ENG does not belonge here

[Jeff Kilgroe]

While "ENG" is not a great fit for the RED cameras, they are excellent for many EFP tasks. I would say that half or better of what I shoot falls into the realm of EFP. As noahvolek pointed out earlier in this thread, these cameras are amazing for photojournalistic work -- EPIC absolutely shines here. The EPIC is awesome for many documentary style tasks.

The 2/3" fixed Scarlet held a lot of promise as an ENG tool... Alas, it's no more.

 

[Michael Brennan]

In my UK/Oz perspective, ENG can be regarded as a subtype of EFP.
Other subtypes for EFP are doc, docu drama, magazine, current affairs and reality.
So we could delete it from the heading but continue to include it and all the other subtypes in discussions.
Or you could add "docs" to the heading to spread the butter a little more evenly.


Again from UK/oz perspective the terms "Hardlined" and "Non hardlined" are esoteric.
In Uk/Oz the long established terms of "Outside broadcast" and "EFP" adequately describe the key points of difference between truck based productions and autonomous, mobile units.
However language is evolving, a producer asked me recently to shoot with "full focus"


Mike Brennan

 

[Michael Brennan]

I think Stuart and David are missing a point here. Of course you can use these cameras in a documentary situation (meaning smaller or nonexistent crews and non-cine lenses). But for the great majority of non-fiction cable-fodder that is being made, there is no reason to. If you have a personal project in which you can spend the time and the quality of the image is very important to you, then this is a great camera. If you are doing documentaries for theatrical release or high-end documentary specials, with significant budgets, where production quality and image quality is very important, then it is a great camera.

If you are a one man band in tough production circumstances, or if you are just grinding out footage for low-end productions on the cable systems for a low budget, then I don't see any advantage to a Red system and in fact I think in many cases it would be a burden.

With all due respect to David, he doesn't make non-fiction films. It seems to me that Red made an important decision when they created the Scarlet with the price-point and features that they did, a parting of the ways, if you will. This is a professional camera. If you want to shoot run and gun low budget films with it, God bless you, but there are easier and cheaper ways to do that. That's all I'm saying. And I agree that the EFP/ENG term is really dated and actually has no meaning any more. Hard news is showing up shot on iphones after all (perhaps not by choice but there it is) and the ability to shoot anything in the field electronically has been the situation for a long time.

I love Red cameras and we own two of them, but they require special treatment (and introduce limitations) fi you are going to use them on the cheap.

+1
There are exceptions but craft is less appreciated in docs these days. As with using number of setups a day in drama, "shot gathering" is the measure of efficiency in docs and a short zoom compared to a 2/3 inch with 11x and availability of a lightweight 22x are serious drawbacks to shot gathering. But I'd include the current Scarlet in the kit for narrow DoF interviews if production can cope with mixed formats.
Scarlet with 2/3 inch or 1 inch +3k sensor with 120fps, good audio, viewfinder, replay ect would have made a worthy doc camera, but now others are rolling out 120fps (Sony HDC 2500 does 12bit output and 120fps @720p) so no doubt it will be available for other cameras eventually.



mike brennan

 

[Jack Cooper]

RED 1 Was not the tool for this job... Cinema grade camera
EPIC is a way off... Cinema grade camera
SCARLET ( EPIC s ) ... Cinema grade camera

RED stated that they are a cinema grade company...

So, what do you think ?

Bruno.

In pondering your question, I thought "what would we be taking away...?" The spirit of this board has always been "inclusion" as opposed to "exclusion". As such, I have learned alot about various topics from Gibby's experience and his willingness to share with the community.

Had your point-of-view been previously executed, myself, and possibly many others, would not have this wisdom.

Semantics of acronyms aside, one of the only reasons I come to this forum is to learn from the experience of others, literally around the world.

As such, as long as topics are fairly well organized, I support even a greater range of coverage areas. For one, our firm shoots HD AND RED, even though the networks barely require an HDV post-production format for our shows. Thanks to Gibby and the other 1000s of posters who give to the community. We value this exchange.

