Can you pull your own focus?

[Steve Gibby]

LOL - it's not a case of "Can it be done". Single operator sight focusing has been done for eight months now with RED ONE by multiple owners and users, and is continually being done with RED ONE in certain genres and crew compositions. The more appropriate thread title question would be "Are your skill sets and attitude broad enough to maximize what the technology of RED ONE enables, including pulling your own focus?"

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

LOL - it's not a case of "Can it be done". It has been done for eight months now with RED ONE by multiple owners and users, and is continually being done with RED ONE in certain genres and crew compositions. The more appropriate thread title question would be "Are your skill sets and attitude broad enough to maximize the technology of RED ONE, including pulling your own focus?"

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

 

[Steve Gibby]

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

Thank you for the kind words...

I'm very mobile right now, and just accessed the Internet briefly in transit. I will be remote for a few days, but on Tuesday when I get back to civilization I'll make a point of posting here my take on the questions you asked.

Cheers!

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Mea Culpa

Mea Culpa

Your “HDV PHD camera (Push Here Dummy)” comment, goes way beyond opinion, and is clearly an attempt to slander and belittle members here who come from a TV/video background – something that Jared has specifically mentioned as wouldn’t be tolerated here on RED User. Frankly I’m surprised Jared or the mods haven’t censured that particular comment.

Steve,

That's a good point. I came up through the ranks of the "film only" crowd, although I did work with some good DP's that worked well with both film and video (before there was HD). I am well aware of the "film snob" attitude, and also of the anti-film bias that a some people in the "video world" had as a reaction to the film snobs.

I didn't mean to slander and belittle anyone here. Obviously that was a bad choice of words to convey the idea that I wanted to communicate. And it seems my P.H.D. joke bombed too... So I apologize to anyone that was offended by that.

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera. I was told that during the early days of this forum some confused members had asked about the RED One (before any cameras shipped) "How is the autofocus going to work?" People are shooting with this camera because they want quality they can't get from broadcast style cameras. If the attitude prevails that you don't need a focus puller (for cine-style quality), obviously producers will want to eliminate the crew position.

I'm going to have to put this all to the practical test. I will be working on a feature using a RED One starting tomorrow. I will be in charge of focus for A-Camera unless I am operating B-Cam. Focusing by sight using the monitor is analogous to using the viewfinder for eye focus on a film camera. Back in my 1st AC days I always used eye focus and considered it more accurate. I was never one of the "tape only" guys.

I also plan to use the focus assist, although having tested it during prep on Saturday, I'm not sure how useful it's going to be with normal subjects. With high contrast test targets it seemed to help.

I should have remembered when writing that post that it's harder to eye focus a film camera when it's running (especially 16mm). The viewfinder brightness is reduced by 50%, there is flicker, and some degree of mirror "tumble". This may be another reason that eye focus will be more useful on RED than on a film camera.

I still think that to get feature quality results with RED One you're going to want to have an AC. I'm not saying that to save my job, since I had considered myself retired as an AC since 2003, and I'm sort of coming out of retirement in terms of focus pulling to do this job. I had thought that I would never want to AC again. That's how enthusiastic I am to work with the RED One. That's also how much I want to avoid becoming a dinosaur.

Ironically the title of the feature I will be working on is "Mea Culpa". Poetic justice?

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

Jason,

You use a Circle of Confusion to calculate depth of field limits. Normal for 35mm film (as per ASC manual) is .001 inch .025 mm, and for 16mm .0006 inch .015 mm.

Using a .006 mm CoC would be incredibly restrictive, but everything within that DoF window would be 4K res. I'm going to think about this some more and experiment on the set. I think .01 mm might be practical for RED. I can't see it going past .015 mm. The higher the ultimate resolution of the imaging system, the shallower the depth of field.

 

[Häakon]

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera.

That's how I interpreted it.

 

[chuck colburn]

Jason,

You use a Circle of Confusion to calculate depth of field limits. Normal for 35mm film (as per ASC manual) is .001 inch .025 mm, and for 16mm .0006 inch .015 mm.

Using a .006 mm CoC would be incredibly restrictive, but everything within that DoF window would be 4K res. I'm going to think about this some more and experiment on the set. I think .01 mm might be practical for RED. I can't see it going past .015 mm. The higher the ultimate resolution of the imaging system, the shallower the depth of field.

