- Moderator
- #101
Brook Willard
REDuser Sponsor
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,392
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Burbank, CA
- Website
- www.brookwillard.com
Lets let the well-wishes be the end of that little exchange.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Focusing on 720P. I need your help/Advice...
- Thread starter Maz Mawlawi
- Start date
Kenn Christenson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Okay. Now, what is Red going to do, to insure 4K critical focus? I've ordered the EVF and want to make sure it's not money out the window, if it can't get the focus good enough to handle 4K scrutiny.
I'm prepared to be surprised at how well I'm able to judge focus with the EVF - just don't want to be surprised in any other way.
I'm prepared to be surprised at how well I'm able to judge focus with the EVF - just don't want to be surprised in any other way.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
My opinion on all this is that there is no truth like the truth you can see with your own eyes. If you are wondering about whether the EVF will work for you, you need to be able to test the EVF and judge for yourself. That is why Steve is getting upset here because he did what is very common in this industry when a new product/tool comes to market - test, test, and then test again. I could come on here and say the EVF can judge focus but for all you know, I don't have the same expectations as someone else.
The bottom line - Buy or rent the EVF, try it yourself on the type of material you shoot a lot of and then find a way to screen it in the environment the material will end up. That's the only way you'll know for sure if it's going to work for you, unless you have complete faith in people with hands on experience like Steve or others. For me, I have a lot of faith in the professionals that roam through the halls of Reduser, but I also want to see things for myself. It's the best of both worlds.
The bottom line - Buy or rent the EVF, try it yourself on the type of material you shoot a lot of and then find a way to screen it in the environment the material will end up. That's the only way you'll know for sure if it's going to work for you, unless you have complete faith in people with hands on experience like Steve or others. For me, I have a lot of faith in the professionals that roam through the halls of Reduser, but I also want to see things for myself. It's the best of both worlds.
They should demo the EVF on a camera somewhere that has a 2k projector. Then 10 people could set up tough shots, shoot a little footage and watch it back right there. I think you'd get a consensus pretty quickly as to how well the EVF is doing.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
Not a bad idea, but you'll need a controlled environment with a properly calibrated projector and enough time to give everyone a chance to try it out thoroughly. And I think one of the big tests is to get the camera off the tripod, move around with it judging the focus on the EVF as you pull your own focus or have someone pulling focus for you. That's the beauty of doing your own testing. You can run through a lot of simulated scenarios, find what works, doesn't work, adjust your strategy, test something different. I'm dying to get a hold of one of these EVFs. Should be here soon, and that will probably be days worth of testing to know exactly what to expect from it.
Michael Brennan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
We need a little RED book...
We need a little RED book...
My view hasn't changed on this since one of my first posts on RED user.
Working in HD for 7 years and 20 years on SD before that I've learnt that there are different levels of operator skills and different standards of evaluating picture quality, including what is judged as being in "critical focus". Combine this with us all struggling to converse with a limited technical vocabulary to describe a new way of working and it is understandable that there are differences of opinion!
We need a Red dictionary Jim!
My spin on "self pulling" is this...
2/3 inch Sony HD camcorders created new focus challenges for doc cameramen that have yet to be met.
Most doc video cameraman shooting 2/3 inch format in SD know that when tracking focus they can "get away" with the subject going a little soft in the viewfinder until they tweak it back.
This is because the SD viewfinder in a pro camera has more res than the viewer watching on a sd transmission.
"Apparent depth of field" is the term I use to describe the depth of field expereinced by the viewer. The smaller the display the less "apparent depth of field"
So SD transmission to small screens and the 2/3 inch camera format is not too taxing for the doc cameraman.
But HD came along where the viewer has a higher res image than the operator. Not only that, the average HD screen is double the size of SD screens. So there is less "apparent depth of field" in a HD living room environment than the old SD room.
So the technique of "let it go soft and then tweak" of tracking focus on a moving subject is not ideal when using existing HD viewfinders, because the audience sees the shot go soft a second or so before the operator does.
But experienced HD operators regularly pulling or tracking focus ie (OB sports cameramen) have been able to reduce the number of out of focus shots by refining their hand to eye co-ordination skills, helped by live 1920x1080 monitoring in the truck.
But still there are many long lens shots shots where the subject moves and falls out of focus before the operator has a chance to respond.
RED ups the anti.
Fortunately most RED doc users are not yet delivering to a 4k audience!
A good test for HD or RED operators is by simply looking at their display and without tweaking focus to judge if a image is;
a) in focus or slightly out of focus
b) be able to judge which way it is out forward or back.
