More news...

[A. Bastaki]

ovf sucks ass. it makes no sense whatsoever. look through the viewfinder of any dslr/ arri 435 or any arri camera with an ovf... man I can never know when im in focus, it's frustrating.

 

[Clint Lealos]

I shot a feature film in Turkey last year and it was my first time working with the Red One. It was also my first feature film. I was the DP, camera operator, and focus puller. I know that is not the best way for most people, but it is how I do it. I was trained in television so it is natural for me, but that shallow focus shooting 4k was a whole new challenge. Yeah, I missed focus sometimes, but nobody anticipates what I'm going to do better than me. The style of the film also allowed for some focus adjustments mid scene, and there was a lot of unrehearsed running handheld. In the end, I love the way the film turned out and am very excited to see it hit the big screen! For me, a sharp EVF is all I need. Check it out: www.40thefilm.com

 

[Stuart English]

Feature Film

Feature Film

I shot a feature film in Turkey last year and it was my first time working with the Red One.

Check it out: www.40thefilm.com

Cool. And looks like an interesting storyline Clint....

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Ok, I can see that; but noone is going to take away the big monitors from the producer or directpr anymore when the decision for shooting digital has been made, right? So they will see better anyway. And the operator, even if he can see the shot going out of focus, can't change it anyway in that moment. He can just tell the Focus-Puller...

So to me, all this is rather a question of onset workflow than technical advantage.

Okay, but then it doesn't matter at all if there is an OFV or not, the focuspuller is judging the focus by other things. He just needs someone to tell him afterwards if he judged right. Normally was the operator, could be someone else now.

I was trained as a sound engineer. We always listen to the end of the recording chain so that we can judge if anything happened to the signal on the way. So that is why I am probably a bit confused and biased

IF he is operating the focus was what I was saying I just wanted to say that you can't compare the demands of a photographer shooting stills in regard to the needs of a cinematographer. And I have seen photographers checking the images on a monitor as well. So they had to check although they had the OVF before.

Of course we are now discussing what the CinemaPHOtographer needs or might not need. And there are probably as many answers as CinemaPHOtographers so in the end it's all down to business. When Jim builds it will they come? (and pay?)

All your points are valid and a lot of this IS just on-set workflow traditions and how they are changing. As for audio, yes, obviously you want to check how the signal was recorded, but you also listen to the sound live in the headset before it gets recorded, and of course, you use your own ears on a set as well...

 

[Bruce Allen]

We would love to hear your thoughts.
Jim

As I said, the better EVF's get, the more the desire for an OVF will decline.

If RED combined a 1080p EVF with very high-quality downsampled 1080p output from the camera (preferably with edge enhancement & custom LUTs, plus a nice RGB histogram) and minimized any refresh delays across the system, that would beat an OVF in most cases, right?

The current EVF is very good (and I'm sure the bomb EVF will be better), but an OVF usually beats it - mainly due to resolution.

I would personally vote for just going full-speed on a next-gen EVF.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Tim Hole]

There is a lot of good points made, but as adopters of the RED world, I see little actual REAL benefit for RED to have this program, apart from pleasing some film heavyweights. I completely understand and respect REDs willingness and eagerness to support the various shooting styles, however to be really frank in a world of technological advancements a balance has to be made. Some things stay and carry on, some are left behind.

I agree that the OVF will likely be a rental job, without pigeon-holing people but the people who couldn't possibly work without an OVF won't be buyers. I don't know anyone who would refuse to shoot on RED because it doesn't have an OVF...maybe I don't know enough people =)

There are far too many positive points to the EPIC program for this to be a non-starter with people. I think RED are trying to please a minority and will get burnt because of it.

I wouldn't buy one. I prefer what a EVF offers that an OVF doesn't...eventhough I started with OVF's, I was a happy adoptor of LCDs and EVFs.

Its a pity the camera can't be put into a 'framing&focus' mode which just allows you to see through lens with the rest of the camera on sleep- to save battery!!

 

[Michael Hastings]

Its a pity the camera can't be put into a 'framing&focus' mode which just allows you to see through lens with the rest of the camera on sleep- to save battery!!

The stuff you need on for framing and focus, ie. camera and LCD are 98% of the power draw. If you use CF, the only other things that draw power are the audio board and the rear status led - both very minimal draw.