I agree. .006mm is pointless as the camera flange depth would vari more than that just by warming up.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you shoot closer than 4' away on a 50mm lens at f/2.8, a close-up basically, you have 2" of depth of field, or less. Certainly you can eye-focus such a shot but once everything starts moving -- the actor and the camera -- staying in sync with the focus is very difficult. For material that will only be shown on a 36" TV screen, you have some leeway compared to something to be shown on a 75' wide screen... but there are also philosophical differences regarding the nature of following focus in a documentary or reality show versus a narrative feature. Documentary footage tends to be reactive, so the viewer is not necessarily bothered by seeing the focus or the movement be a split-second late because you aren't trying to hide the fact that the scene is being shot by a camera crew -- but in most narrative projects, you are attempting some degree of invisibility of technique and want the focus to anticipate movement, not just react to it. That's very hard to do and do it well. I work with some decent professional focus-pullers on features and still there is a certain percentage of soft shots that sometimes make it into the final cut. If you have two inches of depth of field and the actor is moving and the camera is hand-held, you can quickly move out of focus, out of that two-inch range, often faster than the focus-puller can react.

I once did a feature with an experienced director who came out of documentary shooting and wanted to do his own operating and focus-pulling on an F900 HD camera, so I just did the lighting and watched the takes on an HD monitor and he was shocked when I told him how often he was out of focus. He said "but I shoot betacam all the time and don't have these focus problems!" "No, you had the same focus problems -- but now you can see them on an HD monitor..." Just to check, he once asked me to call out every time the focus was off during a rehearsal take, and I was constantly saying "soft... soft... soft... soft... " But you have to remember that my background was shooting for theatrical projection, so I was being quite critical about the focus, knowing what it would look like on a big screen.

Even Jannard has publically warned people here on this site about the need to be in sharp focus when shooting in 4K.

So certainly, you can treat a feature shoot like a documentary or ENG/EFP reality production and shoot it in that style and get that style of "reactive" focus while you also attempt to frame the shot, follow the action, etc. -- and it would be acceptable if you had decent skills at that. Some features have scenes shot that way, even on conventional movies. I've done many films where I have climbed into a car seat with a handheld 35mm or HD camera and shot an actor driving around town, with just me focusing by eye, or chased after an actor in an action scene outdoors and just grabbing the wheel or focus ring and eyeballing the focus, knowing that the depth of field would cover some mistakes.

But if you have very low skills in pulling your own focus, or if you want to shoot in a more classical narrative style with actors hitting (or not hitting) marks that have been tape-measured and double-checked by eye-focusing, while the camera moves on a dolly and actors move into tight shots and then away from the lens (especially a long lens at a wide f/stop)... I'd suggest separating the operating from the focus-pulling so the operator can concentrate on operating while someone else concentrates on the focus-pulling.

I've shot over thirty features and there is one thing I can tell you: focusing 35mm is hard work and not to be taken lightly. And even when you and your crew work their collective asses off trying to get good focus, there is still a certain percentage of mistakes. So I don't care how some of you plan on handling that problem, whether you want to learn to pull your own focus or not, just take the problem seriously. The RED camera isn't a DV camera with 5 extra stops of depth of field and auto-focusing to help you out. And filming actors moving around in close-up for an image to go on a giant theater screen is not the same thing as shooting still life objects or wide shots of mountains, or test charts. (And I see occasional focusing mistakes on some of the RED footage posted here on this site, just shooting a test of someone sitting in a chair or moving the camera through a room...)

This isn't a RED versus 35mm issue, because they both have similar depth of field issues. You can follow your own focus on any camera, even an IMAX one, if you are careful and train yourself, so I don't want people saying that I said that you couldn't pull your own focus on the RED... Just be honest to yourself about the challenges and don't soft-pedal the problem because you hoping to save money by not hiring a trained focus-puller. Someone has to be good at it, whether it is yourself or someone you hire.

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Thank you for the kind words...

I'm very mobile right now, and just accessed the Internet briefly in transit. I will be remote for a few days, but on Tuesday when I get back to civilization I'll make a point of posting here my take on the questions you asked.

Cheers!

Thanks Gibby. Looking forward to your post.

