More news...

[Steve Gibby]

If RED does end up offering an OVF model Epic, I hope it is a separate model camera body from the model designed to be used with the EVF. IMO the vast majority of Epic users will opt to use the camera with an EVF - and none of us EVF users will want to help pay for the added R&D expense, and put up with the added bulk (and weight) of a camera case also designed for an OVF - when we don't ever intend to use the camera with an OVF. IMO a separate, dedicated OVF model Epic camera would probably be the best way to go.

There are a vast number of professional RED One users - and in the future professional Epic and Scarlet users - who don't care to work in traditional cine style workflows, eye focus their cameras, like electronic focusing and exposure aids (1:1, false color, edge highlight), and have no interest in using an OVF.

Perhaps a good solution would be to deliver the planned EVF Epic models on schedule - take advanced orders for the OVF option modified Epics to gage market demand - then, and only then, if there is sufficient market demand to justify the time and expense of actually making the OVF model, go ahead and make it.

There was a lot of initial noise about wanting the uncompressed recording option for RED one - but when it came down to actually paying for the increased expense, and decreased mobility, of going that route, and those who said they wanted it were faced with the greatly increased expense for their choice, nobody ordered it and the option was wisely dropped by RED. I'm not saying that would be the case with the proposed OVF option, but I am saying that taking advanced orders, where people have to put their money where their mouthes (and forum posts) are, would define the volume of the actual purchasers - and weed out all the young cinematography hopefuls who somehow feel they will be seen as being a "true cinematographer" by saying they want to step back to "old school" technology - even though ironically it will be used on a "new school" camera system.

I would never gauge market demand for RED products solely by the forum feedback here on RED User. I love RED User, but IMO RED User is over-weighted with cine-style posters and hopeful newbies - and thus has never been a true market picture for RED One - and is an even less accurate market picture for the much more scalable and flexible Epic and Scarlet cameras - especially the DSMC models, which will be used (depending on lens and accessories added) in the cine, hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and still photo industries.

I would also never gauge true sales market for RED products by the attitudes of a few traditionalist DP's in the cine-style portion of the motion media industry. Their opinions and desires are fine, and accurate for their workflows and peer groups - but don't even begin to reflect the needs and attitudes of a vast numbers of professionals in the wide array of other motion media (and stills) industries. If Epic and Scarlet are to be flexible and modular convergence cameras used in the cine, hybrid EFP/cine, EFP, and digital stills industries, then the overall market preferences must be gauged by RED - not just a narrow slice of high-profile cine style camera users.

RED is a business, my longtime friend Jim Jannard is obviously a very wise and successful businessman, and I'm quite certain he'll continue to make the good business decisions he always has. In fact, I'm quite sure he already thoroughly understands everything I posted above. I merely posted it as food for thought for forum users here.

My 0.02 cents...

 

[Michael Hastings]

If RED does end up offering an OVF model Epic, I hope it is a separate model camera body from the model designed to be used with the EVF. IMO the vast majority of Epic users will opt to use the camera with an EVF - and none of us EVF users will want to pay for the added R&D expense, and put up with the added bulk (and weight) of a camera case also designed for an OVF - when we don't intend to use the camera with an OVF. A separate, dedicated OVF model Epic camera would probably be the best way to go.
My 0.02 cents...

Steve: I agree 1000% (the rest of our post was good too.)

My biggest concern is if they need to modify the design of the stock EPIC so the "normal" front position of the camera with the PL mount removed (or the distance of the oplf from the sensor) to accommodate an optional OVF it may screw up a lot of possibilities for a variety of lens options. I'm very happy with the Birger concept and the ability to easily use all the EOS compatible lenses as well as manual NIkon, Contax/Yashica Zeiss, etc.

And I think this becomes even more important when you consider something like the 645 epic where for another $10-15K in investment you can have true IMAX size images (not scaled up HD or even 4K).

As you well know, for a lot of nature stuff (or my U/W work) the biggest effort/cost is just getting there and getting those precious seconds of dramatic footage - so you want the absolute highest res you can get to future-proof it. (Nothing is more depressing than looking at that wall of standard def tapes I have from around the world and realizing that except for web video - it just doesn't cut it anymore.)

