independent EVF-LCD

[Petros Nousias]

I recommended this about 2 years ago and now that I use the camera every day I find it extremely important. Since focusing in 4k is even harder than 35mm it would be nice to be able to keep the zoom function on in the lcd for the 1st AC while having a full frame in the other outputs.

 

[Paul Hazlett]

I recommended this about 2 years ago and now that I use the camera every day I find it extremely important. Since focusing in 4k is even harder than 35mm it would be nice to be able to keep the zoom function on in the lcd for the 1st AC while having a full frame in the other outputs.

AFAIK this aint gonna happen, I asked before. there is only one output channel for Red One. Don't know if Epic will be different but we can hope.

 

[Clint Johnson]

I've found that the subject to be in focus is off to one side or the other at least as often as it is centred- and as such is outside the zoomed in field of view.

Ideally, the 1st AC would have a wireless HD monitor that they could independently zoom to a 2:1 and 1:1 pixel displays as well as allowing thumbstick pan and scan- all without disturbing the operator/DoP/producer monitors... but that's probably for the Epic wish list.

 

[Shawn Booth]

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera

Don't see why this option is necessary.

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera -
The good 1st AC will/should not RELY on the LCD (or any monitor) to nail focus. Ever.

Every focus puller I have had the pleasure/displeasure of working with measures for focus, sets/gets their marks and usually nails focus.

In the pre-monitoring days - this was how it was done (and it still is). I know a 1st who shows up to work with tape and a grease pencil. I have never seen him actually use the tape.... He mostly eyeballs the distance and nails it every time.

So, this feature is replaced by hiring a 1st.

 

[redolution]

"Don't see why this option is necessary.

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera -
The good 1st AC will/should not RELY on the LCD (or any monitor) to nail focus. Ever.

Every focus puller I have had the pleasure/displeasure of working with measures for focus, sets/gets their marks and usually nails focus.

In the pre-monitoring days - this was how it was done (and it still is). I know a 1st who shows up to work with tape and a grease pencil. I have never seen him actually use the tape.... He mostly eyeballs the distance and nails it every time.

So, this feature is replaced by hiring a 1st."




-Strongly Agreed

 

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

Once again the issue remains. RED is in between the video world and cinema world. In video you have a set of tools in order to pull focus. In cinema you have a meter, a trained eye and a good pulse. Also, in cinema lenses the focus ring is proportionally cranked to the focus distance, not the case in photo or most video lenses.
RED is in between. Watcha gonna do.

 

[Petros Nousias]

"Don't see why this option is necessary.

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera -
The good 1st AC will/should not RELY on the LCD (or any monitor) to nail focus. Ever.

Every focus puller I have had the pleasure/displeasure of working with measures for focus, sets/gets their marks and usually nails focus.

In the pre-monitoring days - this was how it was done (and it still is). I know a 1st who shows up to work with tape and a grease pencil. I have never seen him actually use the tape.... He mostly eyeballs the distance and nails it every time.

So, this feature is replaced by hiring a 1st."




-Strongly Agreed

This forum can get repetitive and boring sometimes...
These arguments regarding the 1st AC have been discussed over and over again in the past.
The question was very simple and Im sure there are many people that need this function. Guess will have to wait for Epic.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

balls

balls

Don't see why this option is necessary.


So, this feature is replaced by hiring a 1st.

Very revolutionary.
From the number of people who keep asking for a quicker way to focus, it must be considered more important.
I can't hire a focus puller every time I want to take the camera and go somewhere to get some interesting footage.
I'm sure there are more people needing or wanting this feature then people disliking it.
Who would really dislike a feature that would make things quicker, cheaper, simpler, withuot being a snob or hypocrite?
I am in a field, A fox is running. I take the phone and see if a camera assistant is available today? isn't it ridiculous? shooting an animal isn't cinema? shooting a car, an aeroplane, or just anything else that needs to be focused quickly without rolling tapes all over any distance... is not cinema maybe? This is the most polite I can be, in response to some... I am really starting to call it spam. snob spam. people on wheelchair must have more energy than some generation of tired, retired, magatongues especially good in wanting to sink peoples genuine and good ideas.
What's wrong with this forum? why so un-costructive blabla so often?
everytime someone politely, even in mass, ask for a useful feature, there is always one or two spitting on it.
Well, thanks a lot.
Before some scandalized beards would die to say that for a century hollywood and bigo boring productions with their cargo of employes and elephants have used tapes to focus anything - useless, since I am not going to read more of this and had enough of this mantra - and who I am to discuss hollywood (ho-hooooo), and who we (=all the people who would love to and benefit from an in-camera system to let us see what's in focus immediately without hiring a carpenter for this, everytime) are to discuss the old method, well... yes, I very much discuss the old method, and I would very much abandon it immediately if I could. I don't care what some do. I couldn't care less.
I am waiting for better options. I feel this revolutionary camera could well have a more revolutionary feature then a person stainding and running with a tape in his hands.
bah. I am starting to getting angry.
I don't care what anyone may say regarding this; I thing it is all clear already.
For some obscure reason someone is afraid that someone else could focus correctly without a crew.
It is so clear. Please do not answer; do not make clear things look unnecessarily muddy, do not feed the mud makers.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