. So I don't care how some of you plan on handling that problem, whether you want to learn to pull your own focus or not, just take the problem seriously. The RED camera isn't a DV camera with 5 extra stops of depth of field and auto-focusing to help you out. And filming actors moving around in close-up for an image to go on a giant theater screen is not the same thing as shooting still life objects or wide shots of mountains, or test charts. (And I see occasional focusing mistakes on some of the RED footage posted here on this site, just shooting a test of someone sitting in a chair or moving the camera through a room...)

This isn't a RED versus 35mm issue, because they both have similar depth of field issues. You can follow your own focus on any camera, even an IMAX one, if you are careful and train yourself, so I don't want people saying that I said that you couldn't pull your own focus on the RED... Just be honest to yourself about the challenges and don't soft-pedal the problem because you hoping to save money by not hiring a trained focus-puller. Someone has to be good at it, whether it is yourself or someone you hire.

Thanks for your comprehensive notes David.

 

[Harry Clark]

Well said, David.
Again, not a knock on the doc or EFP people (sometimes that includes me!), but narrative filmmaking normally informs a very polished and invisible camera technique. You can't expect traditional-looking results while pulling your own focus. Yes, some guys (Gibby?) are likely very good at anticipating motion and keeping things focused and framed, but, I think 9 times out of 10 you would be foolish to try to shoot a movie, commercial, or other narrative piece without an AC. And don't count on having T.4... many times you'll be shooting closer to a T.2 on interiors, unless you want to really burn up the actors. We can use 500-speed film on tungsten interiors, but our Red cameras are 320, plus I now believe that you really need at least an 80D filter for tungsten, so that's now 200 ASA. And anamorphic, it people start using Red this way, will make it even more critical at a given stop.
Now, if you were doing a more kinetic or "found" style, such as in "L'Enfant" or "Nil By Mouth" or "Bourne", then the reactive/anticipatory style of focusing might be appropriate, but then that's a conscious choice.
Also missing in this discussion is the role of the operator. The polished style of narrative filmmaking requires VERY precise framing, even when shooting in the "found" style. Operators are very busy while the camera is rolling. Just because you COULD operate and pull focus reasonably well is not a good reason to do it it you're seeking traditional, good craftsmanship.
But each situation is different, so I'll say it again: It's a sticky question.
And as David has said time and time again (regarding many things Red) the proof is not on a 36" HD monitor. It's when your movie is projected 4 stories high that you see the small differences in resolution, lensing, camera motion, and yes, focus.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Ivan Cortazar]

How much easier do you guys think it will be to pull focus with the new 7 inches LCD compare to the 5.6? I was thinking more on the documentary style, because I guess that on the more controlled situations with marks and/or using the 2:1 or maybe in the future the 1:1 focus aid, maybe there won't be much difference in focus using 5.6 vs 7. I assume the 7 will be heavier and bulkier, so maybe for documentary the size might have a negative impact.

My background is mainly 16mm and 35 mm SRL still photo, so I am not so sure how much better results you can get with a 1.6 inches bigger LCD.

What do you guys think?

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I agree. .006mm is pointless as the camera flange depth would vari more than that just by warming up.

Chuck,

You are right on the money! Al 6061 expands 13 µ inch per ºF per inch. So the two inch deep mount in Al will expand 0.00026 in with a 10º F temp change = 0.006 mm! Incidentally, that's about the depth of focus of a 9.5mm @ T1.3.

It seems to me that you can't get more resolution out of a lens than you can accurately focus it. In other words, if you want a minimum detail size of 6 micron = 4k, then you are going to have to control the focus with a precision of 6 microns.

I once set up my 16SR with my flange gages in an unheated room (it was 20º outside, probably 30-40 inside). When I got back to Miami it was off by .025 mm. But since it was set up at near the temperature we were shooting, everything was tack sharp (they transfered to HD).

More variables to worry about. And to think that in less than 24 hours I will be in charge of making this work...

 

[chuck colburn]

Yep,

Use to be a lot easier when a fast lens was f1.8 and a very wide was 18mm.
Just set the flange depth a couple of tenths shy and life was good. lol

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I'm on the shoot now. Results from the camera are impressive. Pulling focus with a Marshall monitor via SDI. Need to use "punch in" mode to be sure of focus. I'm writing this using my iPod so I'll keep it short.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Here's my thoughts on pulling focus by yourself:

Can it be done? Yes

Please note Maverick can also fly his F-14 without Goose. Most likely Maverick will end up in flames without him though.

