- Moderator
- #21
Brook Willard
REDuser Sponsor
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,392
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Burbank, CA
- Website
- www.brookwillard.com
Easy, guys.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
independent EVF-LCD
- Thread starter Petros Nousias
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Petros Nousias
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well, since the ef and the lcd have different resolutions therefore signals, arent they a bit independent? So maybe it is possible?
Well hopefully Red is targetted at more than pro cinema crews. It's aimed at putting this tech into many people's hands, also EFP and ENG. If they didn't want to upset the current workflow or status quo, then we wouldnt have the Red One at all.
I think you should take the histogram off and live preview because a real DP will nail exposure with a light meter. :innocent:
EDIt : by the way im all for 1:1 pixel view, incase anyone didnt get the vibe...
I think you should take the histogram off and live preview because a real DP will nail exposure with a light meter. :innocent:
EDIt : by the way im all for 1:1 pixel view, incase anyone didnt get the vibe...
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
This is the end...
yes, my lord. Your word is like... like ... heaven sent?
Ladies and gentleman, this is probably be the most famous sentence of the year:
this is perhaps the single most (stereo)typical and annoying answer almost in any case and subject, really, regardless of what people is talking about.
(Especially since so many people keep asking for a certain feature continuously. But never mind...)
The other one is the one that goes like "If you can afford the camera, you must certainly be able to afford [again, how can you know so well other people needs and finances, not to mention their very legitimate desires?] also this and that... (here typically citing just and only things that cost many times the camera just to vice the logic further more)"
Sick. Thousands of people with a (yes, professional, being it cinema or broadcast or astronomic or what you want - and yes I know the difference) videocamera, would surely be extremely glad to simply go out in the sunshine and take some fabulous footage for whatever finality without hiring two vans, camera assistants, electricians, sherpa and zombies.
Sometimes, normal people, go out with just their cousin or girlfriend and... their incredible cine-camera. What a surprise for the sleeping gods of the Olympus.
Just like their grandfather went out with a case with a bolex + zoom.
If a director or filmmaker or videographer is not able to do such a simple thing like that without winging, I don't call him a director, I'd call him a poor good-at-nothing, because a random child probably has a hidden natural talent as a film maker that is bigger than his.
Boring, boring, boring.
Not a bit constructive.
Darkline, you are very right.
It's so obvious, by the way. Too obvious, but apparently not enough for someone.
Who cares if someone cannot go out of his bunker without 300 elephants? I couldn't care less. Like the majority, I cannot nor I want to conform to the impossibly unsustainable immoral ones and their private army that must spend a million just to film their own feet. Sometimes I hear a fly that with his riduculos ringtone not only defends a certain way of working & behaving while no one has asked for it, but it also says that everybody should do the same. By God, who the hell are these small people telling others what they should or should not be allowed by the hardware (they are paying for) to do at their job and with their life?
Why don't we make a petition to make them shut-up, instead of letting them make the genuine users shut up with their ....
okay, let's not get nervous, just ignore the pompous ones unable to use a camera without a crew.
because, this also make us, anyone into motion imaging, (rightfully) look like a mass of hypernutrite fat bastards and paralytic. And it IS true. People into video think they deserve a court before moving a single finger. This is the image of themself that they proudly want to show. But not all. I believe the little number speaks more loud, I think they should stay a little bit more quite, disturb less with their fanfares.
A camera is a camera. There is no excuse for making it less comfortable and useful than it could be.
But I am grateful to Jim because it's creature is almost perfect.
It's the talkers The talkers against my commodity... no. I don't give them a cent.
I am seeing more and more often that here, the most unprofessional, weak, scarsely motivated, superficial, sometimes also ignorant in their very job, inventiveless and chubby brains... seem to be the professionals themselves! They are so weak that they need the help of long vehicles full of slaves (this doesn not mean they are not sleves themselves) to spit in a glass. Because they... well, they have their brains fulling working at super speed all the time, and when you look at their mountain of masterpieces that they produce - at the cost of billions every year, like a proper war - you can admire, and fully understand why such wrecks have such big needs and talk like aliens about strange things for hours and hours and everything in them seems to be so innatural.