No indy can afford the imax film, much less the equipment. But that's the beauty of the digital sensor - we get that resolution and it doesn't take a bigger production team, or massive film expenditures. It still comes out of that compact backpack camera and a minor increase in storage cost for the good footage. But the other part of the equation is to be able to use something like those Contax 645 Zeiss lenses that can be had for a few hundred dollars or even just a bit over a grand for a specialty lens like the 35mm superwide.

And that requires the ability to use custom mounts and I hope that OVF option won't create a camera that is hard to accommodate a lot of alternate mounts.

So RED please consider Gibby's points. EVF is clearly the sweet spot in the design of a digital cine/video camera. This is a case where the modular design is all well and good, but if an OVF can't be accommodated as purely an add on module to the current design I really don't want them to delay the timing of Epic, nor add additional cost, or limit other capabilities.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

what about a radical approach?
Simply adjust the OVF accordingly to the image EVF using the 1:1 pixel check function.
Do it on the field. In a minute.

The EVF is the truth. We have the reference. Turn a gear untill the OVF (which also may have a magnify function) is colimated, that is: untill it shows the same focus as the EVF.

If Red Team makes it possible to service the OVF quicky by the operator...
So it will be expensive expensive to buy, but a lot cheaper to mantain.
It may only need a laboratory service once in a while.
If, for any reason, someone don't like the idea and would prefer all the thing to be forever expensive, please just say it. (Because I know there is some user who do hate solutions that are less enslaving, yeah?)
What about two types of OVF?
# one for the masses, more expensive but which do not require a full time technician in the house eating money to smaller studios and single users who can't afford it, that is probably the majority.
# one for the cool people, who will only accept a solutions that requires a full time technician in the house eating money. But less expensive to buy.
Otherwise, a third party may be able to make a solution for the poor and/or unhappy ones.

 

[Jannard]

Our OVF will use a spinning mirror (not a prism) in a completely new way. While we think the new concept is quite unique, the things we are concerned with are:

1. The expense of development
2. The low volume of sales
3. The high price we would need to charge (excess of $20K) to work within our modular system
4. Maintenance
5. Its inability to view and focus in low light
6. In ability to add a viewing LUT.

One of the things we have talked about is just to drop development and let those who need an OVF buy another camera brand. But then they lose the value of being in the RED modular system... and 5K at 100fps.

We would love to hear your thoughts.

Jim

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Chapeau to all of you!
Reading your developpement thoughts is a great moment for me as a dop.

I'm shure you will bring us the right tools.

Patrick

PS: I personally don't see any advantage of an OVD. I prefer to see what is recorded on a EVF as opposed to see the fraction of second wich is not recorded in the spinning mirror.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This is a repeat of my other post:

There is no reason to make the optical viewfinder issue a big emotional debate, there are simply pros and cons to both optical and electronic viewfinders.

Traditionally on a film shoot, the operator looked through the actual taking lens and had the best opinion about whether the shot was in focus or not -- now with 35mm sensor digital cameras, no matter what electronic viewfinder I've used, the operator is a poorer judge of focus during a take than anyone else watching on a larger monitor.

That changes a lot of the dynamics on a set, as traditionally the operator and the focus puller discussed between them any focus problems, now it's the DP (me) telling both of them back from my monitor where they made mistakes. On the other hand, on a 24" HD monitor, I can catch mistakes in focus like never before, which is good. On the other hand, a lot of focus pullers get fired these days because now everyone can see their mistakes in real time.

Second, with an optical viewfinder, one can line-up a shot without the camera being turned on. So many times on digital shows, I've had the camera on in order to set-up and light the set, only to have the battery need to be swapped out during Take One.

There are lots of reasons why it's a good idea to be able to look through the actual lens.

Now there are a lot of good reasons to use electronic viewfinders, exposure information being the primary one. Optical viewfinders don't tell an operator whether they are exposing the shot properly. If you are shooting in charging light conditions, like while shooting on a moving car through landscapes of changing light levels, it's a lot easier to make quick guesses as to how to adjust the iris with an electronic viewfinder and guides like zebras and whatnot. Plus you have information available about shutter speed, color temp, battery level, etc. if you want.

So I wouldn't dismiss those who want an optical viewfinder out of hand if you don't have a lot of personal experience operating a movie camera with one, because it is a unique experience to see a scene through the optics of a lens with your own eyes, without the filter of an electronic image. But I also agree in general that digital cameras, for most people, are going to make more sense with an electronic viewfinder, especially for owner/operator/DP's who work on their own, rather than a traditional film set with separate operators, DP, focus-pullers, etc.