Moral of the story if you get a good focus puller it is a good idea not to kill them like Tom Cruise did to goose.

Hmmm…glad you used an aviation analogy! Let me expand on that a bit:

Overlapping my early still photography work, I was an air traffic controller for the USAF for four years at multiple air bases, then after that an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for six years (multiple international airports). I quit the FAA in 1978 and launched my motion media career.

Yes, the U.S. Navy used a few two-seat fighters, like the F14, where the pilot flew the plane, and the “back seater” operated the detection systems (radar, etc.). The USAF also did that up into the 1970’s (F4, etc.) with some of its fighters.

But with the advancements in avionics and electronics from the late ‘70’s onward, the USAF has opted to have the pilot also operate the advanced electronics – thus there are very few “two seater” fighters now days.

How accurate are pilots at the dual responsibilities of flying the plane and simultaneously operating the electronics of the new version “single seat” fighters? Extremely efficient – even in the fast moving environment of air war. The F16 Falcon (USAF), introduced in the late ‘70’s, is a total “fly-by-wire” aircraft – no mechanical control of anything – but rather electronic control of the entire aircraft – by the single person aboard. The F22 Raptor (USAF), is the latest single seat, fly-by-wire fighter, and the most advanced fighter in the world. Again, the F22 has a single person aboard who flies the plane and simultaneously uses the advanced avionics and electronics. Alphanumeric and electronic displays in both the F16 and F22 are “heads up” displays, where data is presented in real time to the pilot as characters on a clear shield across the canopy – that way he/she can fly the plane and operate the electronics without having to look away from the action.

Links:

F16 Falcon (USAF)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103

F22 Raptor (USAF)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

So…there’s an analogy and some parallels in all this:

The advances in the capabilities of electronics enabled a different way of operating a fighter – a single person doing everything. Advances in the capabilities of electronics have also enabled a different way of operating a digital cinema/EFP camera (RED ONE) – a single person doing everything, when the mission (production) determines it can be done effectively. If not, then in those instances, we still have the option of “flying” RED ONE as a “two-seater”, using an operator and an AC. RED ONE can be a single-seat or two-seat aircraft depending on the needs of the mission – the best of both worlds.

Postscript on the F14:

There are still a few F14’s flying, but the U.S. Navy has long ago phased in the F/A-18 Hornet as a replacement. There are multiple models of F/A-18 now used by the U.S. Navy: F/A-18 A/B (single seat), F/A-18 C (single seat) and D (dual seat), and F/A-18 E (single seat) and F (dual seat). All models are fly-by-wire, using advanced avionics and electronics – unlike the F14. The dual seat models were/are specifically made for certain bombing runs and reconnaissance, but the single seaters are very capable of all-around performance.

F/A-18
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm



----------------------------


Maverick and Goose were fictional characters in a feature movie. F14s are outdated technology, but some of them still fly, and their crews of two still get good performance from the F14. But electronics have also enabled a new way of operating a fighter (F22, F16, F/A-18 (single) – by a single person doing everything.

Bottom line: There is a time for “two-seaters” and “single seaters” with fighters - and with RED ONE. Both configurations can be very effective. It depends on the mission…

 

[Steve Gibby]

This thread has been very helpful, especially those made by Gibby. Your comments have inspired me. At this stage, I haven't held a Red in my hand and I am relying on theory and experience of others to determine what can and can't be done on the Red. A short time after I take delivery of my camera this year, I will be shooting a micro budget feature. Some of the locations will require me, alone, to be most of the crew. i.e. I will be directing, shooting and pulling focus. (and catering etc etc)

I imagine after years of experience - framing, shooting and focussing are second nature to you. Could you elaborate, sequentially, on the steps you might follow, to do this all at the same time.

I have a little time today. PM me your email address and in the next few days I'll email you some suggestions for techniques of directing, shooting, and focusing which have been effective for me.

Cheers...

 

[Steve Gibby]

Steve,

That's a good point. I came up through the ranks of the "film only" crowd, although I did work with some good DP's that worked well with both film and video (before there was HD). I am well aware of the "film snob" attitude, and also of the anti-film bias that a some people in the "video world" had as a reaction to the film snobs.