The subject can be a head shot but try a scene where there is no obvious sign of focus fall off to give clues, ie a landscape shot.
This test is challenging when viewing 1080p image on a 720p display.
Judging by the increase in skill levels achieved with HD operators over a few years I've no doubt that the level of doc operating focus skills on RED will be refined.
With or without a focus puller as part of the crew, a significant advantage of digital is being able to sign a shot off and strike the set within minutes of the final take.
Live 4K (or live 1:1) would be a very useful learning aid and for many a critical part of the 4K jigsaw.
Mike Brennan
We need a little RED book...
My view hasn't changed on this since one of my first posts on RED user.
Working in HD for 7 years and 20 years on SD before that I've learnt that there are different levels of operator skills and different standards of evaluating picture quality, including what is judged as being in "critical focus". Combine this with us all struggling to converse with a limited technical vocabulary to describe a new way of working and it is understandable that there are differences of opinion!
We need a Red dictionary Jim!
My spin on "self pulling" is this...
2/3 inch Sony HD camcorders created new focus challenges for doc cameramen that have yet to be met.
Most doc video cameraman shooting 2/3 inch format in SD know that when tracking focus they can "get away" with the subject going a little soft in the viewfinder until they tweak it back.
This is because the SD viewfinder in a pro camera has more res than the viewer watching on a sd transmission.
"Apparent depth of field" is the term I use to describe the depth of field expereinced by the viewer. The smaller the display the less "apparent depth of field"
So SD transmission to small screens and the 2/3 inch camera format is not too taxing for the doc cameraman.
But HD came along where the viewer has a higher res image than the operator. Not only that, the average HD screen is double the size of SD screens. So there is less "apparent depth of field" in a HD living room environment than the old SD room.
So the technique of "let it go soft and then tweak" of tracking focus on a moving subject is not ideal when using existing HD viewfinders, because the audience sees the shot go soft a second or so before the operator does.
But experienced HD operators regularly pulling or tracking focus ie (OB sports cameramen) have been able to reduce the number of out of focus shots by refining their hand to eye co-ordination skills, helped by live 1920x1080 monitoring in the truck.
But still there are many long lens shots shots where the subject moves and falls out of focus before the operator has a chance to respond.
RED ups the anti.
Fortunately most RED doc users are not yet delivering to a 4k audience!
A good test for HD or RED operators is by simply looking at their display and without tweaking focus to judge if a image is;
a) in focus or slightly out of focus
b) be able to judge which way it is out forward or back.
The subject can be a head shot but try a scene where there is no obvious sign of focus fall off to give clues, ie a landscape shot.
This test is challenging when viewing 1080p image on a 720p display.
Judging by the increase in skill levels achieved with HD operators over a few years I've no doubt that the level of doc operating focus skills on RED will be refined.
With or without a focus puller as part of the crew, a significant advantage of digital is being able to sign a shot off and strike the set within minutes of the final take.
Live 4K (or live 1:1) would be a very useful learning aid and for many a critical part of the 4K jigsaw.
Mike Brennan
Steve Gibby
Red Savant
I agree with your points Mike Brennan...
Quick and effective sight focusing takes practice, like any skill. Us sports and nature shooters usually control all parameters of a dynamic and moving image by ourselves while covering a constantly moving subject matter: pan, tilt, sight focus, exposure, push, and pull. I've been one of those guys for ESPN, Fox, NBC, OLN, and others for large portions of my career, originally in SD, and later in HD. But the same thing has been done for years in 35mm and S16 film by NFL Films, and for decades by us nature cinematographers in 35mm and S16mm film, and more recently in HD. You have to have the aptitude, and you have to continually practice your skills for that as camera equipment evolves. Beyond sight focusing in non-hardlined television, I also have sight focused on the fly extensively in hardlined sports television under the most demanding of conditions.
I started sight focusing of fast moving sports and nature subjects with manual 35mm still cameras clear back in the late '60's and honed those skills throughout the '70's, and continued them into motion media (film and TV) in the late '70's and into the '80's.
There are extensive 4k high motion nature and sports sequences of mine currently offered as stock footage on the new Mammoth HD RED Library. Mammoth will verify my ability to tightly track, frame, expose, and focus fast moving 4k subjects - by myself using RED ONE and the RED EVF and RED LCD.
To be clear, it is more challenging to do that in 4k than HD, but with practice and experience even this camera work, which is some of the most difficult you can find to pull off cleanly, is possible and very doable.
Once someone has mastered tracking, exposing, framing, and focusing fast moving subjects in 4k, slower moving setups and shots seem much easier because of the added time you can take to cerebralize over how to shoot a shot.
