Epic Closeups...

[David Mullen ASC]

There is no reason to make the optical viewfinder issue a big emotional debate, there are simply pros and cons to both optical and electronic viewfinders.

Traditionally on a film shoot, the operator looked through the actual taking lens and had the best opinion about whether the shot was in focus or not -- now with 35mm sensor digital cameras, no matter what electronic viewfinder I've used, the operator is a poorer judge of focus during a take than anyone else watching on a larger monitor.

That changes a lot of the dynamics on a set, as traditionally the operator and the focus puller discussed between them any focus problems, now it's the DP (me) telling both of them back from my monitor where they made mistakes. On the other hand, on a 24" HD monitor, I can catch mistakes in focus like never before, which is good. On the other hand, a lot of focus pullers get fired these days because now everyone can see their mistakes in real time.

Second, with an optical viewfinder, one can line-up a shot without the camera being turned on. So many times on digital shows, I've had the camera on in order to set-up and light the set, only to have the battery need to be swapped out during Take One.

There are lots of reasons why it's a good idea to be able to look through the actual lens.

Now there are a lot of good reasons to use electronic viewfinders, exposure information being the primary one. Optical viewfinders don't tell an operator whether they are exposing the shot properly. If you are shooting in charging light conditions, like while shooting on a moving car through landscapes of changing light levels, it's a lot easier to make quick guesses as to how to adjust the iris with an electronic viewfinder and guides like zebras and whatnot. Plus you have information available about shutter speed, color temp, battery level, etc. if you want.

So I wouldn't dismiss those who want an optical viewfinder out of hand if you don't have a lot of personal experience operating a movie camera with one, because it is a unique experience to see a scene through the optics of a lens with your own eyes, without the filter of an electronic image. But I also agree in general that digital cameras, for most people, are going to make more sense with an electronic viewfinder, especially for owner/operator/DP's who work on their own, rather than a traditional film set with separate operators, DP, focus-pullers, etc.

I mean, ask high-end DLSR users if they'd prefer that their cameras only have an LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.

 

[Jannard]

There is no reason to make the optical viewfinder issue a big emotional debate, there are simply pros and cons to both optical and electronic viewfinders.

Traditionally on a film shoot, the operator looked through the actual taking lens and had the best opinion about whether the shot was in focus or not -- now with 35mm sensor digital cameras, no matter what electronic viewfinder I've used, the operator is a poorer judge of focus during a take than anyone else watching on a larger monitor.

That changes a lot of the dynamics on a set, as traditionally the operator and the focus puller discussed between them any focus problems, now it's the DP (me) telling both of them back from my monitor where they made mistakes. On the other hand, on a 24" HD monitor, I can catch mistakes in focus like never before, which is good. On the other hand, a lot of focus pullers get fired these days because now everyone can see their mistakes in real time.

Second, with an optical viewfinder, one can line-up a shot without the camera being turned on. So many times on digital shows, I've had the camera on in order to set-up and light the set, only to have the battery need to be swapped out during Take One.

There are lots of reasons why it's a good idea to be able to look through the actual lens.

Now there are a lot of good reasons to use electronic viewfinders, exposure information being the primary one. Optical viewfinders don't tell an operator whether they are exposing the shot properly. If you are shooting in charging light conditions, like while shooting on a moving car through landscapes of changing light levels, it's a lot easier to make quick guesses as to how to adjust the iris with an electronic viewfinder and guides like zebras and whatnot. Plus you have information available about shutter speed, color temp, battery level, etc. if you want.

So I wouldn't dismiss those who want an optical viewfinder out of hand if you don't have a lot of personal experience operating a movie camera with one, because it is a unique experience to see a scene through the optics of a lens with your own eyes, without the filter of an electronic image. But I also agree in general that digital cameras, for most people, are going to make more sense with an electronic viewfinder, especially for owner/operator/DP's who work on their own, rather than a traditional film set with separate operators, DP, focus-pullers, etc.

I mean, ask high-end DLSR users if they'd prefer that their cameras only have an LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.

David... thoughtful as always. We are in development because there still seem to be customers that wish for an OVF. My main concern is if we really finish and offer this module, will we really sell any? We originally were going to offer a RAW port for the RED ONE for uncompressed output (even though we thought it was a bad idea). We got orders for 4 of them. Certainly not enough to justify the completion of the development. I am afraid of the same thing happening. People want it until the time they actually have to order one. At $20K for an OVF, will there actually be orders?

We are all ears on this one. The community will decide whether we finish and offer or abandon.

