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...

Harry Clark said:
And don't forget that film camera eyepiece extensions also offer a zoom in or drop in magnification for a quick focus check...
Hoping that it's a spinning mirror shutter. Not so interesting to me if it's a pellicle, due to light loss.
Cheers,
Harry
Click to expand...

Oh yes, if it's not a spinning mirror, i'm out, and variable.
 
"Funny, just yesterday I explained on CML some of the advantages to having a mechanical shutter on a digital camera. This is the same thing. An optical viewfinder that uses a spinning mirror will eliminate the "jello" effect of a rolling shutter such as on the RED One. Don't know the planned read/write time of the Epic-X, but this can be a nice side benefit"

Jannard said:
Sorry to slightly disagree with Mitch. Spinning mirror is 4 microsecs and Epic is 5. One won't help Epic at all. It already matches (virtually) what a spinning mirror does on a film camera for skew.

Jim
Click to expand...

Why is rolling shutter still an issue. In all of the RED shot features i have seen in theatres, i have never noticed the "jello effect"; even in all of the other RED content i have seen posted on redUser. Still many people comment on it and i am wondering if the comments will dissuade aspiring filmakers. It may only be me; i thought skew issues were resolved with R1's earlier builds.
 
Stuart English said:
Although items 2 and 3 on your list would be much lower / faster on an EPIC and an electronic EVF also allows a 1:1 pixel magnify view for focus check
Click to expand...

Yep- and that excites me. Hopefully the battery drain is less, the start up times are considerably faster, and the big logo is removed from the preview / start up. Don't get me wrong, I like the EVF and the LCD- as in the end I want to see what the camera is actually seeing, which can only be done by viewing through the sensor. But battery drain and the startup times with the big logo have been enough of an annoyance in my day to day work that I look forward to the option of the OVF. Whether or not I buy it will all hinge on the cost of the OVF and what the startup times and battery drain end up coming in at.
 
I had a chance to look through the new Bomb EVF today at IBC. I'd never looked through the old, so nothing to compare. Looked awesome, though.

I can't resist comparing it to the competition, though.

At the Arri stand, they had an EVF hooked up to a white demo box. I looked through it and saw a lower refresh rate and the rainbow effect I'd heard everyone talk about for the original Red EVF. I didn't think much of it, until one of the Arri reps enthusiastically told me the EVF was the new one for the new camera next year and linked to the sensor test device on the other side of the box. Too early to tell if this will be their final design, of course, but the Bomb was much, much better.

He also said the sensor had a native ISO of 800. The picture from the toy car in the dark box looked decent on the 720p EVF, of course.
 
Jim Perry said:
"Funny, just yesterday I explained on CML some of the advantages to having a mechanical shutter on a digital camera. This is the same thing. An optical viewfinder that uses a spinning mirror will eliminate the "jello" effect of a rolling shutter such as on the RED One. Don't know the planned read/write time of the Epic-X, but this can be a nice side benefit"



Why is rolling shutter still an issue. In all of the RED shot features i have seen in theatres, i have never noticed the "jello effect"; even in all of the other RED content i have seen posted on redUser. Still many people comment on it and i am wondering if the comments will dissuade aspiring filmakers. It may only be me; i thought skew issues were resolved with R1's earlier builds.
Click to expand...

Rolling shutter is not an issue on most general production. But when there is effects work, 3D, or vibratory compensated movement such as on a helicopter it can make a very big problem.

Jim, glad to hear that the sweep is so fast at 5 microseconds. There is still the directionality aspect and the soft edge of the shadow of the mechnical shutter to the sensor, but most of this is moot with a fast refresh.

Sorry I missed you here at IBC. Wanted to show you the prototype NULL Target.
 
I think Red has no choice but to develop the OVF as an option, but I don't see how the OVF won't fundamentally change the exterior dimensions of the brain. This could affect third party developers of accessories like mounts, hand-held rigs and marine housings. I know the OVF will affect battery life by draining them quicker than if there was no OVF. I think people are looking narrowly at the benefit of having an OVF and not thinking past it to what they may have to sacrifice in performance in other areas. You're effectively powering a computer and an electric motor at the same time, vs. just a computer. Will it affect the top-end of the effective frame rate? Will it require a new bottom dovetail? Will you be limited to 19mm rods? These are things we won't know for awhile. There's always much more to it than just slapping on a spinning mirror.
 
Doesn't the OVF go in-between the brain and lens mount?
 
Mitch Gross said:
Rolling shutter is not an issue on most general production. But when there is effects work, 3D, or vibratory compensated movement such as on a helicopter it can make a very big problem.
Click to expand...

As well as unsynchronised strobes like camera flashes.

Jeff Coatney said:
I think Red has no choice but to develop the OVF as an option
Click to expand...

How do RED have no choice to develop an OVF? It's completely their choice.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
My guess is some OVF owners will spend more time without their cameras than with them.
Click to expand...

My guess is that there's pretty much zero chance of this being true. I also doubt this will slow down the program in any meaningful way. This was a great decision on RED's part. Bravo!
 