It would be nice if there was a section or a parallel forum just for fighting. Menacing, fighting, using the bare hands against the evil ones.
Without such a place, inevitably, the discussion that do not resolve and that become fights, have never satisfaction, never an end; because here we are forced to answer politely forever to every... you see? I can't even call thinds with their real names. We need a coliseum, like in the old times, or we consume ourselves in nothingness, fighting against immaterial blabblers.
Red here, red there... but where is the blood?

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

just tell me how are you going to mesure with a tape if the subject is just on the other side of a small river, or behind a glass, a net, if you can't cross something, if...
You phone to the nearest cinematic conglomerate and reserve a 1AC with a boat?
Well, please do it, no problem.
You.

 

[Shawn Booth]

wow - calm down, no one was fighting or spitting or.......

For most of your examples, you can use cinetape.....

Further more, my point was there are ways of pulling focus without electronic tools. Man has done it (in every instance you listed I'm sure) since he's had the ability to capture motion.

What was snob-esque about my post?

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Don't see why this option is necessary.

...The good 1st AC will/should not RELY on the LCD (or any monitor) to nail focus. Ever.
...So, this feature is replaced by hiring a 1st.

Shawn. I come from a third world film making country called Australia. Occasionally Australia produces a film with a budget that a regular Hollywood crew may feel like they are getting paid. However, often feature films are made for less than five million, very often they are made for less than one million. The true cost is often exaggerated upwards of one million so that the producers earn some money on a sale. Crews are put together with willing participants working for peanuts, with agreements for profit percentages which rarely eventuate. Most crew members do four different jobs at once. And still we make films. To put it in a nutshell, If the Red camera can be shot and focus pulled by the same person, that will free someone else to rig the lights and make the sandwiches.

Edit: I posted before I saw your last post. My response is intended to be more explanatory not inflammatory

 

[Shawn Booth]

gotcha - it's a shame to hear that bodhi....

everyone wants to make a movie for nuthin'....

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

What was snob-esque about my post?

It.



|||||

 

[James Brundige]

I have shot docs for more than twenty years. Lots of docs. Some of them quite successful. Don't have an AC. Don't want to pay, feed, or travel an AC. Just want to nail focus, which is much harder and critical with the Red than any of the many pro cameras I have used in the past.

Any tool that helps this is most welcome.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

everyone wants to make a movie for nuthin'....

you seem not to understand.
I thought it was the simplest: be able to focus quickly, for an infinity of good reasons.
From this answer I understand that for you, waiting for santa klaus and his tapes in order to focus a rabbit, or a car or any fast moving or inaccessible object, is fine for you. You may thing it's a question of money. Pay the rabbit, then. Pay the car in order to stay in focus.
Where is the problem.
While you are at it: using a camera with art, skill, let's say "professionally" (I don't like this abused word very much, but never mind) ... MUST be an expensive activity, otherwise it is a bad thing, of course. (And don't tell me that everybody are so happy to pay the more they can). Of course, with money, you can buy everything, especially you buy the rabbit, the water - you walk on water too - vehicles of every kind, really anything that can be photographed, you can buy their staing in focus, instantly. Want to film a lion? what's the problem? send a guy to measure with his tape up to the lion's nose.
This is freak. You think we can't afford to have a monkey good at pulling the focus, if only we ask him two days before? We have more than a friend who do it well and (almost) for love, but this has nothing to do with the fact that I so often need more control on what I shoot.
Actually, I almost ALWAYS dream of having that more control. In the difficult takes as much as in the easiest ones. Why should it always be more difficult then the necessary?
And sometimes I want to play with the camera alone. And/or there is no time to measure. No time. Not practical.

 

[Nick Gardner]

all y'all quit Bitchin at each other, and learn your depth of field tables and hyperfocal distances. Hell, p-cam will be out for the iPhone soon ;-)

 

[Corrado Silveri]

It's already there...

Search for this great app: iSee4k

 

[sander kamp]

The good 1st AC will/should not RELY on the LCD (or any monitor) to nail focus. Ever.

In my experience AC's use every tool available that works for them. Tape, lasers, markings and monitors. That's also how you find out if your lenses are properly calibrated, by checking the markings by what you see on the monitor.

 

[Shawn Booth]

I wasn't bitching with anyone -

If you read the beginning of my post (below) -

From the stand point that the RED ONE is a professional cinema camera -

- It refers to working in cinema. I never said word one about documentary, or any other form of camera use.

My post wasn't snobby in any regard. Sorry you feel that way. Please continue to rip further into my ass though - I deserve it I suppose. But for the record, you're way off base Tetsuo. Way off.