Jim

 

[Justin O'Neill]

I mean, ask high-end DLSR users if they'd prefer that their cameras only have an LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.

Yeah I had always thought OVFs were outdated until I bought nice a DSLR with a good OVF and suddenly I understood what people were talking about. There is something unique about looking through a high quality OVF. I still usually prefer an LCD or EVF for shooting video, but now I always use the OVF for stills.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Honestly, if Panavision decided that an OVF wasn't necessary for the Genesis, that should tell you something in regards to which is more necessary, an OVF or an EVF.

As I said, the better color EVF's get, the more the desire for an OVF will diminish. It's similar to the uncompressed vs. compressed issue -- the better compression gets, the less people care about the uncompressed option. The SRW1 HDCAM-SR deck compresses afterall yet no one seems to complain about that because it's so mild.

However, the desire by some for an OVF is very real, and there is obviously a production market out there that follows a traditional cine-style set-up using union crews, even if the other markets are larger. The feature filmmaking market may be smaller in size, but it's not necessarily smaller in money spent (not on cameras, but on production.)

And as you've noticed, one reason video companies like Canon and Sony get into the smaller cine market is for the prestige and marketing advantages that having big-time name filmmakers using their products gives them -- I'm sure it trickles down somewhat.

Obviously your primary concern has to be with a camera with better EVF's and better compression schemes, which will satisfy 90% of your customers. Whether or not to develop an OVF and uncompressed output option is mainly an issue of whether you can do afford do it considering the smaller number of people that want or need it. They are definitely desirable items for the high-end feature production market, but that's such a small market in terms of number of units sold that you may decide to just let ARRI and whatnot serve them. On the other hand, people may notice that small cameras like the SI-2K have an OVF option and wonder why RED can't do something similar.

 

[Raul Gonzo]

Perhaps the time has come to start taking deposits - just for the OVFs... If not enough deposits are received, abandon it.

 

[BradWright]

. At $20K for an OVF, will there actually be orders?

We are all ears on this one. The community will decide whether we finish and offer or abandon.

Jim

$20K is good price point. It forces people to decide how serious they are about the OVF. Getting people to commit money to a product is a whole lot better than making the decision through marketing research alone. $20k could be better spent for electronic monitoring at higher resolutions.

 

[Jonathon Laing]

I don't now. I mean, if you can get a whole camera for $1,700, why not a viewfinder? Then again, I don't know anything about what it takes to build something like this. Obviously the economies of scale are much different than a 7D. I was just trying to give some perspective.

Sometimes, if I spend like a couple grand on a lens, for example, I will stop and think to myself: "WTF. I could have bought a motorcycle for this price." Or gone to Africa for 5 weeks, or whatever.

Shit yeh man, My video card cost me more then my car. :lol:

 

[Jun-Dai]

At $20K for an OVF, will there actually be orders?

As long as you have a reasonable idea as to what it would cost to build the OVF (a big 'if', I suppose), isn't it just as simple as taking deposits (10%, 50%, whatever commitment level you need) until you have enough to indicate the commitment to at least cover the costs? Then putting a time limit on it wherein you'll refund the deposits should they fail to reach some threshold.

It also seems like OVF might be important to the success of the system for DSMC. I imagine filmmakers are much more comfortable with EVFs and off-camera monitoring than still photographers would be. If Canon took the OVF off the 1Ds, wouldn't that be enough reason for a lot of Canon photographers to switch to Nikon? And yet the current plans for Scarlet and Epic FF are aimed at a segment of the still market, and despite the range of non-OVF options that go along with them, I think the lack of an OVF would be a pretty big barrier to a lot of still photographers, particularly those that don't want a big monitor attached to their camera.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

As long as you have a reasonable idea as to what it would cost to build the OVF (a big 'if', I suppose), isn't it just as simple as taking deposits (10%, 50%, whatever commitment level you need) until you have enough to indicate the commitment to at least cover the costs? Then putting a time limit on it wherein you'll refund the deposits should they fail to reach some threshold.

It also seems like OVF might be important to the success of the system for DSMC. I imagine filmmakers are much more comfortable with EVFs and off-camera monitoring than still photographers would be. If Canon took the OVF off the 1Ds, wouldn't that be enough reason for a lot of Canon photographers to switch to Nikon? And yet the current plans for Scarlet and Epic FF are aimed at a segment of the still market, and despite the range of non-OVF options that go along with them, I think the lack of an OVF would be a pretty big barrier to a lot of still photographers, particularly those that don't want a big monitor attached to their camera.

