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 :)

More news...

Sanjin Jukic said:
The latest rumor told us that Alexa project could cancelled production OVF.

Upcoming IBC 2010 in Amsterdam can probably confirm or denied that kind of rumor.

OVF is expensive to develop and produce also demand is still pretty in a low level even for Alexa that is HD digital camera

beloved and ordered mostly from a hardcore Arri (analog) film camera users that as we know all have OVF as a standard...

D20 and D21 were all made with OVF but as we know that those cameras were to expensive and a kind of "trouble makers" for Arri digital wider consumer acceptance.

Alexa probably wants to make it different...!!!???
Click to expand...

It's fairly straightforward to build a pelicule finder, as Scarlet / Epic are modular, I can see I will probably have to do that myself or possibly ask P+S.
 
P+S Technik had already development of OVF for RED1 that was a part of IMS project but we know well how all that finished...

But if the third party accessories for Epic/Scarlet would be easy to get permissions from RED DCCC I sure we will get OVF from P+S or somebody other...
 
I clicked on the link for this thread, and the power in my house immediately went out for an hour.

I thought the thread must be really awesome to cause that kind of outage.
 
Leo Ticheli said:
...
A good EVF or LCD shows you pretty much what and how the sensor is seeing; optical viewfinders do not....
Click to expand...

Lee Fingersh said:
That's because it's not a TTL OVF.

In order of usefulness (my opinion):

TTL OVF
EVF
Non-TTL OVF
LCD
Click to expand...

Fully agree with Leo...and just about every other digital camera operator.

In order of usefulness (my opinion):

1. Large LCD
2. Medium LCD
3. Small LCD
4. EVF (in addition to an LCD)

An OVF on a digital camera is like tits on a bull. Next, someone will ask for a celuloid film magazine module and... a hand crank module

Sorry, could not resist :beer:

Having said that I have no idea why Canon and Nikon still make DSLRs...live view with 1:1 zoom is so much more accurate for critical focus and exposure evaluation, not to mention that it works in the darkness too. I guess that's another reason why I look forward to the Epic and Scarlet...finally some forward thinking!
 
Last edited:
Arri actually does make a hank crank accessory for the D21
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Fully agree with Leo...and just about every other digital camera operator.

In order of usefulness (my opinion):

1. Large LCD
2. Medium LCD
3. Small LCD
4. EVF (in addition to an LCD)

An OVF on a digital camera is like tits on a bull. Next, someone will ask for a celuloid film magazine module and... a hand crank module
Click to expand...

Might be fine for shooting video, but for stills dSLRs rule *because* of the mirror. It enables fast, predictive AF through the PD system. It provides instant feedback to the operator enabling the tracking of fast moving subjects like birds, aircraft and flaying insects with long focal lengths and tight framing. EVF lag makes that close to impossible, even with 60fps displays in good light. It only gets worse in dark conditions. Speaking of dark conditions, an OVF doesn't ruin your night vision by emitting a bright but useless back-light into your eyes like an EVF or LCD does. At least in all cases I've tried, I can see in 5 stops darker conditions with my OVF than my EVF, through the same optics. What I can see with my naked eye through the viewfinder when I'm fully dark-adapted takes a 5-10 second exposure to capture. I can see every bit of dynamic range I can see with my eyes through my OVF. That allows me to determine what I want to capture in the exposure. Finally, when shooting with flash, an EVF doesn't show you anything close to what you are going to capture. But you can usually see that with your eyes through their exceptional dynamic range. EVFs don't have that and I doubt they will even with REDs HDR mode because the micro-display isn't capable of displaying it even if the sensor can capture it.
 
Stephen Williams said:
It can be a really fast way of working, no waiting for video villiage to be ready! It's also very easy to judge lighting & look without any 'input' to be 'safe' etc.
Click to expand...

Hi Stephen,

I agree that waiting 90 or so seconds for the Red to boot can be frustrating for us afflicted with Type A personalities, but please explain what information about lighting and look is gained by peering through an OVF that is not gleaned by simply looking at the scene?

If EVFs bother your eyes, you certainly have a valid point, but other than that, I just can't see any advantage to optical viewing and many drawbacks.