1:1 would be a great tool and make our job much easier...
Quick and effective sight focusing takes practice, like any skill. Us sports and nature shooters usually control all parameters of a dynamic and moving image by ourselves while covering a constantly moving subject matter: pan, tilt, sight focus, exposure, push, and pull. I've been one of those guys for ESPN, Fox, NBC, OLN, and others for large portions of my career, originally in SD, and later in HD. But the same thing has been done for years in 35mm and S16 film by NFL Films, and for decades by us nature cinematographers in 35mm and S16mm film, and more recently in HD. You have to have the aptitude, and you have to continually practice your skills for that as camera equipment evolves. Beyond sight focusing in non-hardlined television, I also have sight focused on the fly extensively in hardlined sports television under the most demanding of conditions.
I started sight focusing of fast moving sports and nature subjects with manual 35mm still cameras clear back in the late '60's and honed those skills throughout the '70's, and continued them into motion media (film and TV) in the late '70's and into the '80's.
There are extensive 4k high motion nature and sports sequences of mine currently offered as stock footage on the new Mammoth HD RED Library. Mammoth will verify my ability to tightly track, frame, expose, and focus fast moving 4k subjects - by myself using RED ONE and the RED EVF and RED LCD.
To be clear, it is more challenging to do that in 4k than HD, but with practice and experience even this camera work, which is some of the most difficult you can find to pull off cleanly, is possible and very doable.
Once someone has mastered tracking, exposing, framing, and focusing fast moving subjects in 4k, slower moving setups and shots seem much easier because of the added time you can take to cerebralize over how to shoot a shot.
1:1 would be a great tool and make our job much easier...
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
Philosophically, the difference between pulling focus for dramatic narrative and for sports / news / docs is that the second tends to be reactive focusing (since often there are no rehearsals, so you react to moving objects and adjust with their movements), whereas for the first, you want the focus-puller to anticipate and match the movements without any sort of delay. Because often there are rehearsals and action is repeated, somewhat, take after take, it's possible to time the focusing to the action while it happens rather than a split-second after it happens.
I'm not talking about focusing on non-moving subjects where you can get an eye-focus in advance.
Focusing by the operator "live" as the action is happening, by eye, while looking through a viewfinder or monitor is done in narrative work too, but just much less often... because of this "reactive" quality it has -- the actor suddenly leans forward and then operator finds the focus on him, then he leans back and the focus finds them again, etc. This tends to call attention to the mechanics of focusing, making the audience aware that someone or some thing is doing the focusing, which is why so many auto-focus devices find little use in narrative work too.
Even with trained focus-pullers, your typical theatrical feature has 10% of the shots with visible focus problems -- it's not an easy thing to do. And AC's are the first people to be interested in new technologies that helps them get the focus right.
I'm not talking about focusing on non-moving subjects where you can get an eye-focus in advance.
Focusing by the operator "live" as the action is happening, by eye, while looking through a viewfinder or monitor is done in narrative work too, but just much less often... because of this "reactive" quality it has -- the actor suddenly leans forward and then operator finds the focus on him, then he leans back and the focus finds them again, etc. This tends to call attention to the mechanics of focusing, making the audience aware that someone or some thing is doing the focusing, which is why so many auto-focus devices find little use in narrative work too.
Even with trained focus-pullers, your typical theatrical feature has 10% of the shots with visible focus problems -- it's not an easy thing to do. And AC's are the first people to be interested in new technologies that helps them get the focus right.
Steve Gibby
Red Savant
David,
I think you made some good observations about the difference between reactive focusing and anticipatory focusing. With that in mind, I would add that pro fast-action followers (sports, nature, etc.) who have good aptitude, who continually keep their skills sharpened, and have mastered the equipment they use, move largely from being reactive focusers, exposers, framers, and followers, to be much more anticipatory camera manipulators in near real time. In following fast action by yourself there is no time to think - you must anticipate and react very quickly to nail the shots. By the time you stop to think about a shot its already gone - along with the two or three quick shots that happened right after it. When you've shot fast moving subjects a lot which are very familiar to you, you develop a 6th sense in the back of your head about where the subject is going to move next. It has to be like automatic radar in order to have a high percentage of usable footage.
When I produce/direct sports and nature programs where I'm not also shooting, I look for a ratio of at least 90% usable shots sequences when we get to cutting the show. If that's not there, that shooter usually doesn't work for me again. Those same shooters must also have the skill sets to shoot many other styles besides action following for those projects: interviews, talent, creative b-roll with very shallow DOF, very good at hand held, etc. The challenges to shooting skills in these programs are both varied and intense.