So still photographers would pay 20 grand for an optical viewfinder?

I don't think so.

 

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

I couldn't care less about the optical viewfinder by itself. However, I am very interested in getting the option to rent a mechanical shutter (spinning mirror) from time to time, whenever I or the director, feel the need for totally getting rid of rolling shutter issues, like skew, wobble or partial exposures with very defined limit between what has been "partially" exposed and what wasn't!

My understanding is that, no matter how fast the rolling shutter might be, there will always be certain moments where I really wished I had a spinning mirror, just to get the EXACT same movement and/or partial exposition issues I'd get as if I was shooting film!

I personally recently experienced a situation where the RED-ONE was dismissed as a choice by the production of a full feature in favor of a D21, partially for that particular reason: absence of mechanical shutter on the RED-ONE! When you consider the gap in rental fees between a D21 and a RED-ONE, it is easy to realize you might very well have a reasonably sized market for renting "Spinning Mirror" modules for the EPIC.

And, for a reasonably sized rental company, 20.000$ is next to nothing, so long as the product is rented -- especially if they force their customers to rent a whole package to get access to that particular module! They'll just charge 300-400$/day for it. With that kind of fees, I'm pretty sure the overall market size for a "Spinning Mirror (+ OVF for whoever might find that useful)" module for the EPIC would easily get bigger than 200 Units, mainly bought by the top rental companies -- who need this kind of things to differentiate themselves from the prosumer Scarlet user who wish he could rent his camera a 100$/day or so! Furthermore, I'm 100% sure the availability of that kind of modules for the EPIC would increase the overall image and demand (and market) for RED in general, among rental houses in particular!

Some products aren't extremely profitable by themselves, but the simple fact they exists facilitates the awareness and image from the rest of the product range! The opposite is also quite true, I'm afraid: the non-existence of certain products for some cameras might in fact affect its sales by giving it a "lower end" sort of image! The question isn't simply: "can you afford to develop such a module?", but also "can you afford not to?"

 

[Michael Hastings]

It also seems like OVF might be important to the success of the system for DSMC. I imagine filmmakers are much more comfortable with EVFs and off-camera monitoring than still photographers would be. If Canon took the OVF off the 1Ds, wouldn't that be enough reason for a lot of Canon photographers to switch to Nikon? And yet the current plans for Scarlet and Epic FF are aimed at a segment of the still market, and despite the range of non-OVF options that go along with them, I think the lack of an OVF would be a pretty big barrier to a lot of still photographers, particularly those that don't want a big monitor attached to their camera.

So still photographers would pay 20 grand for an optical viewfinder?

I don't think so.

These are the reasons that the DSMC concept is probably NOT that viable for large numbers of photographers that do primarily stills. A 5d or 7D user doesn't give up anything to have a bonus video camera also. For stills, they still have their exact same setup: i.e. OVF/mirror system; 18 or 21 or whatever megapixel stills; uncompressed raw files; very high powered electronic flash that works on batteries or standard wall power; etc.

They lose the OVF for video but they have probably never operated a motion picture camera that wasn't EVF based - i.e. some form of video camera.

Yet to do a shoot on a DSMC Epic or Scarlet, or REDONE, particularly when extracting stills from the movie, you lose all of that: no OVF, lower MP, compressed files; requires high powered (daylight preferred) continuous lighting; etc.

Doing a studio magazine shoot or something similar with a REDONE/Epic is a very cool concept that has its place, but I think in the long run it will be the exception rather than the norm if the main interest is stills. There still is too much size difference - and more importantly the huge difference in the lenses, lighting, setup, and other production accoutrements that go along with a motion shoot - to make it a total game changer.

I think it is much more likely that 95% of epic owners (and even non-owner users like David Mullen) will have an $1800 Canon 7D or equivalent in their toolkit than that even 50% of pro still shooters will have a full fledged DSMC like a $3000 to $50000 Epic/Scarlet.

Again, nothing wrong with that - "horses for courses". I like the fact that Epic/Scarlet CAN do it all, but it doesn't mean it will be the BEST tool for the job.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Will the OVD (spinning mirror) have any impact on picture quality (read out time /motion blur...) ?

If yes, it will have a market (the D21 argument Emmanuel developped).