 

[Freya]

Steve Gibby has eloquently expressed the place of Red cameras in the ENG/EFP market, and there is a place for such a camera, and even more so with the DSCM concept. Sure, I don't see the nightly news shooting on a 4K RAW camera, but other than that, there is a WIDE variety of projects that fall under the ENG/EFP and documentary label that can use a higher-quality image and 35mm optics and don't need to turnaround an HD image immediately for delivery, nor stream live HD for hours straight. A "Planet Earth" type series is an obvious example. And many ENG/EFP projects have a mix of material in them, from talking heads to landscape shots or beautiful product shots.

Wow, my mouth fell open with severe cultural shock!

Here in the UK we would never consider documentaries like Planet Earth to be anything like ENG!
It's a massively seperate thing!

We have news, which is very different to documentary which is again considered very different to Reality TV.
These are all considered totally apart.

Live/Event broadcasting would be the one considered to closest fit into the ENG area.

To refer to David Attenborough in the same breath as ENG type stuff, especially to throw it in with the news, would be considered massively insulting and kinda disrespectful. I'm personally not bothered by it myself beyond the shock of it! However I'd never say something like that as it would be considered quite rude!

Stuff like planet earth is held in VERY high esteem! Reality TV quite the opposite although even that would be thought of apart from ENG.

I couldn't believe at first that you meant the same planet earth but then reading the thread more I realised you must do!
It would be a hugely contentius idea over here!

The BBC specs have all sorts of exclusions for stuff like varicams because the nature teams felt they needed them. Thats the kind of weight they carry. Even high end drama doesn't get that kind of deferance.

love

Freya

 

[Freya]

I think we should rename this section "documentary". It could then be a place to discuss both the technical and practical aspects of all types of field production where you carry your kit.

er Yeah! I know what you mean!!!

Wow!

love

Freya

 

[Steve Gibby]

Freya,

I'm sure you simply misunderstood David's comments. ENG (electronic news gathering) was not what he was lumping Planet Earth into. His reference to "EFP and documentary" just before he mentioned Planet Earth is the obvious category he placed the series in - and rightly so, because Planet Earth was shot in a mobile EFP style, using primarily EFP camera systems, and was a natural world documentary - mobile EFP (electronic field production) is exactly what was done on Planet Earth. I assure you Dave knows perfectly the difference between ENG and EFP, and also knows (like he expressed) that Red cameras have been, and will continue to be used widely for EFP work.

But all EFP work is not shot in a documentary style. Tons of non-documentary productions using EFP equipment (with no MB or FF), and shot using traditional EFP techniques (eye focus, zebras, etc.) are shot worldwide each year.

On this thread myself, Dave Mullen, Stuart English, David Batistella, Jeff Kilgroe, and others have emphasized that Red cameras are not well suited for ENG (electronic news gathering), but depending on how they're accessorized, and the skills of the operator Red cameras can make very good mobile EFP (electronic field production) cameras.

Some in this industry are fond of characterizing all mobile EFP work as being low production values and shot in a hurry like ENG (news). Simply put, that's a crock of crap perpetuated by elitist attitudes among portions of the motion media industry. I assure you almost all of my ASC friends like David Mullen, Peter Collister, etc. have deep respect for professional EFP shooters - and the feeling is mutual in return. We all need to give respect, and expect respect in return - its a two way street.

IMO most of the same guys who want to criticize EFP work somehow think they're a better camera person based on the niches or styles of the motion media industry they work in. Its usually not the true professionals, but rather the mid-level pseudo-pros with a chip on their shoulder - and their wannabe/sycophant/newbie followers who feel they need to impress the biased veterans they work with by adopting the same myopic view of the motion media industry.