We can only leave them with the belief - one more can't hurt - that we are gratefully listening to their impossible-to-apply-for-mortals advices or snobbish bullshit, while instead we have already left them and are out enjoing our cameras and making our modest pieces of art.
Sorry for some elements of rudeness, just accept them and pass.
This forum is boring, but so boring, but sooo boring, that it is also stimulating. It's full of cacca. High-standard cacca.
yes, my lord. Your word is like... like ... heaven sent?
Ladies and gentleman, this is probably be the most famous sentence of the year:
this is perhaps the single most (stereo)typical and annoying answer almost in any case and subject, really, regardless of what people is talking about.
(Especially since so many people keep asking for a certain feature continuously. But never mind...)
The other one is the one that goes like "If you can afford the camera, you must certainly be able to afford [again, how can you know so well other people needs and finances, not to mention their very legitimate desires?] also this and that... (here typically citing just and only things that cost many times the camera just to vice the logic further more)"
Sick. Thousands of people with a (yes, professional, being it cinema or broadcast or astronomic or what you want - and yes I know the difference) videocamera, would surely be extremely glad to simply go out in the sunshine and take some fabulous footage for whatever finality without hiring two vans, camera assistants, electricians, sherpa and zombies.
Sometimes, normal people, go out with just their cousin or girlfriend and... their incredible cine-camera. What a surprise for the sleeping gods of the Olympus.
Just like their grandfather went out with a case with a bolex + zoom.
If a director or filmmaker or videographer is not able to do such a simple thing like that without winging, I don't call him a director, I'd call him a poor good-at-nothing, because a random child probably has a hidden natural talent as a film maker that is bigger than his.
Boring, boring, boring.
Not a bit constructive.
Darkline, you are very right.
It's so obvious, by the way. Too obvious, but apparently not enough for someone.
Who cares if someone cannot go out of his bunker without 300 elephants? I couldn't care less. Like the majority, I cannot nor I want to conform to the impossibly unsustainable immoral ones and their private army that must spend a million just to film their own feet. Sometimes I hear a fly that with his riduculos ringtone not only defends a certain way of working & behaving while no one has asked for it, but it also says that everybody should do the same. By God, who the hell are these small people telling others what they should or should not be allowed by the hardware (they are paying for) to do at their job and with their life?
Why don't we make a petition to make them shut-up, instead of letting them make the genuine users shut up with their ....
okay, let's not get nervous, just ignore the pompous ones unable to use a camera without a crew.
because, this also make us, anyone into motion imaging, (rightfully) look like a mass of hypernutrite fat bastards and paralytic. And it IS true. People into video think they deserve a court before moving a single finger. This is the image of themself that they proudly want to show. But not all. I believe the little number speaks more loud, I think they should stay a little bit more quite, disturb less with their fanfares.
A camera is a camera. There is no excuse for making it less comfortable and useful than it could be.
But I am grateful to Jim because it's creature is almost perfect.
It's the talkers The talkers against my commodity... no. I don't give them a cent.
I am seeing more and more often that here, the most unprofessional, weak, scarsely motivated, superficial, sometimes also ignorant in their very job, inventiveless and chubby brains... seem to be the professionals themselves! They are so weak that they need the help of long vehicles full of slaves (this doesn not mean they are not sleves themselves) to spit in a glass. Because they... well, they have their brains fulling working at super speed all the time, and when you look at their mountain of masterpieces that they produce - at the cost of billions every year, like a proper war - you can admire, and fully understand why such wrecks have such big needs and talk like aliens about strange things for hours and hours and everything in them seems to be so innatural.
We can only leave them with the belief - one more can't hurt - that we are gratefully listening to their impossible-to-apply-for-mortals advices or snobbish bullshit, while instead we have already left them and are out enjoing our cameras and making our modest pieces of art.
Sorry for some elements of rudeness, just accept them and pass.
