Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

For the Red team - mechanical shutter and through-lens viewfinder

vovin said:
I don't know, maybe I am an old fashioned kind of guy, but why can't people keep civil tones in these forums? It's not like anyone benefits from outraged posts, not even those who write them.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more - it's easy to write stupid things in the flame of fire. Sorry!
 
"There is NEVER ANY artifacts issues if mechanical shutter is used with digital sensor - in your opinion? NEVER!!!!!

If you have optical evf you will ALWAYS SEE EVERYTHING what so ever gets into the to hard drive - in your opinion? EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!"

Since you aren't "tricky" these statements must be your real opinion?
 
Dominic Cochran said:
"There is NEVER ANY artifacts issues if mechanical shutter is used with digital sensor - in your opinion? NEVER!!!!!

If you have optical evf you will ALWAYS SEE EVERYTHING what so ever gets into the to hard drive - in your opinion? EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!"

Since you aren't "tricky" these statements must be your real opinion?
Click to expand...

Stop it - It was an answer to Jamies very rude post!

Reduser is supposed to build a knowledge base, or? We can't agree on everything, but we can agree on pushing our opinions in a good manner. And keep in mind, you people with english as native, always can be exact and to the point. Not so easy for the rest of us, but we are trying our best.
 
Ok, here's the problem Jonas. #1 you're assuming that what you see in an EVF is somehow AFTER the hard drive (or final On-Set recording format) in the monitor chain. This is almost never the case. #2 you're assuming there is no value in seeing what the lens sees (in an optical VF situation) before the hard drive in a RAW recording situation.

Both of these assumptions are severely flawed IMO.
 
Dominic Cochran said:
Ok, here's the problem Jonas. #1 you're assuming that what you see in an EVF is somehow AFTER the hard drive (or final On-Set recording format) in the monitor chain. This is almost never the case. #2 you're assuming there is no value in seeing what the lens sees (in an optical VF situation) before the hard drive in a RAW recording situation.

Both of these assumptions are severely flawed IMO.
Click to expand...

Of course not after!!! Then you have to play back (I'm not that stupid ;-) - but I think it's give you more of the truth then I can assume you have in an optical EVF. #2 - No I don't - pls tell me - thats what I asked early in this thread!
 
4K Hub said:
I have a question that has been plaguing me since I first heard of the Red One.

From a design perspective, what would it take to have a true optical viewfinder (through the lens) and mechanical shutter on a camera like the Red One or upcoming Epic?

What are the pro's and con's from a design or implementation perspective and why was a purely digital viewfinder and electronic shutter chosen?

Would a optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter ever be considered?

I hope I can get some answers from the Red team as well as some thoughts of other Reduser members.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to put MOVING MECHANICAL PARTS into a SOLID STATE, ELECTRONIC device? The age of gears and clockworks is over. It is difficult to recognize change sometimes when it happens right under your nose, but the only thing that needs to change about the Red One is people's attitudes toward it. This is the camera You want, You want it to work exactly the way it works right now, You just don't know it yet because You haven't spent enough quality time with it. Don't be a "period" Filmmaker. Be a Filmmaker. Period.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Why would you want to put MOVING MECHANICAL PARTS into a SOLID STATE, ELECTRONIC device? The age of gears and clockworks is over. It is difficult to recognize change sometimes when it happens right under your nose, but the only thing that needs to change about the Red One is people's attitudes toward it. This is the camera You want, You want it to work exactly the way it works right now, You just don't know it yet because You haven't spent enough quality time with it. Don't be a "period" Filmmaker. Be a Filmmaker. Period.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Why would you want to put MOVING MECHANICAL PARTS into a SOLID STATE, ELECTRONIC device? The age of gears and clockworks is over. It is difficult to recognize change sometimes when it happens right under your nose, but the only thing that needs to change about the Red One is people's attitudes toward it. This is the camera You want, You want it to work exactly the way it works right now, You just don't know it yet because You haven't spent enough quality time with it. Don't be a "period" Filmmaker. Be a Filmmaker. Period.
Click to expand...

Jeff, come on man. Have you ever used an optical viewfinder? Not just looked through one on set but used it as a tool as the DP? Seriously. I'm cool if they don't give us one, but if you've ever used one for real you might not be waxing so poetic.

p.s. Red next month, Epic this month if they would take my money.
 
Dominic, why is it so good with an optical viewfinder? Please tell me.
 
I'm sorry for coming off a bit rude, but "professional" motion picture people have the oddest attitudes towards new technology than any other group I can think of. Have people in Hollywood forgotten the lyrics to "John Henry"?
 