The terms ENG and EFP are not synonymous and they will always be with us in this industry - just as the word "film" and "filming" will always be with us. How many people do you see daily here on Red User who say they "filmed" or are going to "film" something? Lots. Where do you put the film into a Red camera? Ah...nowhere because in technology Red cameras are most like a DSLR, next most like an EFP camera, and only faintly like a film camera. That said, I think I'll go out today and "film" something in "mobile hybrid EFP style" )

So why get all hung up on a quest to somehow do some revisionist history on the motion media industry and expunge the legacy, contributions, and term of EFP? Let's all quit quibbling over semantic terms, check our egos at the door, give each other respect, and simply go out and shoot some good images!

This "EFP/ENG for Red" forum has been right here on Red User since 2006. The title of the forum was chosen by Jarred at the very beginning I would guess to give a place for those who are interested in discussing EFP (and yes some limited ENG) possibilities with Red One. I wrote the sticky (March 2007) at the top of this forum on EFP and ENG definitions to help others who are new to Red cameras, and also new to the EFP industry to understand the difference between EFP and ENG, and the difference between mobile EFP and studio EFP. Now after all these years of this forum being here, and all the informative posts by others and myself, its really ludicrous that a thread was just posted here titled "ENG does not belonge here"!

I think this thread shouldn't have been here in the first place, is divisive to the diverse Red User community, and should probably be closed at this point.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Oh - and next we are going to get rid of people under 5' 6", blondes, those with Restless Leg Syndrome, and anyone whose last name has fewer than 7 letters... just because. :sarcasm:

 

[Steve Gibby]

Imagine the nerve - those pesky EFP and ENG underlings just won't go away, so:


:emote_hanged: arty:

 

[Freya]

Steve, I think it is you misunderstanding me! I have never ever hear the term EFP used in the UK ever! The concept is in itself kind of alien. I have no problem with the term per se or the ideas, it's just that they are very, very alien over here, so it comes as a shock.

For example you say:

"Some are fond of characterizing all mobile EFP work as being low production values and shot in a hurry like ENG (news). Simply put, that's a crock of crap perpetuated by elitist attitudes among certain individuals and portions of the motion media industry."

That kind of idea doesn't exist over here. I can't explain it to you very easily because the things I'm saying to you are as alien as the stuff you are saying to me is!

I'll try and explain:

I've never heard the term EFP used.
ENG is not that commonly used a term either in some ways but it would never be discussed alongside the stuff you call EFP, ie there would not be any kind of catergory of EFP/ENG because they would never be considered together.

Natural History isn't even considered to be quite like other documentary formats. It is held in VERY high regard and considered over stuff like drama. So the idea that cinematic/drama people would look down on natural history, er no! You have to understand it is very high status, commands huge budgets and is prime time tv.

Natural History would never be considered along stuff like News and Sport. Completely different worlds. Same for event programming like concerts etc.

It's just a different way of looking at things and a big culture shock for me because I'd never even considered the possibility of a world where it might be different like you are describing. It's shaken me up because I realise it's one of those things that is there in our society and I'd never questioned till now.

I don't mind the idea so much, I'm not worried about offending David Attenbrorough (or I would call him Sir David Attenborough, he has been knighted by the queen don't you know!) but it's strange sometimes to realise how caught up you are in a certain way of thinking, and you don't even know it!

love

Freya

 

[Steve Gibby]

Freya,

Thanks for that added information - I understand you much better now. Yes, Red cameras are used around the world, and there are definitely different terms used in certain regions. I have a very high regard for natural history production! I've done a lot of it over the years, I still do a lot of it, and many years some of the categories I judge for the Emmy Awards are the natural history (wildlife/nature) categories. A few months ago I served as an invited judge for the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival - one of the world's premier natural history festivals. Red One has been an excellent natural history camera, Epic is even better for it, and I'm sure Scarlet X will be pretty good at it to - except when you need high frame rates, which is quite often in natural history shooting.

News and most sports programs are way different - in production values, quite often in camera setups, etc. When I judge the Sports Emmy Awards, a lot of the camera work and editing sequences are absolutely incredible. Hundreds of mobile EFP sports productions of alternative sports are done each year. The challenges and technology advances in sports shooting are incredible. Some of the sports documentaries I've seen are stunningly good. Studio sports production is chock full of challenges too - but its a different gig than mobile hybrid EFP sports production. I've done a ton of sports production over the years - both mobile and studio (truck remote).