Though I've directed and shot a lot of sports and nature, I've also directed and shot a pretty wide variety of projects that required shooting to a script, and rehearsing scenes (commercials, PSA's, TV programs, music videos, etc.) - I just haven't done narrative cinema per se. Thus I see the need at times for those genres for more traditional production focusing methods - ACs. practiced scenes, hitting marks, etc. I'm not against that when its the best choice for what's being shot, and/or clients/execs are expecting to see that workflow. I have deep respect for the good DPs, cinematogaphers, and ACs I've worked with over the years who practice traditional methods. I use some of those methods myself frequently. But I don't hesitate to experiment with my shooting and incorporate whet I feel works best for each project.
My point is to encourage people here to open their minds to maximize RED ONE's potential in terms of the diversity of ways to shoot with RED (and equipment setups) that enable acquiring good footage. The RED ONE camera combines DSLR, TV/Video and traditional film technology, so to me there is no reason we can't combine shooting techniques from all those industries when a project determines it is warranted.
I think you made some good observations about the difference between reactive focusing and anticipatory focusing. With that in mind, I would add that pro fast-action followers (sports, nature, etc.) who have good aptitude, who continually keep their skills sharpened, and have mastered the equipment they use, move largely from being reactive focusers, exposers, framers, and followers, to be much more anticipatory camera manipulators in near real time. In following fast action by yourself there is no time to think - you must anticipate and react very quickly to nail the shots. By the time you stop to think about a shot its already gone - along with the two or three quick shots that happened right after it. When you've shot fast moving subjects a lot which are very familiar to you, you develop a 6th sense in the back of your head about where the subject is going to move next. It has to be like automatic radar in order to have a high percentage of usable footage.
When I produce/direct sports and nature programs where I'm not also shooting, I look for a ratio of at least 90% usable shots sequences when we get to cutting the show. If that's not there, that shooter usually doesn't work for me again. Those same shooters must also have the skill sets to shoot many other styles besides action following for those projects: interviews, talent, creative b-roll with very shallow DOF, very good at hand held, etc. The challenges to shooting skills in these programs are both varied and intense.
Though I've directed and shot a lot of sports and nature, I've also directed and shot a pretty wide variety of projects that required shooting to a script, and rehearsing scenes (commercials, PSA's, TV programs, music videos, etc.) - I just haven't done narrative cinema per se. Thus I see the need at times for those genres for more traditional production focusing methods - ACs. practiced scenes, hitting marks, etc. I'm not against that when its the best choice for what's being shot, and/or clients/execs are expecting to see that workflow. I have deep respect for the good DPs, cinematogaphers, and ACs I've worked with over the years who practice traditional methods. I use some of those methods myself frequently. But I don't hesitate to experiment with my shooting and incorporate whet I feel works best for each project.
My point is to encourage people here to open their minds to maximize RED ONE's potential in terms of the diversity of ways to shoot with RED (and equipment setups) that enable acquiring good footage. The RED ONE camera combines DSLR, TV/Video and traditional film technology, so to me there is no reason we can't combine shooting techniques from all those industries when a project determines it is warranted.
Blair S. Paulsen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,503
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 48
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Website
- www.alacritymedia.com
In the immortal words of Carly Simon...
In the immortal words of Carly Simon...
Gibby has identified what I believe is the crux of the biscuit for sight focusing at any resolution when you do NOT have extensive control over the action - anticipation. On those, fortunately rare, occasions when I hose the focus or framing on a shot it is because I am "late" and trying to catch up with the action.
I also wholeheartedly agree that knowing your gear is a big help. When I finally bought my first true professional camera and spent a few hundred hours with it my skill level went up several notches.
It is my contention that the EVF provides enough visual feedback to allow competent operators to come back with in focus footage of moving subjects even at 4K. Having a high resolution monitor back at the shop to review your footage is an excellent tool for fine tuning your touch.
All that said, if there's budget for a good 1st AC...
In the immortal words of Carly Simon...
Gibby has identified what I believe is the crux of the biscuit for sight focusing at any resolution when you do NOT have extensive control over the action - anticipation. On those, fortunately rare, occasions when I hose the focus or framing on a shot it is because I am "late" and trying to catch up with the action.
I also wholeheartedly agree that knowing your gear is a big help. When I finally bought my first true professional camera and spent a few hundred hours with it my skill level went up several notches.
It is my contention that the EVF provides enough visual feedback to allow competent operators to come back with in focus footage of moving subjects even at 4K. Having a high resolution monitor back at the shop to review your footage is an excellent tool for fine tuning your touch.
All that said, if there's budget for a good 1st AC...