Build 15 & 16 news...

[Barry Green]

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.

Well, that's why I think staying at 320 is probably the right course. Changing the ISO is more of a "preview" of what your post-processed footage might look like, but it's not changing what you're recording in the here and now.

 

[Finner]

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...

I have stated for months that any still zoom, especially the 17-35 nikon are all terrible choices for a red.

 

[Joel Kaye]

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...

Finner's answer to that is just rent real lenses every time you shoot. Really guys - if you don't have a crew and own $100K in lenses you shouldn't buy RED. (I see what Finner's doing - he's trying to eliminate competition by raising FUD..... he's like The Penguin... he's always thinking, that guy)

Ya know where you end up if you follow that logic, don't you? You end up with RED shouldn't exist. Just shoot film with a real crew if you're serious about making movies. Think about it.

RED was saying "screw that - we're going to build a camera average guys can buy and go shoot and have it look like a movie". That's an untapped market. Any tool they can add to make life easier for that buyer is another 1000 cameras they are going to sell.

Feel free to print this post out and put it on your wall if you work at RED

 

[Dane Brehm]

I have seen increased noise under metered well lit tungsten lighting. It makes total sense because of the 5,000 kevlvin balanced sensor. Will build 15 or 16 decrease noise in tungsten lighting situations or do you recommend an 80a filter when using tungsten.

Thanks for the hardwork!

 

[Axel Mertes]

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...

Jeff, where is your problem ?

It has meters AND feed, so its all up to the "great focus puller" :bleh: .
Use the whitness marks, maybe that helps

A real world example from an Indy production...

Cheers,
Axel

 

[Dj Joofa]

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.

Right.

To me it appears that in this particular situation that we are discussing, once the signal starts clipping, Rec 709 display will show the clipping as you point out, however, the order of operations is reversed, i.e., the signals first clips on the sensor and then it shows up on the Rec 709 display, as opposed to the normal model of clipping on Rec 709 display first, and on the sensor later.

Which gives me the indication that setting the ISO less than 320 can be dangerous if metering is done on a value less than 320.

 

[Finner]

Finner's answer to that is just rent real lenses every time you shoot. Really guys - if you don't have a crew and own $100K in lenses you shouldn't buy RED. (I see what Finner's doing - he's trying to eliminate competition by raising FUD..... he's like The Penguin... he's always thinking, that guy)

Ya know where you end up if you follow that logic, don't you? You end up with RED shouldn't exist. Just shoot film with a real crew if you're serious about making movies. Think about it.

This is just stupid, not at all the case and not what I am saying. Low budget use of the red is totally possible but a few requirements are neededed. I will list them below.

1. At least one camera assistant is needed with this camera. Between ND changes, downloading / wrangling footage and keeping focus there is a ton going on and a camera assistant is a must. If you can not afford a camera assistant this camera is a bad choice.

2. Still Zoom lenses will be SHIT for the red. These are by far the worst choice you can make for lenses. Still zooms do not hold focus through the zoom so you can never hard mark them and if you were to decide to go a little tighter on take 2 you would have to remeasure and mark every focus point. I think still prime lenses will work fairly well if set up right with gears.

3. A full set of ND's/Matte Box and follow focus.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have stated for months that any still zoom, especially the 17-35 nikon are all terrible choices for a red.

I agree (especially in the case of this 17-35), but that isn't going to stop people from using them. Perhaps that wasn't the best example of why a 1:1 pixel zoom would be beneficial. To have 1:1 zoom for setting the back focus when changing mounts would be an ideal reason for it to exist.

 

[Finner]

To have 1:1 zoom for setting the back focus when changing mounts would be an ideal reason for it to exist.

I agree that would be a great use of it. It will be helpful for quick eye focus points as well but a tape measure will be way better in 99% of situations.

 

[Clint Johnson]

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.

Don't worry about Finner, they were filming over in Oxnard at "The Fabulous Ladies Night Club" and that "cougar" was a waitress from the local Dennie's... by the way, Sally asks why you never call?

And the whole "get a tape measure" argument works to get you to the ballpark. Measure out eight feet four inches and then move the focus to about a third of the way between the eight and the nine foot witness mark... unless you're using a Red lens, in which case you take a guess that the eight foot witness mark would be just off the top of the '7' and guess from there. Depending on your depth of focus, this will put your subject in the zone for something like 99% of the time. Looking at the monitor will likewise get you in the ballpark if you close down the lens a little since about every four pixels are averaged out to one on the display.