Electronic field production (EFP) is a very descriptive term - its done using electronic motion cameras, its work out in the field (especially with mobile EFP), and its obviously production. Electronic news gathering (ENG) is exactly what the name implies. The two industries have historically shared similar technology and equipment, but the big difference comes in when camera techniques are analyzed. Modern mobile EFP shooters, especially with Red cameras, use a hybrid equipment mix - some from EFP industry, some from 35mm still industry, and then some techniques from the cine style industry. We only put on the camera what needs to be there to get the shots we're after - and camera techniques are honed down to just what we need to do to get the images we're after.

So what are some of the mobile hybrid EFP style genres of production, which may or may not be shot using documentary techniques? Alternative sports, adventure travel, mainstream travel, tourism, food, corporate, hospitality, cultures, wildlife, music, outdoor, nature, and many many more. I'd invite anyone who looks down on these genres of production to come on out into the field with a mobile EFP crew and experience the challenges overcome, technology maximization needed, advanced camera techniques frequently employed, and the overall difficulty involved.

This whole thread is symantic gymnastics - the misapplication and misunderstanding of technology and technique terms that have been around for decades - but I certainly understand the geographical challenges of the terms used in the overall motion media industry.

BTW - Sir David Attenborough has been one of my heroes for a long time

 

[Freya]

It's just different cultures! Heres more stuff! The Natural History Unit would never have had the opportunity to use the term EFP because they always used to shoot on film! The whole varicam thing is really new, and it was chosen because it was closest to the film based culture they had there till recently. They still shoot 35mm sometimes in fact but theres a big move away from Super16 at the BBC for various reasons.

Even more freaky when you talk of productions shooting without matte boxes and follow focus, well they used to shoot drama on video like that sometimes here in the UK! It's gone out of fashion more recently as drama productions are trying to be more cinematic.

I guess it's a bit like the whole thing of Americans shooting sports on film! People over here are a bit like wha...??? in relation to that.

Different cultures with different ideas about status!

 

[Freya]

BTW - Sir David Attenborough has been one of my heroes for a long time.

Ah yes he was great in that amazing natural history film "jurrasic park"!

(ouch, I've edited it now, I'm glad you know who I meant! ...and that's another thing about the UK...)

 

[Steve Gibby]

Since we're talking about the Emmy-winning series Planet Earth, here are the cameras used for that series:

Panasonic AJ-HDC27 Varicam was the primary camera used. That's an EFP camera
Sony HDW-750 HDCAM was the next most used camera used. That's a EFP camera
In the sequences shot in Antarctica, because of weather extremes and camera simplicity, 35mm and 16 mm film cameras were used
Bottom line: Approximately 90% of Planet Earth was shot using EFP cameras

I was originally scheduled to direct and shoot some sequences for National Geographic's "Great Migrations" series - but schedule conflicts kept me from it. Many friends and associates of mine worked on the series though. It just won an Emmy Award for cinematography - and it was shot almost exclusively with digital cinema and EFP camera systems. Great Migrations was thus shot with a mix of digital cinema and EFP cameras - both electronic and no film used.

The last National Geographic natural history documentary I worked on as an executive producer and EP ('Icy Killers") was shot using a Sony HDC 1500 cameras in a Cineflex (boat and helicopter), Sony f900 HDCAM for some land shots, Red One for some land shots and all underwater shots (except a few EX1 polecam shots). No film was used at all. The show was this shot with a mix of digital cinema and EFP cameras, with the largest percentage being EFP camera footage (HDC1500). I'm not at liberty to divulge the budget for Icy Killers, but suffice it to say it was a multi-million USD special.