Dominic Cochran said:
Jeff, come on man. Have you ever used an optical viewfinder? Not just looked through one on set but used it as a tool as the DP? Seriously. I'm cool if they don't give us one, but if you've ever used one for real you might not be waxing so poetic.

p.s. Red next month, Epic this month if they would take my money.
Click to expand...

Dominic my friend,

In short, I have used an optical viewfinder. But consider this: the image you see in the EVF is derived from the light that's hitting the sensor, not some spinning mirror in front of the sensor. The EVF shows you what's hitting the Image Plane. With film you can't see what hit the emulsion until you process the neg. I want to see what's hitting the imager, not the mirror in front of it.
 
Well, first of all I would agree with you guys and prefer an EVF if it was after any sort of signal processing on the RED. Since we're shooting RAW with this camera my personal preference would be to see what the lens sees and judge lighting contrast by eye and light meter given a certain ASA (320 seems to be the best guess at this point, won't have my camera 'til next month). Judging your image by an on board LCD is selling yourself and the director way short and is akin to judging lighting quality by a video tap from a film camera.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Dominic my friend,

In short, I have used an optical viewfinder. But consider this: the image you see in the EVF is derived from the light that's hitting the sensor, not some spinning mirror in front of the sensor. The EVF shows you what's hitting the Image Plane. With film you can't see what hit the emulsion until you process the neg. I want to see what's hitting the imager, not the mirror in front of it.
Click to expand...

Jeff my friend,

Trust me you're better off going by the spinning mirror than whatever quick Debayer algorithm happens between the camera and the LCD or EVF, at least if you're determining what you can really achieve in post and looking at lighting contrast ratios.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
I'm sorry for coming off a bit rude, but "professional" motion picture people have the oddest attitudes towards new technology than any other group I can think of. Have people in Hollywood forgotten the lyrics to "John Henry"?
Click to expand...

Also,

If we're putting "professional" in quotes and coming off a bit rude;

well, let's not, I think that would be best, all things considered...
 
OK. Maybe it's what you are used to use. I never shoot with out all the time checking zebra, histogram and the cameras light meter. As well as "looking". Always bring my meter, but tend to never use it. But an optical VF doesn't exclude an LCD, or?
 
Dominic Cochran said:
Also,

If we're putting "professional" in quotes and coming off a bit rude;

well, let's not, I think that would be best, all things considered...
Click to expand...

On that point I completely agree, hence my apology. I forgot to use my smiley. :blush:

BTW, I just got back from NAB and heard a lot of crazy suggestions from people about the camera, so to clarify: the term "professional" in quotes, is not directed towards Professionals.:wink:
 
Thanks for the thoughts guys, I didn't mean to spark any bad vibes, it was just a question I wanted some answers to. I think I've got what I was looking for reading through your posts so far.

Of course the Red nor Epic has a mechanical shutter or optical viewfinder (I am assuming they won't go that route with the Epic) and I'm not asking for them. Neither am I stuck in a outdated clockwork mindset, I'm just wanting to find out why not when Arri decided to go for it in the D21 with what I think is a fair degree of success.

They must have had their reasons, done their research and spoken to a fair share of professionals before making the call as did Red I am sure.

I'm not adding my personal wish list to the million other wish lists and desired changes to a great camera. I like it just the way it is.

Thanks for the opinions, keep 'em coming. I think this is a very interesting discussion.
 
4K Hub,

Don't worry about things getting heated, it's only natural with a touchy subject like this (I'm not a pro DP or Operator, but the ones I've talked to have very strong opinions on it).

As to your question about Arri, I think you have your answer in this thread. You have a greater viewable area with an optical viewfinder. You're closer to seeing the image directly from the lens, so you can diagnose lens problems much more accurately, for example (though this is not infallible, I have an old Konvas and one of the optical blocks got out of whack in line to the viewfinder causing big problems). Also the feel of the optical viewfinder is just something DP's and Op's are used to.

Arri wanted to make the D20 as close to a film camera as possible so D.P.'s and Op's could start using it right away without much of an adjustment (A tech on set would handle the digital part).

I think Red, on the other hand, wanted to design a digital cinema camera from the ground up, with a keen eye toward what makes sense in the digital world and what would be just a carry over from film. This is why you have no optical viewfinder.

They designed the thing from the ground up. I seriously think if they thought the OVF was the right move they would have put it on. Same goes for 19mm rods instead of 15mm and mini-jacks instead of full. Sometimes it seems like people think the Red Team just made these decisions because they're "crazy like a fox" or something. I highly doubt it (well, at least they're crazy in a good way :) ). They had their reasons and I'm sure they were very good reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top