 

[Quentin Brown]

Its a pity the camera can't be put into a 'framing&focus' mode which just allows you to see through lens with the rest of the camera on sleep- to save battery!!

This would seem like a compromise that would shoot stills shooters especially, though I don't know how many purely stills shooters the DSMC will attract due to it's starting price point, I think the main attraction will be frame rates - which won't really benefit from this sort of limited OVF you suggest Tim. If it was really cheap some might just consider it for stills composition and battery saving during setup.

I vote for further EVF development to take all the advantages of OVF away except the battery drain which I guess you just can't avoid.

3. New rods/rails, base plate and handheld system.

Now this has me somewhat excited. I hope it is designed with the EFP market in mind. I also hope it is more affordable than the current bunch of accessory plates, rails and handles which seem a little expensive for just pieces of metal in the context of a $3k 3k camera.

5. New types of flash memory recording modules along with CF card modules.

Could this include an SDXC module (future generations may offer up to 2TB and 300MB/s!)

6. New Pro I/O module.

Seen some pics of this one but dish us the full dirt on it please!


P.S. love all the developments and very excited about the coming releases.
If the new AISIC's coming next week work will that make Scarlets closer to release or just EPICS for the moment?

 

[Quentin Brown]

The stuff you need on for framing and focus, ie. camera and LCD are 98% of the power draw. If you use CF, the only other things that draw power are the audio board and the rear status led - both very minimal draw.

Michael, I think even if this wasn't part of what Tim envisaged is that this could work with an SLR style OVF which wouldn't require powerup of the camera to work.

 

[Quentin Brown]

Pro IO module audio

Pro IO module audio

"And there was much rejoicing"

2 or 4 XLRs? My vote would be 2, since I know I'd never need four and I'd like the I/O module to be cheaper.

My Vote would be for 4 or a way of expanding it to 4 or more since I plan on using it with the Scarlet for EFP work where it can often be really useful to have. (e.g. on Docs with on board mic + a couple of radio mics on your subjects)
:emote_hippie:

 

[Mitch Gross]

You know, a lot of these arguments for not doing an OVF would make sense if the only issue came down to focus v. imaging data (focus better judged on the OVF and data displays available on the EVF). But the one point neglected is judging the image itself. The lighting. Contrast and color.We all know that these are very inaccurate on the current RED One EVF and both LCDs. The brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, etc. cannot b judged even close to accurately. The EVF and the LCDs completey disagree with each other. And due to eher a quick debayer or downrezzing or combination, sometimes we get craz shifts in green/magenta or other oddball artifacts which are not recorded in the final image. So shooting with the electronic options can sometimes be a bit of a fog. I like to check my lighting through the optical viewfinder of the camera so that I take everything out of my view except what's in my image, and I'm seeing how the lens is interacting with it as well. Even the best operators will let the DP take a look without a grudge so that the DP can check the lighting. It's part of the way we work, or at least how I do. RED's monitoring is an approximation at best, and one has to take a frame into a post environment with a proper debayer and a decent monitor to see what's really there. That is insanely time-consuming on set for shot by hot work. Far quicker and more interactive to do it "through the lens." When I'm looking at the actress and wish to adjust the hairlight on its dimmer for just the right definition, it's a lot simpler to look through the eyepiece and call "woof" to the gaffer when it is dimmed to just the right level than to try it a few ways and then take a clip into FCP just to figure it out. No way that is happening on a real shoot.

And yes, we do say "woof" when something is set at exactly the right place.

 

[Tim Hole]

I vote for further EVF development to take all the advantages of OVF away except the battery drain which I guess you just can't avoid.

Michael, I think even if this wasn't part of what Tim envisaged is that this could work with an SLR style OVF which wouldn't require powerup of the camera to work.

Like I say...its a pity. Thats what I was saying would maybe not be a perfect marriage, but would lessen the blow slightly. Being able to view through the camera without complete powerup. This is not likely to be easily possible as RED would probably have already mentioned it. It doesn't really go hand in hand with the modular approach.

As Mitch mentioned, there isn't anything like looking through the finder and seeing what the camera is seeing, rather than relying on two monitoring devices that can't agree.