Joseph Ward said:
Doesn't the OVF go in-between the brain and lens mount?
Click to expand...

Yes. But the housing for the brain must be retooled to fit the spinning mirror assembly and the motor that drives it, and the optical pathway for the eyepiece, and the new circuit board to drive the whole thing so it syncs with the camera's motherboard.

All that metal, motor and circuitry must be wedged into the space between the lens mount and the sensor. I seriously doubt there's room in the Epic brain module as it is now. To get a true OVF, Jim will have to make new tooling for that module. It may well be 20% - 30% larger than it is now in terms of mass envelope. It alone will cost many thousands of dollars to buy and it will require pricey regular visits to a tech center to keep it accurate.

Panavision don't sell cameras, they keep them in-house where this type of maintenance is done by full-time in-house technicians. When you're footing the bill to keep this thing adjusted and accurate, you will see one more reason why Panavision opted for a rental business model and why their cameras rent for astronomical rates.

You'll notice that of the three models of cameras that Arri introduced to compete with Red, only one of them, the most expensive one, has the OVF. If an OVF is essential to making professional images, why does Arri omit the feature on two of their three models in favor of an EVF? Are those other two cameras inferior? Would Arri deliberately hamstring 66% of their new product line? No. People want it, they think its superior, and that's why its there-- on one model only.

Please bear in mind that I am not criticizing the people who want an OVF. I don't feel one way or other about it. OVF or EVF, at the end of the day, I don't care which one is better because a case can be made for both. Its just that in my opinion, it is an elective option that is unnecessary to the operation of the camera as it was designed. Or as we like to say... Mission Creep.
 
Robert Horwell said:
Won't we still have an ext monitor for the focus check?
Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting point Robert, regarding the OVF. Since the external monitors are fed by what is hitting the sensor, it could well be the case that the external monitors will be black and have no picture unless the camera is recording. It depends on where the spinning mirror parks itself when its not spinning. That's another issue with regards to battery life. If the spinning mirror parks itself to allow viewing thru the eyepiece - the monitors will be black. If the mirror parks itself to allow pass-thru to the sensor, the eyepiece is black. So that if you want to look thru the OVF eyepiece, you may have to power up the camera. Maybe there could be an option so you could choose where it parks, but that will probably only add to the cost of development.

Here's another factor, an economic one. I don't think an OVF equipped Epic will rent at a premium versus an EVF equipped Epic. Even though the OVF equipped Epic will be many thousands of dollars more to buy and maintain. Things to think about.

Please understand Jim, I'm not trying to derail your OVF program, I just think we all need to consider the ramifications of it. I know you're committed to giving your customers the best user-experience you can.
 
Harry Clark said:
And don't forget that film camera eyepiece extensions also offer a zoom in or drop in magnification for a quick focus check...
Hoping that it's a spinning mirror shutter. Not so interesting to me if it's a pellicle, due to light loss.
Cheers,
Harry
Click to expand...

I don't think you're alone in your preference for spinning mirror over pellicle, Harry. While I think a pellicle solution would be easier to integrate into the Epic system, any deviation from an Arri style OVF would be a waste of time to develop. People really like that spinning mirror.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Because many of their customers have requested it, and Red listens to its users. But it is not essential to the operation of the camera, its purely there for the user-experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, RED listen to their users and have graciously included the option of this feature, perhaps also to win some of the more stubborn, traditional DPs. I just don't want people to think that RED was forced into it by their users.
 
Very few of the new features and developments both in RED One firmware updates as well as Epic enhancements are ESSENTIAL to the operation of the camera. For instance, full size XLRs aren't necessary, but they sure will be helpful. As will an OVF for operators accustomed to them.
 
With RED expanding and taking over an ever growing market there's also the point to consider that OVF may have been something requested not just by customers but by rental houses like Panavision.

Owner operators may not be the target audience of the OVF. I don't see why it wouldn't fetch a higher rental rate than the EVF. People like the OVF. If they want it they have to pay a little premium for maintenance.
 
Yes, thank you, I'm glad you said it and hope to see an OVF option one day. Is it as important as getting the ASICs implemented properly? No. But I'm glad it's somewhere in REDs plans.

Mitch Gross said:
I could go into the virtues of an OVF for the more traditional reasons (judging lighting & contrast & color), but this is a secondary benefit that should not be overlooked.
Click to expand...
 
Jannard said:
Sorry to slightly disagree with Mitch. Spinning mirror is 4 microsecs and Epic is 5. One won't help Epic at all. It already matches (virtually) what a spinning mirror does on a film camera for skew.

Jim
Click to expand...

Will this rolling-shutter-killer 5ms read/reset be present in the MysteriumX upgrade for the Red One or will it only apply to the sensor within the Epic-X chassis?

I've seen the extra dynamic range and higher ISO of the MysteriumX mentioned repeatedly but not the specifics on the rolling shutter. As a mostly in-studio effects guy, I'm vastly more interested in reducing the skew for 3d tracked shots than I am in getting more dynamic range.

Will MysteriumX RedOne upgraders partake in Epic's faster read/reset or just the dynamic range/ISO/grain reduction benefits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top