But regardless of how one feels about it, Reds will almost certainly never have optical viewfinders, so any point made about them here is moot.
 
An optical viewfinder is fabulous on a still camera where it is on the actual image plane showing you what you're actually capturing.

On a motion camera? Why bother? If I wanted a viewfinder that showed me radically different framing than the image i was capturing, I'd buy a $4 disposable camera.
 
If you've ever tried to critically focus a Nikon D3x, you might question if the resolution of an optical VF really is better. Indeed it may be, but in terms of ability to focus, Live View is usually a more accurate way to focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top