I didn't mean to slander and belittle anyone here. Obviously that was a bad choice of words to convey the idea that I wanted to communicate. And it seems my P.H.D. joke bombed too... So I apologize to anyone that was offended by that.

My concern was that I thought people were getting the wrong idea thinking a 4K Digital Cinema camera could be used like a point-and-shoot DV camera. I was told that during the early days of this forum some confused members had asked about the RED One (before any cameras shipped) "How is the autofocus going to work?" People are shooting with this camera because they want quality they can't get from broadcast style cameras. If the attitude prevails that you don't need a focus puller (for cine-style quality), obviously producers will want to eliminate the crew position.

I'm going to have to put this all to the practical test. I will be working on a feature using a RED One starting tomorrow. I will be in charge of focus for A-Camera unless I am operating B-Cam. Focusing by sight using the monitor is analogous to using the viewfinder for eye focus on a film camera. Back in my 1st AC days I always used eye focus and considered it more accurate. I was never one of the "tape only" guys.

I also plan to use the focus assist, although having tested it during prep on Saturday, I'm not sure how useful it's going to be with normal subjects. With high contrast test targets it seemed to help.

I should have remembered when writing that post that it's harder to eye focus a film camera when it's running (especially 16mm). The viewfinder brightness is reduced by 50%, there is flicker, and some degree of mirror "tumble". This may be another reason that eye focus will be more useful on RED than on a film camera.

I still think that to get feature quality results with RED One you're going to want to have an AC. I'm not saying that to save my job, since I had considered myself retired as an AC since 2003, and I'm sort of coming out of retirement in terms of focus pulling to do this job. I had thought that I would never want to AC again. That's how enthusiastic I am to work with the RED One. That's also how much I want to avoid becoming a dinosaur.

Ironically the title of the feature I will be working on is "Mea Culpa". Poetic justice?

Thanks for that additional info. Oftentimes misunderstandings just need some more input. I understand you position much better now. Now that you've explained further, I think you raise some good points which we essentially agree on.

RED ONE is a "both ways" camera when it comes to focusing. Depending on the type and genre of production, style crew and equipment used, and DOF requirements, and whether the end result is destined for the big screen or small screen, RED ONE can be sight focused or traditionally focused. I use both methods, but whenever I can get away with it, I sight focus.

A suggestion when sight focusing RED ONE: I use the RED EVF in black and white mode. Throughout my career, when using an EVF on a higher-end EFP camera, it has always been in B&W. I find it easier to see contrast and subtleties of focus. The tandem of B&W, 2x image magnification, and false color, is quite effective when sight focusing RED ONE. I use both the RED EVF and RED LCD. I've also sight focused a lot with the RED LCD - at apertures from f4 to f16. The RED EVF is higher resolution (1280x848 vs 1024x600), has a very effective diopter, and is easier to sight focus RED ONE with than the RED LCD. But as I mentioned, especially from mid-apertures down to f16 the RED LCD can be used effectively.

Good luck with your production...have fun with RED ONE. I've really enjoyed my eight months using my RED ONE cameras...

 

[Steve Gibby]

Dave Mullen,

If you read and analyze my posts on this thread you'll find that we are essentially in agreement on most points. Far be it from me to minimize the challenges in working in the S35mm format - my approach is to explain that sight focusing can and is being done with RED ONE, what genres and workflows it is being done in, and answer questions about how it is being done.

That said, RED ONE can be shot in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and as we know each format has its own nuances and approach to shooting style and equipment. Then we add in the wide array of genres and sub-genres of production RED ONE has and is being used in, and wisdom dictates standing back before each production (or portion thereof) and asking ourselves: "What is the most effective (and cost-effective) way to generate the images I need?" DOF needs will naturally vary, and the end use of the footage will vary from the big screen down to the small screen.

Beyond working as a DP/cinematographer/videographer, I also produce and direct widely. As such, budgets must be met, thus questions like the one I wrote above are critical.

You do a lot of narrative cinema, commercials, and some TV. I do a lot of TV, some commercials, and some features, but not narrative cinema. That said, having been in on the ground floor of the development of the RED ONE camera, and working in a wide variety of genres, I make no qualms about maximizing the genre potential of the camera. Its also about revenue generation. If used to its widest potential of genres, the camera simply generates more revenue.