 

[Brook Willard]

My experience and weight in the matter is diminished among those discussing the EVF/OVF decision in this thread... but I can't help but put in my thoughts.

There was a time when I couldn't live without an OVF. The fact that the RED ONE lacks an OVF was an issue for me at first. But as time goes on, perspectives change. My attraction to the OVF stemmed from, among other things, the caliber of the people who demanded one. If it's what they like, it must be the best.

The current RED EVF was awesome two years ago. In the time since the RED ONE's release, its technological edge has diminished. While it's absolutely the best $3,000 viewfinder out there, it will always be compared to products with prices several times higher than that. It does speak to the unit's fantastic strengths for its price, yes... but to the end user on a larger show, the price of the unit doesn't matter if it isn't as good as another available unit. A $15,000 viewfinder won't rent for a whole lot more than a $3,000 viewfinder... because the camera system needs a viewfinder either way.

In the two years since the RED ONE shipped, I haven't spent much time looking through film cameras. It'd been about a year when I looked through an LT recently. It made me remember why I like optical viewfinders so much. The ST/LT optics are tremendous. The image is bright, contrasty, vivid, huge and of effectively infinite resolution.

I typed up a paragraph discussing the difficulties of designing and building such a viewfinder... but deleted it. I have no idea how hard it is to build a viewfinder. All I know is that it must be hard... because there's a clear difference in optical quality with every generation of Arri cameras [Follow Arri's 16mm optics backwards through history to see what I mean]. If RED does make an OVF of the quality of modern Arri optics, it'll be something to behold.

If I had to make a decision today, I think I'd rather see the development costs and man hours put into designing a big, contrasty, bright 1080p viewfinder instead of an OVF. The OVF is going away, period. Why spend that time and money building something that just doesn't really apply to modern digital cameras?

I would love to see the negatives of the current EVF eliminated in a new version. Higher resolution, independent monitoring pathway, the ability to disable onscreen detritus, a much higher contrast ratio/blacker blacks, no rainbow/moiré effect, lower latency, smaller size, lighter weight and improved optics [bigger image]. All those things are hard to do... probably a lot harder than I think. Not my problem. Just pull the people off of the OVF project to make the superEVF project happen.

Man, how things can change.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

ovf sucks ass. it makes no sense whatsoever. look through the viewfinder of any dslr/ arri 435 or any arri camera with an ovf... man I can never know when im in focus, it's frustrating.

that's why i don't understand why the camera manufacturers prefer their customers to mistake focus rather than throwing in an interchangeable focusing screen with some microprisms that you can find in any old 100 dollars reflex still camera. And if you don't wanat to use it, okay, take it out. Is it difficult? Tape? please no-one dare to start again about that trap. Your beloved damned tape... I throw it in your toilet. while I'm at it again, let me finally destroy the thing. I want to make films, not build a cottage. Give measuring tape to a bricklayer. I want to control the image with my movie machine, my supreme instrument, and not with barbaric tools, carpenter tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cervo100.jpg
Measuring with tape requires lenses to be collimated at sub atomic tolerances and I don't want to spend my life in collimating my lenses + camera every day; since they focus at infinity, who cares if the sumerian scripts on the lenses barrel (I have lenses with metrical and lenses with imperial measures with alienating number fractions for a continenatal european) do correspond to the distance he says or not - I don't even want to watch what's written on the barrel, I want to concentrate on the film, on how it looks - why should I if I can directly see focus directly in the screen (or possibly in a proper viewfinder, that is a viewfinder that is of any help at seeing what's in focus)? The pixel matrix on the screen, in magnify mode, actually do a good job, not too unsimilar to the job that microprism do optically.

There are so many problems in the middle of such a delicate task like a neanderthalian collecting measures and converting that information to a rotation of a focus gear through the movement of his hand. So indirect, so many requirements. Manufaturers: I barely trust my hand, do you think I can trust a perfect nobody's hand? and "I" is me because I am the one who look at the images in order to know what am doing, if i'm doing a good shot or a potato.