I mean, ask high-end DLSR users if they'd prefer that their cameras only have an LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.

--

Now all of that said, I agree with Gibby's post, that from a business standpoint, the low number of people that want an optical viewfinder option may not justify the costs. I just wanted to make the case that the advantages of an optical viewfinder are not imaginary and those that prefer them are not dinosaurs and luddites.

But a lot of this is predicated on the quality of electronic viewfinder images -- the better they get, the more and more the arguments for an optical image decline. But the truth is that I've looked at a lot of color EVF's over the years at NAB and whatnot and none of them yet have the detail and clarity of a good optical viewfinder. However, a good 7" onboard HD monitor can, so it's partly a size problem.

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

For what it's worth, I've worked in the world of Arri and Panavision cameras for 30 years. 99% of the time there is a 1st AC pulling focus. And I think for most using Scarlet and Epic, a 1st AC will still be pulling focus. The OVF remains a non factor under these circumstances -- though I applaud your willingess to go where no cutting edge camera builder has gone before. Just as long as the operator has look around capability, I believe EVF is not only adequate, but offers more advantages than disadvantages.

Focusing your and RED's attention on other areas of product advancement gets my vote.

Many thanks, Jim, for all you and your amazing RED entourage do.

 

[Sergio Perez]

I think that the ones requiring the OVF will be seasoned DP's. For you guys to be considering developing it is because powerful DP's demanded it. So maybe if you guys came up with some sort of special prototypes- very low number OVF specially for these DP's- you'll keep most everyone happy. The price shouldn't be a problem for these DP's.

For a potential Scarlet user and someone shooting digital for the past 10 years, I can say I don't miss OVF. What I would want, however, is the most accurate possible EVF with the option of both color and Black and White. I think that every single EVF I've used is somehow innacurate compared to final output.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

I feel the OVF is going to be (for the most part) a rental house item. From the maintenance needs to the low volume, high cost issue I believe this is an item to be rented when the crew demands it and the production is willing to pay for it.

Many film DP's and Op's will be ecstatic to use this option. However these men and women are used to renting the camera for the project. The issue with asking this board for feed back is that by and by large I do not believe the majority of the "customer base" for this option are here. (while there are some that are vocal and on here) The larger group of people that will be most animated by this are not owners and will not be involved in RED centric feed back right now.

I think that you need to reach out to the rental houses and through them to their customers for "real market number" feed back on this option.

And that is my .2¢

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's really not the DP's so much as the traditional film operators (and some union DP's operate but most do not).

As a DP on a union show, I'm back at the large HD monitors so the lack of an optical viewfinder is mostly a non-issue for me except for set-ups, and again, it's nice to be able to look through a camera without powering it up when lining up a shot or practicing a dolly move.

And as mentioned, the 1st AC doesn't necessarily benefit from an OVF either, except that if the operator doesn't have a good viewfinder image, then the AC isn't going to be asking them whether they "got it" or not, they'd ask whoever is at the biggest monitor on set.

So on a traditional film set, the optical viewfinder issue mainly affects the operator, some of whom are also the DP. Now ever since the video tap, the power of the operator has somewhat been diminished in regards to framing, and the fact that now the operator is not the best judge of focus either further continues this decline in power. Maybe that's inevitable, I don't know.

But in cases where the DP is also the operator, then it just comes down to the pros and cons of either an EVF or OVF, and there are workarounds either way (you can always stick an onboard monitor on a camera with an OVF), but ultimately, if I had to choose and I didn't want an additional onboard stuck on the camera, I'd probably go with an EVF myself just for all the info it provides.

 

[Felix K.]

I am no expert so please regard these questions and annotations as truly sincere! So if I don't seem to get the point, feel free to explain it to me!

This is a repeat of my other post:
I've used, the operator is a poorer judge of focus during a take than anyone else watching on a larger monitor.

But isn't the operator mainly responsible for framing and moving the camera when operating?

That changes a lot of the dynamics on a set, as traditionally the operator and the focus puller discussed between them any focus problems, now it's the DP (me) telling both of them back from my monitor where they made mistakes. On the other hand, on a 24" HD monitor, I can catch mistakes in focus like never before, which is good. On the other hand, a lot of focus pullers get fired these days because now everyone can see their mistakes in real time.

So why not put the focus puller infront of a huge monitor with a focus remote control?