Yes, Jim Jannard has warned many times about the challenges focusing RED ONE in 4k. I've known Jim for a long time. He's an ace photographer, cinematographer, designer, and artist. If you go back and read Jim's posts about focusing RED ONE, they are specifically referencing shallow DOF situations - like are common in narrative cinema. But as Jim undoubtedly knows, shallow DOF and narrative cinema are but a small segment of the overall motion media production quotient worldwide each year - and a commensurately sized percentage of the practical usage of RED ONE in the production world.

Does Jim sight focus RED ONE, using the RED EVF and RED LCD when operating by himself? Yes he does. Examples: the excellent footage he posted here on RED User a few months ago of an eagle, and a plane landing. He shot those sequences by himself, sight focusing, using the RED 300 tele (eagle) and RED 50-150 zoom (plane). Would he use an AC if he was shooting a shallow DOF feature? IMO - yes. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the founder of RED voted in the middle category on the poll at the beginning of this thread. He practices what he preaches - and he knows his camera system.

I'm currently an Executive Producer, Director, DP, and cinematographer (yes all four positions) for multiple international and national HDTV programs (2008-09 release) and two feature movies (2009 general release). There are two other Executive Producers for these productions - both of which also direct and shoot. All of these productions are in the adventure travel and nature genres. We have large budgets, and in the case of the HDTV programs, they will be airing on a very high-profile cable network. Most of our shooting is hybrid cine/EFP style, with a significant amount of straight EFP style. Our crews are necessarily small and mobile. Our total field staff is under 15 individuals. We're shooting from helicopters, boats, underwater, and terrestrially, with a wide range of lens types (cine, 35mm still, B4) and focal lengths. Some examples of the lenses we're using: Arri 8R and RED 18-50 underwater, Canon FD 150-600 and RED 300 terrestrially, Fujinon B4 42x9.7 HD EFP/ENG zoom in our CineFlex gimbal system mounted on our boat and the helicopter. We're using the seven RED ONE cameras we own (mostly in 4k, but some 3k), and a sprinkling of dedicated EFP cameras in 1080p. Most shooting is at apertures between f4 and f16, although morning and evening, and creative b-roll is often shot wide open, or close to it. What we aren't using is ACs or focus pullers. Every single cinematographer or videographer working with us, including myself, are sight focusing 100% of the time. Are we getting a lot of footage with "buzzed" focus - even in 4k? Nope...but then again our shooters are highly experienced, and know how to sight focus with RED ONE and the 1080p cameras we're using. What we are definitely using are data wranglers - as you might expect.

BTW - we have our own editing facilities in California (Burbank and elsewhere), and out of state. The features and programs are being shot out of state.

I quote the above as prime examples of the broad utility of RED ONE and the resultant alternate crewing, equipment, and style of usage that RED ONE enables.

 

[Finner]

Bottom line: There is a time for “two-seaters” and “single seaters” with fighters - and with RED ONE. Both configurations can be very effective. It depends on the mission…

If the "mission" is a shoot with a T-stop of T16 or T22 (poorest capture quality of a lens) then sure, hit it solo hard. If the "mission" is T-2 to T-4 of anything more then a static shot and you are taking it on solo then a body bag is eminent.

 

[Steve Gibby]

If the "mission" is a shoot with a T-stop of T16 or T22 (poorest capture quality of a lens) then sure, hit it solo hard. If the "mission" is T-2 to T-4 of anything more then a static shot and you are taking it on solo then a body bag is eminent.

LOL - nope, the "mission" for sight focusing in 4k with RED ONE is usually between T5.6 and T11, with the medium to deep DOF so prevalent in a wide array of genres beyond narrative cinema. Shots are far from static, in fact tight-framed fast action following of people, objects, and animals with radar like accuracy, although wide-open static shots are also common for use in creative montages. It takes the ability and experience to constantly pan, tilt, compose on the fly, expose, and maintain framing, while racking focus - all by yourself. Many seasoned professionals have the talent and experience to do this in 4k with RED ONE, using the EVF or LCD, 2x image magnification, and false color.

The correct word is "imminent", not "eminent", and the only imminent need for body bags will be for the careers and bank accounts of those who feel they have all the answers, thus they refuse to learn new skills, and in the process program themselves for fiscal natural selection.

im·mi·nent
Pronunciation: \ˈi-mə-nənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminēre to project, threaten, from in- + -minēre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain)
Date: 1528
Meaning: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>