If RED combined a 1080p EVF with very high-quality downsampled 1080p output

I don't know, I think there is a sweet spot about display/EVF resolution for a given sensor resolution, in order to "see" when an object is in focus, because suddenly the pixels do look perfectly right. I'm not sure of that. It's an impression. But somehow I know it has to be something like that, because it is a matrix, opposite of continuous, and there must be a point when a thin detail - let's say a line - couldn't be well represented by either one pixel or the next one, and now finally it is beyond this level of uncertainty (=from out of focus to in focus). And I don't know where I got this impression from. Perhaps it's not even from the Red One.
720p may even happen to be too much for the purpose I'm talking about.
I may be completely wrong, but I would be a bit surprised.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Michael, I think even if this wasn't part of what Tim envisaged is that this could work with an SLR style OVF which wouldn't require p guessI owerup of the camera to work.

I guess I misunderstood and he was talking about an all electronic camera, as naturally an OVF camera would be like that - I mean, why wouldn't the OVF be like that? - (I'm assuming there would be a way to rotate the mirror or the camera would shut down with the mirror out of the way)

 

[Steve Gibby]

David,

I think you gave a good analysis of the plusses and minuses of both an EVF and OVF - specifically for the narrative cinema industry. As always I appreciate your insight and input.

In my posts #140 and 162 of this thread I emphasized the reality that in the overall motion media production business, and thus also in the market for Epic and Scarlet, there is a vast amount of production done each year that is not narrative cinema - specifically in the hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills industries - all of which are prime markets for Epic and Scarlet. In fact, the combined yearly production totals, and number of workers therein, of hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills absolutely dwarf the yearly total of narrative cinema straight cine-style production.

In non-narrative hybrid EFP/cine and EFP production, which generally uses medium to small crews, and which again are RED's largest potential sales market, there basically is no advantage to using an OVF over an EVF - in fact there are several advantages to using an EVF, most of which I itemized in my posts 140 and 162. In non-narrative hybrid EFP/cine and EFP production focusing is almost always done by eye by the person shooting, an AC or focus puller is rarely used, events must be captured quickly (not rehearsed), shooting is rarely done with wide open iris, work is largely non-union, and there are many other differences from narrative cinema work - with commensurately different field workflows and accessory needs.

In digital still production, focusing depends on what style of photography you're doing. For nature, sports, and many genres of photojournalism photography, autofocus, image stabilization, and shutter priority shooting are the norm - and RED has AF and IS in their initial (but not finalized) specs for the DSMC. Sure, there are other genres of stills photography where an optical path through the lens is traditionally preferred for achieving manual focus, but without the final specs for the DSMC camera being released, Its too early to jump to conclusion on the DSMC capabilities there.

I think your conclusion at the end of your post is spot on - for narrative straight cine style production:
"The better EVFs get, the more the argument for an optical image declines". That said, for the non-narrative hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills industries, which are far and away the combined largest market for Epic and Scarlet, there really is almost no argument in favor of an OVF. It is only in the narrative straight cine-style industry that a reasonable argument for an OVF can be made - and that is the smallest market for Epic and Scarlet by far.

I think the last point I'd like to make for everyone is that judging the focusing capabilities, image quality, and other pluses of the new Bomb EVF on Epic and Scarlet is still highly premature. Until we can actually put the new Bomb EVF on an Epic or Scarlet and field test the package for performance all opinions are mere conjecture. I'll be one of the very first to receive an Epic and Bomb EVF when they ship, and as I have done with RED One I'll be happy to post my impressions of the package in the non-narrative EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills industries I regularly work in.

I gave my opinions of what RED should do reference an OVF in my post #162. I think all the input on this thread is very good for RED to hear. The cool thing is that they are listening. But RED is a business and needs to make solid fiscal decisions - especially in these hard economic times. It benefits all of us who own or use RED products for RED to be as successful and financially robust as possible. IMO RED producing an OVF will be a monetary funds drain with fairly good PR value - but very little return on investment (ROI) - and thats the bottom line (pun intended)

 

[Tom Lowe]

Speaking for myself, I have no use for an OVF. Hell, I don't even use the optical viewfinder on my DSLR anymore! Only Live View.