In all the above natural history programs and series, do you think they were shooting remote with EFP camera systems with cine style accessories, techniques, and crews? No - they were almost invariably shooting mobile EFP style, with the cameraman doing his own focusing by eye, exposing via zebras and histograms, and having as little equipment on the cameras as they could get away with - frequently no matte box and no follow focus.

Is it just low budget indies who are shooting mobile EFP style? No. Take the case of "Planet Earth" and its accompanying feature film "Earth". As I remember the production budget for Planet Earth was around $32M USD, for Earth around $16M USD, and the combined gross revenue for both Planet Earth and Earth combined (all revenue sources) has been a staggering $422M USD

Shooting "cinematic" images doesn't necessarily require the older film style equipment and techniques. A matte box and follow focus don't automatically create cinematic images. If someone shooting mobile hybrid EFP uses traditional film-style camera techniques, knows how to use screw-on filters effectively, and is skilled at eye focusing the camera himself - guess what, the images are quite "cinematic". Obviously many other factors contribute to "cinematic" shots with a raw shooting camera - lighting, camera movement, composition, curves and color work in post, etc.

With cine & mobile EFP cameras systems now available like Red One, Epic, etc. its way past the time to set aside old pre-conceived notions of what constitutes a "good" camera when creating "films". The largest challenge with Epic is for the user to have broad enough skill sets and an open enough mind to fully maximize what the camera is capable of.

 

[George Butterfield]

RED 1 Was not the tool for this job... Cinema grade camera
EPIC is a way off... Cinema grade camera
SCARLET ( EPIC s ) ... Cinema grade camera

RED stated that they are a cinema grade company...

So, what do you think ?

Yup, I use it only for long and short narratives etc. I even hope the don't hold back on motion capabilities to do R&D on still capabilities.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Been using R1 on multiple wildlife projects since 2007. Agreed it's not always the right tool. But chosen properly it's like building a house with nail guns vs hammer and nails.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Well said Johnny. BTW, in case forum members don't know, Johnny is a great in-water cameraman who owns and uses Epic and Red One. In fact he was one of the underwater cameramen who shot some amazing shot sequences for the Emmy-winning (for cinematography) Nat Geo "Great Migrations" series I mentioned above, and also shot some incredible underwater sequences for our Nat Geo "Icy Killers" special. I don't want to embarrass John because he's a humble guy, but IMO he's one of the best in the business - and he naturally goes with a "horses for courses" mentality when choosing camera equipment for each production.

BTW, John shoots really well out of the water too...

You owe me one for the pat on the back Johnny...but I'm quite serious in what I said

 

[David Battistella]

You know. I have skipped all these terms altogether and I just always say I am making a film.

I like the aesthetic that the term carries. I don't say its electronic or production. I don't need to classify it as TV, NEWS, DOCUMENTARY, SHORT, FICTION. I just use the term film universally as a standard for production values. Its fine to say EFP.

EFP happens with RED's around the world every day.

I just try to always bring the aesthetic of shooting a FILM to everything I do. Makes everyone happier.

Just a thought.

David

 

[Freya]

Since we're talking about the Emmy-winning series Planet Earth, here are the cameras used for that series:

Panasonic AJ-HDC27 Varicam was the primary camera used. That's an EFP camera
Sony HDW-750 HDCAM was the next most used camera used. That's a EFP camera
In the sequences shot in Antarctica, because of weather extremes and camera simplicity, 35mm and 16 mm film cameras were used
Bottom line: Approximately 90% of Planet Earth was shot using EFP cameras

Wow I had thought that Planet Earth was nearly all video! Are you sure that there were 16mm cameras used? I know the BBC mandated HD and 35mm film only and were really funny about the varicam and they had to have special dispensation. Perhaps the 16mm came in under the amount of footage they were allowed to have on lower formats? I've also heard it said that all of the land based stuff was shot on varicam, but I'm not sure what they mean by land based, maybe Antartica doesn't count?

It's cool that they still got a little bit of film in there. I quite like productions that mix it up a bit!