Second, with an optical viewfinder, one can line-up a shot without the camera being turned on. So many times on digital shows, I've had the camera on in order to set-up and light the set, only to have the battery need to be swapped out during Take One.

Ok, that is a bonus. But does it justify the investment?

There are lots of reasons why it's a good idea to be able to look through the actual lens.

But I thought you do this when you see what the sensor sees?

I mean, ask high-end DLSR users if they'd prefer that their cameras only have an LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.

I guess not but a DSLR photographer normally focuses the camera himself. So he could not walk around and look at a 24" monitor at the same time.

Important questions are: does the development effect release dates or costs of the DSMC for users not interested in the OVF? (I guess not.)

Edit: I still think it is admirable how Jim and his team try to give people what they ask for, no matter how big the cost or effort or time necessary!

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

(excess of $20K)

I bought an optical viewfinder from a Konvas 35mm motion picture camera. A fine object. 150 dollars. Can you ( ) please build a custom Epic around it just for me?


I see things like this: I'm not going to buy another camera brand for good enough reasons. Red makes me more happy than others.
But if an optical viewfinder is available for the Red and it's not too expensive, I may buy it, otherwise... yes red camera and... no ovf. Never mind.

Now, to force me to buy ovf, you should take away the 1:1 magnify in the display on the new cameras. But if that should be the case - unless you offer me ovf immediately for little money - I would not buy Epic/Scarlett, because of the viewfinder mega price.
I know, you are not going to repackage and sell me about the same problem that you solved me some time ago for free.
I just hope that supply can reach the demand.
Like probably the majority here, I'd like to buy it if it's not too expensive and offers a true advantage.

Like:
You seem to be sure that volume of sales will be low, and easily it will be if it is expensive.
Oufhhffhf. Sorry. Too much thinking.

You don't really need to give us an ovf IF the new cameras already have excellent, fantastic ways of proper, quick, easy focusing in the electronic domain.
But we would love Red cameras even more, if you do!
(and immensely more, if at an aggressive price)

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

I have no preference between EVF and OVF really, as long as it is possible to focus reasonably easily, quickly, by myself, precisely, without having to cross my fingers.
This is the only reason, normally, to desire an optical viewfinder.
1:1 pixel check on the Red One is fine.
If it could be used also while recording, it would be even (much) better.

But I don't know anything about the new cameras, like what resolution on display, display size, how much magnify... so I have no idea how it will be to focus with the electronic image reference.

 

[Dominic Cochran]

Well, having only been doing this for 15 years, I can assure you I'm neither a stick-in the mud traditionalist, nor am I a hopeful newbie. I'm just happy that RED is giving us options. Jim has established a pretty damn good track record by now, so I for one am not going to speculate that he would do anything to the detriment of the overall program.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But isn't the operator mainly responsible for framing and moving the camera when operating?

Traditionally, they have also been the one to tell everyone else whether the shot was in focus or not. It makes sense that the guy actually operating the camera should have the best view in the house afterall.

So why not put the focus puller infront of a huge monitor with a focus remote control?

We do that now and then when necessary but it often ends up not working because the focus is almost always late, chasing the actor and responding to them after they've already moved. It's "reactive" focusing rather than "anticipatory" focusing. If the focus puller is near the camera and the actor, they can see whether the actor's feet are near their tape marks or any other guides like furniture and whatnot, whereas on a monitor, they only see what the camera is seeing, which can lack any objects in the frame of known distances, etc. A focus puller will often measure distances to things like the edge of a kitchen counter or the end of a couch, etc. objects that the actor will move next to.

But does it justify the investment?

That's a business question and I'm not a businessman.

But I thought you do this when you see what the sensor sees?

Seeing through a lens with your eyes versus seeing how a sensor responds to the light from a lens is not exactly the same thing. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. You could argue for example that all that really matters is how the sensor responds to the lens image because that is what gets recorded. On the other hand, it's also one-step removed from what the lens is actually seeing and using your eyes is a more direct view of the scene as it plays in front of the lens.

I guess not but a DSLR photographer normally focuses the camera himself. So he could not walk around and look at a 24" monitor at the same time.

Well, you just made the argument for the advantages of an OVF -- it's the easier way to judge focus during a take for an operator compared to an EVF. Of course, both OVF and EVF's have "zoom" features that allow you to enlarge the image for better focusing but then it gets hard to frame the image during the take.

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

 

[Felix K.]