By the way, I enjoy your posts; very thoughtful and informative.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I suppose you could see it as a sort-of "loss leader" product for the un-Red hold-outs. Still, it feels like there are more important issues these days...

Post HDRx footage/news ASAP!

This thread is positively Jurassic.
 
Lee Fingersh said:
Might be fine for shooting video, but for stills dSLRs rule *because* of the mirror...
Click to expand...

I totally disagree about focusing. I've never managed to get auto focus to work more than 10% of the time. Besides, the idea of any viewfinder is to see what you are recording. And, on a digital camera, an OVF is as far from accurate as it gets.

OK, real-life example: I was shooting the Milky Way with dSLR on a moonless night. I look in the OVF and see nothing, can't focus on anything and have NFI what the exposure might be. Switch to Live View and all of the sudden I can see everything, zoom in on a star, nail the focus instantly, set exposure in pitch black and shoot!

For those who haven't seen it yet, pictures of an UPGRADE from dSLR to DSMC attached, it is that simple. :anti-old:
 

Attachments

  • PICT0101.small.jpg
    PICT0101.small.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 0
  • PICT0103.small.jpg
    PICT0103.small.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 0
LMAO. I haven't looked through the optical viewfinder on my DSLRs in years.
 
What Deakins has goes a little beyond what he sees in any view finder. EVF, TTL,both are capable of greatness. Jim has been so generous but can't give us everything. If you want it (more than 12 of you) put your money where your mouth is. Red would probably make it but having used TTL's for many years I can't see why.
 
Leo Ticheli said:
Hi Stephen,

I agree that waiting 90 or so seconds for the Red to boot can be frustrating for us afflicted with Type A personalities, but please explain what information about lighting and look is gained by peering through an OVF that is not gleaned by simply looking at the scene?

If EVFs bother your eyes, you certainly have a valid point, but other than that, I just can't see any advantage to optical viewing and many drawbacks.

By the way, I enjoy your posts; very thoughtful and informative.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

Hi Leo,

Looking at the scene directly shows me what I want to know lighting wise, with smoke seeing at shooting stop is better. I can judge the exposure by looking at the scene or through an OVF, it's simpler, I know what I am looking at.
If I have several cameras on set with EVF's they all look different, it's an unnecessary distraction. For framing I prefer viewfinder over a monitor it's more intimate without distractions, the results look better, with an EVF my eye is straining just looking at the picture so the operating suffers.

Best,

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
It can be a really fast way of working, no waiting for video villiage to be ready! It's also very easy to judge lighting & look without any 'input' to be 'safe' etc.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this statement. Can you elaborate on "waiting for video village"? Most Film Cameras also have a Video Camera tap that is used for Video Village / Assist...

Also, judging lighting - One can always use a meter and finder... I would argue that neither EVF or OVF makes it "easier"...
 
Casey Green said:
Also, judging lighting - One can always use a meter and finder... I would argue that neither EVF or OVF makes it "easier"...
Click to expand...

Yes, one would hope the DP is using his/her meter more than a VF or video village to set his/her lighting. Regardless, there is no way an OVF could actually be more accurate than an EVF which is showing sensor output. Those who say the opposite are simply relying on the way they've always done it. No doubt their experience makes this work for them but would open up a world of pain on a camera that doesn't use their favoured filmstock - ie, a digital camera. And, of course, when it doesn't work, they then blame the camera.
 
Cail Young said:
Then you have the diopter set incorrectly or you would have the same issue with a ground-glass viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Not correct, however switching to B & W fixed the problem with headaches
 
Casey Green said:
I don't understand this statement. Can you elaborate on "waiting for video village"? Most Film Cameras also have a Video Camera tap that is used for Video Village / Assist...

Also, judging lighting - One can always use a meter and finder... I would argue that neither EVF or OVF makes it "easier"...
Click to expand...

Any video village is a PITA, much faster without any external monitors.
 
Cail Young said:
Then you have the diopter set incorrectly or you would have the same issue with a ground-glass viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Red's EVF (and I assume some others), uses sequential-color scan... and that can be strain and or headache inducing for some folks, even if properly focused.

A few people have simialr issues with single-ship DLP projection systems.

-sc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top