The kind of cameras you call EFP are more the kind of thing we would traditionally use for lower end drama etc over here, so it's quite a revolution having these cameras with a more cinematic look in that context. For Natural History, it always had that kind of cinematic look so it's less of a shift.

There doesn't appear to be quite such a history of these cameras are for this and these cameras are for that over here, beyond the idea that you might have studio cameras and portable cameras and the line between those has been becoming blurred for a long time.

In fact, over in singapore I know that the varicam was considered the go to camera for digital cinema stuff until recently! For a long time over here in the UK, virtually EVERYTHING was shot on digibeta unless it was considered very special and often, not with large crews or anything either.

love

Freya

 

[Bruno Solaja]

Bruno.

In pondering your question, I thought "what would we be taking away...?" The spirit of this board has always been "inclusion" as opposed to "exclusion". As such, I have learned alot about various topics from Gibby's experience and his willingness to share with the community.

Had your point-of-view been previously executed, myself, and possibly many others, would not have this wisdom.

Semantics of acronyms aside, one of the only reasons I come to this forum is to learn from the experience of others, literally around the world.

As such, as long as topics are fairly well organized, I support even a greater range of coverage areas. For one, our firm shoots HD AND RED, even though the networks barely require an HDV post-production format for our shows. Thanks to Gibby and the other 1000s of posters who give to the community. We value this exchange.

Jack, I did not wanted to actualy remove anything.

I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion about ENG place in industry and here.
First I apologize for my English and gramar,since I am from Croatia.

Maybe I could have named the thread differentialy and avoid miss understanding,sorry for that.
On the other hand,it seeams to me that it did provoke some constructive reaction and opinions.

When RED declared itselve as a Cinema grade company I was somehow shocked,
because I did not see it coming... But did it not stoped me thinking about it.

When my first betacam sp came, it was world wide acceptable format for news but also for
many more shooting styles including short films etc. Things change.

The format chaos started, and then came REDs "absolence absolite". It sounded wery promising...
Redcode and wawlet compression blow my mind with possibilytes and off course I hoped
that a sistems builded around that technology could be applicable in my line of work and be
competitive in other fields as well.

That hope did not die yet. Alas, It is up to RED to make bussines decisions and they did.
I respect that.

REDs vision and philosophy, this fast growing comunity of expirienced people , gave me a new pace
in my learning curve. It kept me nailed to a computer screen for a long time now.
For that, I am truly gratefull.

I wanted to keep a little pressure and keep a discusion alive about ENG as a potential market.
It would be a dream for many of my colleagues to be able to have a camera sistem capable to do
intensive day to day news jobs and at the same time be able to use that same camera for more complex
needs.

Personaly, I have a huge respect for a every day news shooters around the globe. I know how it feels
and what it takes to be amonge the best (not that I think that I am one of them).
I also know that people who think that an Iphone is good enough for the job are way off the base.
Those people need a robust and reliable sistems that performe in all situations and enviroments.
Those same people are doing other things as well, like shooting a comercial video,industrial video, music videos
docu work,experimental films,shorts.....

If you are a freelance cameraman and have a need to own a camera that can fulfill up to date specs
for different lines of production, news included...what are your options today ?
How many of these people are there ? I belive many.

So, there is no "one camera to rule them all" but for a "moment" RED had potential to do something
quite close to it. At least in my imagination.

It was a nice thought

In a couple of days after a news job...we are going to shoot a short commercial for a same company on RED1
Renting and post production cost are qite high, not so easy to find a backup camera if something goes wrong.
Not knowing a camera to the last bit, can also be a drawback.

It would be nice to pop the button and be able to use a power of RAW when needed and at the same time be able
to shoot in a quick turnaround and deliver.

News on the other hand, has more and more became infotainment busines and has a need for varius styles
of shooting where you have more time for doing a report and more editing time. You could use high fp/s and hdrx mode
alot in these situations,low light performance is also important...but the main advantage would be that you do not need
to change sistem every two or three years.

Long story short, those things were on my mind and felt like sharing it here.

Best regards to all redusers...