This tape measured ballpark has been good enough for the professional film industry and trying to get the the absolute precise plane of focus that is only available through a 1:1 view on the display... I'd really like it but the lack of it hasn't held back the professionals.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Finner

I am certain that in ten years tape won't be used anymore on "Big" shots, due to technical advancement in focus assist systems.
The sooner we start adressing this issue in an inteligent and elegant manner, the sooner we'll get there.
Red is right kind of company to bring such a leap forward to the industry, so let's make sure they don't stop halfway.

Let's move forward

Emmanuel

 

[Finner]

Good lenses have witness marks.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Good lenses have witness marks.

ohhh snap!

 

[Brent J. Craig]

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...

...Picture of Nikon lens...

I think I see your problem Jeff, that's a lens meant for a Nikon still camera! Those things focus themselves.

At the long end of that zoom, wide open at 8 feet, you have depth of field from 7'0 to 9'4 (assuming 35mm film as your final output). If you can guess within a 2 foot range, you are OK.

While I completely agree that better focusing tools are needed, examples using gear not meant for cinema production aren't totally relevant. No amount of digital magic is going to turn consumer gear into professional cine gear.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

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

Viper and Genesis have 4 times less resolution that a Red and a 16mm sized sensor! Focussing them is a joke.

D20 has an optical viewfinder with a magnifier!

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.

I think that in 15 years of focus pulling big budget commercials I have 'stepped up the ladder'. A tape measure is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be the only tool. There are situations too numerous to mention where tape measures are simply not practical. With an arsenal of other high-tech tools at our disposal, we can work better and faster AND make good movies, which is why we are all here isn't it?

Do you think a focus puller is someone's first call because they are handy with a tape measure or because they use all the tools at their disposal to be fast, accurate and efficient using the best technology available?

 

[Finner]

I think that in 15 years of focus pulling big budget commercials I have 'stepped up the ladder'. A tape measure is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be the only tool. There are situations too numerous to mention where tape measures are simply not practical. With an arsenal of other high-tech tools at our disposal, we can work better and faster AND make good movies, which is why we are all here isn't it?

Do you think a focus puller is someone's first call because they are handy with a tape measure or because they use all the tools at their disposal to be fast, accurate and efficient using the best technology available?

I moved up to Dp after 6 years of pulling focus on big budget commercials/features so I guess you have more experience with focus then I. Or possibly your just a slow learner?

 

[Axel Mertes]

I agree that would be a great use of it. It will be helpful for quick eye focus points as well but a tape measure will be way better in 99% of situations.

Well, what shall I say,

still no EVF
still no FOCUS HOOK

Imagine, how should my AC work at all...

I guess it can be fixed!

Axel

 

[Axel Mertes]

[..]While I completely agree that better focusing tools are needed, examples using gear not meant for cinema production aren't totally relevant. No amount of digital magic is going to turn consumer gear into professional cine gear.

Basically I agree here, but... There is a lot possible that you apparently not imagine. Be careful with such statements...

Axel

 

[Shawn Bannon]

Having a camera assistant even with advanced focus assist tools is essential. Sometimes with 35mm DOF you only have a few inches in focus.

Sure you can try to get the most bang for your buck but if you need a 12 ft ladder to do the job why buy an 11ft one just because its a quarter of the price?

With accessories, RED cameras are not inexpensive by any means. though saying all that I use to be a Camera Assistant and i'm confident operating and pulling focus on a certain amount of shots. but you're just kidding yourself if you think you can pull focus all by yourself on a complicated camera move with shallow depth of field. even if you had this elaborate focus assist which showed every pixel you'll need another person to pay attention to this laborious job.

 

[Adrian T.]

Back to the exposure problem:

RED (and especially Jim) told us many times that the proper way to work with the RED ONE is to expose to the right but not to clip.

So why are we supposed to do that with the current histogram/traffic light implementation? They depend on all kinds of preview settings (ISO, brightness, contrast) and don't represent what we really need to know to follow your advice. We might give away the high stops of the sensor for nothing. And these are the stops with the highest resolution.

So again, please give us RAW measurements!