This forum is boring, but so boring, but sooo boring, that it is also stimulating. It's full of cacca. High-standard cacca.
Fredrik Callinggard
Well-known member
Focus by eye for marks is very common practice. I just did a job where we noticed that the lens was off. Imagine if we hadn't focused by eye...
Ohh and I forgot... the director kept on being annoyed about how the frame was changed all the time. Just as in the old days when they couldn't stand us forgetting to close the eye piece hahahaha.
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
To clarify, when I said "I am seeing more and more often that here.." I mean here in my country, not here in the forum. The forum is bad enough with the professional talkers and useful advicers showing off how it is impossible to them to switch a camera on, if they have not at their disposal a crew to wash their buttocks.
The worst is in the reality, of course, not here.
bye
The worst is in the reality, of course, not here.
bye
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
Fredrik, it goes without saying that the eye is fundamental in cinema. No fused professional barabbas can stop me from shouting it loud.
The most they become professional (=get involved in the "industry"; sorry if the world is starting to make me sick, woshhhhhhhh, here we are) the most they act unprofessionally.
a legend must have been created by an anonimous slave of the industry after a long on-set sleep, saying that the eye is not important in motion picture. He was an blind failed actor turned into a set monkey, but it sounded coming from an even more sleepy director, superficial and paranoid like the norm, perhaps; so some one took it for real and and for good, and after all legends live and prosper in every sector in decadent societies.
a few days ago I was the only one who saw the focus puller was doing his terrible poo on the face of a singer in a videoclip, because I was the only one locking at the screen FOR focus errors. The focus puller was thinking about her penis, the director of photography looking at the LCD haven't seen it, the film director was looking at something else, but in the panasonic monitor the error was very big and clear.
Martians are always surprised when on planet Earth the most obvious and easiest things work better then martian methods.
But the monster is still alive, undead.
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
the pros in films. They can't believe a world exist that it is not their usual dysneyland, their island with it's own rules, plastic faces, altered states.
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
Only "bitching" at who attacks other people's requests just for not being the same as his.
But it's not practical. Often you must focus quickly instead of thinking. can you get it, you tape & paper lovers and sellers?
I'm an artist, not a bank clerk.
Also, in many situations, knowing deaph of field is not helpful at all.
Give me what is possible, don't keep it for yourself
And some of you, making us mad for a mere digital zoom.
I hope for Epic they will make it.
Hey, now I have some T1.2 lenses.
With 50mm at full aperture + full screen LCD + the camera's small digital zoom, now I can almost focus by eyes; with the 85mm I can focus by eyes quite well.
Still impossible with slower lenses and shorter focals and smaller apertures.
for focusing with the other focals, I'll wait for Red to release a 1080p compact LCD receiving through the camera's HDSDI output, and powered by the camera. A ultra high density monitor. With time, Red or someone will get there.
Current 1080p monitors are not light and portable at all.
Just for a focus purpose, I'll see if anyone makes a HDMI 1080p monitor powered by batteries. It would be better than a focus monkey to beat in his ass.
I want control and stop justifying for it to forum users who are not interesented in it but, just to be against, attack the idea. I guess if I ever get what i need, they would be angry. I don't now why they do like that.
If you are not interested in this feature or a suitable workaround provided by the tools, then please live this page with your sarcasm and concentrate on what are Your very interesting requests. Thank you.
Shawn, I understand you don't need this feature. Truly, I understand, because you probably only make movies and never documentaries. Why are you against me doing a documentary then? Just an example. Forget documentaries. why are you agaist simply filming something that needs to be focused by eye in movie anyway?
Just because there is written Red Digital Cinema you would like to prevent the only camera with "cinema quality" available (at least for me) from being adopted for documentaries or by documentary makers or else, which probably are many more then the ones making movies, by the way?
No problem. We did it for you.
For a movie we are making, in a particular scene only two people can stay in the environment. In the set, apart from the actor, there is place only for the cameraman. Who is going to pull the focus, if the cameraman cannot see for himself? you?? Wouldn't it be straitforward if the cameran could focus by eyes?