IMHO

Patrick

 

[Lee Saxon]

It also seems like OVF might be important to the success of the system for DSMC. I imagine filmmakers are much more comfortable with EVFs and off-camera monitoring than still photographers would be. If Canon took the OVF off the 1Ds, wouldn't that be enough reason for a lot of Canon photographers to switch to Nikon? And yet the current plans for Scarlet and Epic FF are aimed at a segment of the still market, and despite the range of non-OVF options that go along with them, I think the lack of an OVF would be a pretty big barrier to a lot of still photographers, particularly those that don't want a big monitor attached to their camera.

Yeah, even if you don't decide to go ahead with the $20k motion OVF, a stills-only one (hopefully costing much less) would I think still be a big draw for that market.

I for example am very anxious to buy a Scarlet for motion work but the lack of a real viewfinder (and yes, for still photographers, OVFs are 'real' viewfinders and EVFs, monitors, and even rangefinders are 'fake' viewfinders! sorry!) is one of the biggest reasons I will continue to also own a Nikon DSLR.

 

[Imran Farouk]

Lower MP maybe one thing but in the long run when the monstro sensors come out I think losing MP won't be an issue as I think 600+ MP is kinda crazy...

Overall though the EPIC/Scarlet systems are to fullfill both markets, thats what is said, it doesn't do one thing good and the other brilliant its suppose to go all out, guns blazing...if that is true in reality is something that'll need to be tested but both are coming out RAW (or a compression suited to deliver RAW, R3DCode).

Though I think everyone could argue that theres no such thing as 'the best tool for the job on every job'. There is however, the most likely tool and of course the potential for RED to push to be that tool on every job, only time will tell though...

Right now, prep your wallets, give out your ideas on the EPIC/Scarlet system...
Never know whats around the corner after they've OK'd the ASIC

 

[Quentin Brown]

Correct Häakon. This was more about Scarlet. I' didn't realise that this was in a Red One forum thread as I linked to it from elsewhere.

My questions to do with ergonomics, auto features and audio still stand though, since the system is modular, but I guess these are more concerns for Scarlet customers with EFP intentions than the readers of this forum who are most likely Cinematographers working with very different priorities and requirements.

I think if the ergonomics, auto features and audio can be make to work right the Scarlet stands to gain a huge amount of the Broadcast market for work that has some post production time (and even that that doesnt with the REDrocket though it would be a bit overkill for News work). Projected pricing for the 2/3" Scarlets make them cheaper than any other current Pro/ Semi Pro HD cameras with 2/3" chips on the market for the Broadcast industry and they can slay them for framerates and resolution plus more besides. I have no idea how many cams are out there in the broadcast industry but I reckon many more than RED can sell to the film industry as long as the ergonomics, auto features and audio is right and the word gets out. As they are a company that listen I am pretty hopeful they will get all this down.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Whats an OVF??!

Just Kidding.. but seriously, it has been since forever that I have not used or come across any one that has been using a camera with one, that I even completely forgot it actually existed and what it was there for a moment.

NO, No way would I want ever go back to one, the EVF on the R1 is just an incredible proof of how much better an EVF is vs. a OVF, and I know that they might be specific uses for it, but I can't put a single one on the list of a must have, some of its uses and benefits are in deed, great ones, and not only by its optical characteristics, but per example as David has already mentioned, the fact of been able to play around with your scenes and shots framing with the camera turned off, replacing the need for a Director's Viewfinder, even so only acceptable in some occasions, as some times it is easier and faster to use a DVF then the actual camera set up, avoiding over heating issues when unnecessary as well as off course as important saving battery, but still none of this are worth giving up the benefits of the EVF and forging out 20K which could be put in to much better use in to a set of RPP's.

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Here's some pics...

The new tiny EVF...

The new tactile monitor...

The battery module...

That's Jarred...

And that's me with you know who...

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

The new tiny EVF...

And that's me with you know who...

Thanks for the photos Lewis!
Nice new small monitor, that's the one I'll use on my fixed Scarlet... (tears eyes)

You're looking just like a french action-film director. :emote_popcorn:
Good luck on your project!

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Thanks for the photos Lewis!
Nice new small monitor, that's the one I'll use on my fixed Scarlet... (tears eyes)

You're looking just like a french action-film director. :emote_popcorn:
Good luck on your project!

Thanks! Will get that one too (7" hopefully, that's the 5")...
Will try and be as good a director as I look then...:laugh:
Stay tuned...

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Thanks! Will get that one too (7" hopefully, that's the 5")...
Will try and be as good a director as I look then...:laugh:
Stay tuned...

thanks for posting! so you got to hold it!!!!!:emote_22_yikes:

how was the weight?