 

[Steve Gibby]

You know, a lot of these arguments for not doing an OVF would make sense if the only issue came down to focus v. imaging data (focus better judged on the OVF and data displays available on the EVF). But the one point neglected is judging the image itself. The lighting. Contrast and color.We all know that these are very inaccurate on the current RED One EVF and both LCDs. The brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, etc. cannot b judged even close to accurately. The EVF and the LCDs completey disagree with each other. And due to eher a quick debayer or downrezzing or combination, sometimes we get craz shifts in green/magenta or other oddball artifacts which are not recorded in the final image. So shooting with the electronic options can sometimes be a bit of a fog. I like to check my lighting through the optical viewfinder of the camera so that I take everything out of my view except what's in my image, and I'm seeing how the lens is interacting with it as well. Even the best operators will let the DP take a look without a grudge so that the DP can check the lighting. It's part of the way we work, or at least how I do. RED's monitoring is an approximation at best, and one has to take a frame into a post environment with a proper debayer and a decent monitor to see what's really there. That is insanely time-consuming on set for shot by hot work. Far quicker and more interactive to do it "through the lens." When I'm looking at the actress and wish to adjust the hairlight on its dimmer for just the right definition, it's a lot simpler to look through the eyepiece and call "woof" to the gaffer when it is dimmed to just the right level than to try it a few ways and then take a clip into FCP just to figure it out. No way that is happening on a real shoot.

And yes, we do say "woof" when something is set at exactly the right place.

Some good points Mitch - for the narrative straight cine-style production field workflow you described. But as I illustrated in my previous posts, narrative straight cine style production is a relatively small percentage of the overall production each year. The combined hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills production is the big elephant in the room - and the big potential sales elephant for Epic and Scarlet. Only certain styles and genres of production entail a set, video village, ACs, client monitors, etc.

The points you raised - brightness, contrast, hue, and color - can be infinitely adjusted in pre-post and post when we're shooting RAW as we do with RED One, and Epic and Scarlet to come. As you know shooting RAW is a whole different mind set and field workflow from traditional film and RGB production. Generally with RAW as long as you don't buzz the focus or clip the highlights you can push and pull the look of the footage about any way you want/need in pre-post and post.

In terms of technology, RED One (and Epic and Scarlet) are most similar to a DSLR, relatively similar to a TV/video camera, and only vaguely similar to a film camera. I believe the whole concept of using these RED cameras is to embrace their modularity, utility, flexibility, and technology. To me, then adapting old school film technology like an OVF on these cameras, except in some narrative straight cine style productions, is an anachronism fueled largely by tradition, inherent human resistance to change, and peer pressure.

As I posted in my previous post I think everyone should hold their judgment on the capabilities of Epic and Scarlet with the new Bomb EVF until the cameras and new EVF ship and can be field tested.

BTW - things seem to be going great at Abel - I keep hearing good things about you guys. I'll have to pay you a visit sometime.

 

[Dominic Cochran]

Steve, I totally understand where you're coming from in your posts as the style of production you describe is where about 80% of our work lives. However, I also run into
many of the situations Mitch describes on our higher budget commercial/music video shoots. I guess what I'm wondering is why wouldn't you take the same wait
and see approach you recommend for the Bomb EVF and apply it
to the OVF program that Jim has proposed? The suggestions in this thread
regarding an improved 1080 monitoring solution that you and
others have mentioned is something I could
definitely get on board with. I'm happy that the RED team is listening to suggestions and I'm keeping an open mind in listening to possible solutions to the current monitoring problems we're all dealing with in ALL styles of production.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Dominic, due to the genres I produce, direct, and shoot in, my high end productions for television networks are always hybrid EFP/Cine or EFP. I used to shoot a fair amount of straight cine style productions over the years, but I moved away from that since receiving my REDs over two years ago. Thus an OVF is simply not an attraction to me - but continuously improving EVFs are what I'm interested in.

I just think that constantly improved EVFs are the future of electronic cinematography - and the solid market for sales. Depending on how good the Bomb EVF is on Epic and Scarlet, the future may be about to arrive

I think RED needs to be smart about carefully weighing the feedback they get against what their potential target markets are for their products within the imaging industry. If you look back on Jim Jannard's last post, with his list of reservations about producing an OVF, I think those are well thought out reservations and potential "red flags" (no pun intended)

If RED wants to make an OVF I'm sure they will. But the cost involved and relatively low ROI on those investments should be carefully considered.

Interesting times ahead Dominic....