In a scene for another movie that we are making, it's only me, the camera, and a mountain climber that already will have enough job in helping poor me. I'm not going to bring a second monkey and put him in danger anyone else. I'm not even sure if I am going to do it.
Anyway these are only two extreme cases. Most of the time, I simply don't like to always depend on focus puller. Am not very fond of the method, if often goes wrong, focus is something you can't always predict.
Predict focus is an illusion that usually materialize itself, sometimes not, and sometimes is impossible to predict.
Some time ago they started to make professional still cameras which could predict the next focus in moving objects. the idea is not too far away from what you do with measuring tapes and cross sign. Not that it was very succesfull.
Anyway, regardless what the small film community, or a part of it, was doing in the stone age, I don't see why I should not use what advance in tecnology has to offer, could offer, can offer.
We are almost at the final perfection in shooting technology, and the new techniques that are born from it.
Relax, your Cinematic Professional Eden will not be destroyed by a digital zoom.
Have you ever tried to film a tree's flowers, moved by the wind, some metres above your head, say at 2k with 50mm T2? You think it's so easy? you roll the tape, cowboy?
That ain't a documentary, it may be like everyday's breakfast.
Or, again, you are on a moving boat filming another moving boat. Mind you if I see what's going on in the viewfinder?
Mind you if I can't stop down the lens?
It is true once, before electronic cinematography, there was no LCD nor 4K cameras, but filmakers did have optical viewfinder and were able to focus by eye, if necessary.
Still, focus errors are not unfrequent. And you see focus errors in PAL DVDs very easily, that is not small errors.
But it's not practical. Often you must focus quickly instead of thinking. can you get it, you tape & paper lovers and sellers?
I'm an artist, not a bank clerk.
Also, in many situations, knowing deaph of field is not helpful at all.
Give me what is possible, don't keep it for yourself
And some of you, making us mad for a mere digital zoom.
I hope for Epic they will make it.
Hey, now I have some T1.2 lenses.
With 50mm at full aperture + full screen LCD + the camera's small digital zoom, now I can almost focus by eyes; with the 85mm I can focus by eyes quite well.
Still impossible with slower lenses and shorter focals and smaller apertures.
for focusing with the other focals, I'll wait for Red to release a 1080p compact LCD receiving through the camera's HDSDI output, and powered by the camera. A ultra high density monitor. With time, Red or someone will get there.
Current 1080p monitors are not light and portable at all.
Just for a focus purpose, I'll see if anyone makes a HDMI 1080p monitor powered by batteries. It would be better than a focus monkey to beat in his ass.
I want control and stop justifying for it to forum users who are not interesented in it but, just to be against, attack the idea. I guess if I ever get what i need, they would be angry. I don't now why they do like that.
If you are not interested in this feature or a suitable workaround provided by the tools, then please live this page with your sarcasm and concentrate on what are Your very interesting requests. Thank you.
Shawn, I understand you don't need this feature. Truly, I understand, because you probably only make movies and never documentaries. Why are you against me doing a documentary then? Just an example. Forget documentaries. why are you agaist simply filming something that needs to be focused by eye in movie anyway?
Just because there is written Red Digital Cinema you would like to prevent the only camera with "cinema quality" available (at least for me) from being adopted for documentaries or by documentary makers or else, which probably are many more then the ones making movies, by the way?
No problem. We did it for you.
For a movie we are making, in a particular scene only two people can stay in the environment. In the set, apart from the actor, there is place only for the cameraman. Who is going to pull the focus, if the cameraman cannot see for himself? you?? Wouldn't it be straitforward if the cameran could focus by eyes?
In a scene for another movie that we are making, it's only me, the camera, and a mountain climber that already will have enough job in helping poor me. I'm not going to bring a second monkey and put him in danger anyone else. I'm not even sure if I am going to do it.
Anyway these are only two extreme cases. Most of the time, I simply don't like to always depend on focus puller. Am not very fond of the method, if often goes wrong, focus is something you can't always predict.