Thank you for taking so much time to explain; but I still have to keep asking

Traditionally, they have also been the one to tell everyone else whether the shot was in focus or not. It makes sense that the guy actually operating the camera should have the best view in the house afterall.

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.

We do that now and then when necessary but it often ends up not working because the focus is almost always late, chasing the actor and responding to them after they've already moved. It's "reactive" focusing rather than "anticipatory" focusing. If the focus puller is near the camera and the actor, they can see whether the actor's feet are near their tape marks or any other guides like furniture and whatnot, whereas on a monitor, they only see what the camera is seeing, which can lack any objects in the frame of known distances, etc. A focus puller will often measure distances to things like the edge of a kitchen counter or the end of a couch, etc. objects that the actor will move next to.

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.

Seeing through a lens with your eyes versus seeing how a sensor responds to the light from a lens is not exactly the same thing. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. You could argue for example that all that really matters is how the sensor responds to the lens image because that is what gets recorded. On the other hand, it's also one-step removed from what the lens is actually seeing and using your eyes is a more direct view of the scene as it plays in front of the lens.

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

Well, you just made the argument for the advantages of an OVF -- it's the easier way to judge focus for an operator compared to an EVF.

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?)

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Our OVF will use a spinning mirror (not a prism) in a completely new way. While we think the new concept is quite unique, the things we are concerned with are:

1. The expense of development
2. The low volume of sales
3. The high price we would need to charge (excess of $20K) to work within our modular system
4. Maintenance
5. Its inability to view and focus in low light
6. In ability to add a viewing LUT.

One of the things we have talked about is just to drop development and let those who need an OVF buy another camera brand. But then they lose the value of being in the RED modular system... and 5K at 100fps.

We would love to hear your thoughts.

Jim

My two cents? Lots and lots of things RED seem to have priority over this accessory. I wouldn't kill it, but I would put other developments ahead of it.

Maybe do a pre-sale to gauge interest?

 

[John Nguyen]

Just weighing in as someone at the very low end of the possible Red customer spectrum.

I'm hoping to get the Scarlet fixed to start out with, and then eventually when I graduate from school and make enough money, upgrade to the S35 (or whatever near-full frame sensor Red is putting out then). At that point I'd like to ditch my Canon still photo body and just move all my lenses and lighting system over to the Scarlet S35 and use that as both my still photo camera and my video camera. At THAT point I'd think about an OVF, but that's assuming by then the DSMC system is well integrated enough with all my Canon still photo gear to substitute as my still photo body. The OVF will still be just an afterthought since I keep seeing EVF technology improve so much that I personally think there are EVFs there now that can handle even sports action all right.

For motion picture work I won't use an OVF at all because I often shoot at low angles and shoving my eye to a small eyepiece for maybe minutes at a time while performing camera motions doesn't sound appealing. I will stick to an external LCD for my film projects.

So honestly, I don't really care that much for an OVF since even though an EVF will never match "the performance" of an OVF, the cost-benefit ratio for a low end consumer like me just won't justify it. Just my weigh-in as a low-end user, like I said.

 

[David Doko]

It's probably best to play to your strengths. Arri has generations of experience with OVFs, and for you to sink in a lot of development time and resources into this product may not pay off when a competitor may have a better product already at market.

Not being a business owner, I don't know how Research and Development can sometimes pay off in unrelated ways to the product line as a whole, but it might be informative anyways for RED to explore this path and see how it transforms the systems, even if you don't bring a finished product to market.

While I like OVFs very much, to be dogmatic about it is kind of counter productive - like you said if one feels they really really need an OVF to do good work, there are many other camera systems out there and in the end a DP or owner has to weigh the value of a camera system in its entirety.

Our OVF will use a spinning mirror (not a prism) in a completely new way. While we think the new concept is quite unique, the things we are concerned with are:

1. The expense of development
2. The low volume of sales
3. The high price we would need to charge (excess of $20K) to work within our modular system
4. Maintenance
5. Its inability to view and focus in low light
6. In ability to add a viewing LUT.

One of the things we have talked about is just to drop development and let those who need an OVF buy another camera brand. But then they lose the value of being in the RED modular system... and 5K at 100fps.

We would love to hear your thoughts.

Jim

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I'm sure this is useful for some.. But given all the othe information I get in the electronic viewfinder, the optical is not a choice for me.

I am working an electronic medium, not a chemical one. The monitor is my first step in what I see.

Jay