Predict focus is an illusion that usually materialize itself, sometimes not, and sometimes is impossible to predict.
Some time ago they started to make professional still cameras which could predict the next focus in moving objects. the idea is not too far away from what you do with measuring tapes and cross sign. Not that it was very succesfull.
Anyway, regardless what the small film community, or a part of it, was doing in the stone age, I don't see why I should not use what advance in tecnology has to offer, could offer, can offer.
We are almost at the final perfection in shooting technology, and the new techniques that are born from it.
Relax, your Cinematic Professional Eden will not be destroyed by a digital zoom.
Have you ever tried to film a tree's flowers, moved by the wind, some metres above your head, say at 2k with 50mm T2? You think it's so easy? you roll the tape, cowboy?
That ain't a documentary, it may be like everyday's breakfast.
Or, again, you are on a moving boat filming another moving boat. Mind you if I see what's going on in the viewfinder?
Mind you if I can't stop down the lens?
It is true once, before electronic cinematography, there was no LCD nor 4K cameras, but filmakers did have optical viewfinder and were able to focus by eye, if necessary.
Still, focus errors are not unfrequent. And you see focus errors in PAL DVDs very easily, that is not small errors.
Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
From the stand point of a camera made (especially?) for all the indipendent moviemakers of the world, priced for indies, loved by indies, bought by indies, and considering that the film community snobbed the launch, laught at it very much till yesterday morning, well... uhm uhmmm... I think the "indies" (who generally like the idea of a focus help from the camera rather then not), are at least allowed to express their ideas and kind requests, since, plus, the Red team have high consideration of users feedback.
If it's not possible to implement something in Red One, they may try to do it in Epic. But they need to know the requests, in order to make a camera to satisfie the users.
Someone laugh at me and others asking for Scarlet to be more then 2k in the same way, with similar excuses ("if you want 4k, use Red One, not Scarlet", as if Red One could be used in the same situations as a pochet camera, and the famous "4K is too much" that all remember).
What was the announced resolution for Scarlet? 3K.
Specs have change, who knows...
If everyone ha said "no, please, don't give us 3K, we hate high resolution, even 1K would be fine", do you think they would have imposed 3K to such a desperate bunch?
I'm not of those ones who dislike any good thing we might be given.
After all we pay for it.
We decide if it's worthwhile to change from One to Epic, if it's worthwhile to buy a scarlet, two or three.
We are the one who exchange opinions, may change our mind, not the most snob of the film community who log-in to say "bleah" and when their horoscope is good, to let some icy, unrelated to specific, common for the industry but unapplicable in other cases, advice or common place from the deep, fall down on our heads like a vase from the skyscraper. Sorry if it is less appreciated then hoped. hoped?? To me a sentence like "all y'all quit Bitchin at each other, and learn your depth of field tables and hyperfocal distances" is just an exercize in posting.
Especially if followed by the innocent "Hell, p-cam will be out for the iPhone soon ;-)"
Folks, you work too much.
Good weekend to all
Antoine Baumann
Well-known member
Yes this option is necessary and important. Tape is not always possible, due to camera set up, time and so on. A professionnal 1st AC use all possible way to focus including his eyes. At least this is how it is done here in Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany,...
To have 3 different outputs has been asked since long time, one for evf, one for lcd and one for hd-sdi and this is a very important option, but I understand it is technicaly not possible on the red one, but don't say it is not necessary, because it isn't true for us.
I have to add that use the evf input for a second monitor would be great, so when you have shot where the evf is not usefull you could get two red lcd, one for DP and one for 1st AC.
ciao,
antoine.
To have 3 different outputs has been asked since long time, one for evf, one for lcd and one for hd-sdi and this is a very important option, but I understand it is technicaly not possible on the red one, but don't say it is not necessary, because it isn't true for us.
I have to add that use the evf input for a second monitor would be great, so when you have shot where the evf is not usefull you could get two red lcd, one for DP and one for 1st AC.
ciao,
antoine.