Optical viewfinder option?

[Justin Anderson]

I was over at Roger Deakins' website.
www.deakinsonline.com

He, and a few other DPs out there, don't want to work on RED because of the lack of an optical viewfinder. He wants the freedom of being able to see what his eye sees when he looks through the camera.

Putting an optical viewfinder unit in the RED would increase the cost significantly. But what if an optical viewfinder was available as a module to go on the front of an EPIC or Scarlet brain with a PL mount?

I have no idea what this'd cost, but it would probably convince more pro DPs.
I don't personally care. Don't have the budget and also, I'm not a DP.

-J

 

[Nick Gardner]

I have to say, that after doing a Red movie, and then a week later doing a 10 day shoot on Panavison, I think I like the Red finder better. I was on the other side of the fence until I spent some time looking through the Red finder. If you are thinking it's going to be like a varicam or F900 finder, then yeah optical is better.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[Ryan Valle]

I think that its just an issue of what one is comfortable with. Some may be much more comfortable by seeing directly through the lens and has a lack of trust on the digital viewfinder system. Some enjoy working with an LCD (or equivalent) device.

I believe that as time goes by and the older generation (today's era of "pro DPs") start to retire, the younger generation DPs would slowly take over being more comfortable without the use of an optical viewfinder.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Justin... P+S Technik had expressed the intention to produce an optical viewfinder option for its IMS platform for RED One. Obviously, that has fallen into the RED/3rd party relationship abyss.

I, personally, didn't take well to the RED EVF and sold it three days after I got it. Ideally, I'd like to use an optical viewfinder and count on onboard LCD support to help me keep abreast of system vitals, etc. But, to me, the shot is the shot and there's no better way to judge it than by eye through an optical viewfinder. Everything else is secondary.

Yes, I'm an old school trained guy. Early Arris, Moviolas, Steenbecks, Oxberrys, etc. I plead guilty as charged. Not that there's anything wrong with that, right?

But I do love the RED One, RED Code and even RED Cine (believe it or not) and literally cannot wait for whatever is coming down the pipes, including an optical viewfinder option.

Thank you for bringing it up. It's important for many of us.

:biggrin:

 

[Jeff Garton]

One issue I have always had with electronic viewfinders is the latency. It may be small, but it is perceptible and good operating often relies on an almost instinctual response to what is in front of the lens. You get used to the delay and try to account for it, but it is always there. I have not used the RED EVF much (mine is still on back order), is the lag comparable to Panasonic and Sony HD cameras?

 

[James T Mather]

There is Zero lag.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There's nothing like watching a scene through the actual taking lens while operating, so I can see why it matters so much to an operator/DP like Deakins.

But on the other hand... Deakins also likes to operate using a remote head on a jib arm a lot, and in that case, one would think he'd prefer looking at a great HD image on set rather than a fuzzy videtap image since now no one is looking through the actual lens during the take.

That last point has always been my biggest beef with Steadicam and remote head shots in 35mm, that no one is looking through the lens and everyone is making a decision to move on or not based on a videotap image and the word of the focus-puller that they got it.

As a DP who doesn't operate much these days, I prefer seeing a big HD image on set, but I've never liked most color EVF images on a digital camera, mainly because the contrast is so variable and inaccurate that it is distracting for the DP while he is operating because the lighting (and colors) looks all wrong to them.

 

[Brian Langeman]

The only reason I think an optical viewfinder would be a nice option is because the EVF stops working around 0 degrees Celsius. That is a very normal temperature during the winter where I come from.

 

[Julio Quintana]

I'm probably too "new school", but after shooting projects with hd monitors and the edge highlight tool, I can't imagine going back to measuring tapes and light meters.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I'm probably too "new school", but after shooting projects with hd monitors and the edge highlight tool, I can't imagine going back to measuring tapes and light meters.

How do you pull focus when the camera and subject are moving? What you see on a monitor is too late, focus has to anticipate action.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

In that case you measure and set focus marks. You can focus with the edge highlight and histogram to mark your FF wheel, etc.. just the same as you can pull a tape.

The edge highlight and focus histogram are a lifesaver for run n' gun type stuff, typical ENG / EFP shooting.

I rarely touch a tape when shooting RED. It also helps that I can judge distances pretty well, usually I'm accurate within 6" or so anyway. I have the subject take their place, I set my focus and mark it. With the focus tools and other viewing modes like RAW view and false color exposure, I have a hard time feeling that I need an optical finder. Once you know what the camera sees and what it's telling you, it quickly becomes apparent that the camera knows what it's talking about. I trust it.

I would really like to see some expansion on the edge highlight implementation though. It would be nice to have a B&W mode for this again as in past builds, but make the defocused areas fade out to a darker shade of RED or something in addition to just having the red highlights.

Upcoming EVF models with higher resolution like the announced 1080p "bomb" EVF will be welcome accessories too.

 

[Steve Gibby]

How do you pull focus when the camera and subject are moving? What you see on a monitor is too late, focus has to anticipate action.

Those of us who track fast moving sports and wildlife images with RED One (and other cameras) don't "pull" focus, we "rack" focus. We don't use focus pullers - all focusing is eye focusing done by the operator. Iris is generally between 5.6 and 11, thus the DOF ranges from medium to deep, and quite manageable in an eye focusing workflow.

Experienced motion tracking camera operators in a wide array of genres that eye focus, use anticipatory focus racking, rather than reactionary focus racking. With talent, and experience in tracking motion objects, focus racking becomes quite instinctual and nearly instantaneous, thus a fraction of a second of relative softness in the image as focus is adjusted works smoothly in the motion image - not distracting to the viewer, and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. We do this "on the fly", with unscripted, unblocked subjects, whose motion is unpredictable. If you'd like to see excellent examples of this watch the shot sequences of NFL Films programs (tight shots following fast moving footballs), and good nature/wildlife productions like Planet Earth (fast flying or running animals). These crews eye focus by the camera operator, the subject movement is unpredictable, unscripted, and unblocked, and they nail focus.

Is this harder with RED in 4k? Yes, but at iris levels of 5.6 to 11 large numbers of RED One shooters in those action movement genres have been using anticipatory eye focusing effectively for over 17 months now.

I can appreciate that in narrative cinema, with blocked moves, and wide-open irises, eye focusing isn't practical - thus the use of an AC, measurement, and manual focusing. But those who use RED One just in that scenario still need to realize that there are huge numbers of us who shoot eye-focusing genres, who have been successfully using anticipatory focus racking ever since RED One first shipped - in 4k, at apertures between 5.6 and 11, and obviously in 3k and 2k, with their deeper DOF and faster shutter speeds for slow motion tracking.

---------------------

To me the question raised about Roger Deakins liking only an OVF is simply an example of a traditional shooter in his comfort zone, who has figured out what he likes and isn't about to evolve his equipment kit too quickly. This industry is full of those types, most of which are around my age - I'm 60. I'm a maverick for my age group and experience level: I much prefer digital cameras and workflows to mechanical ones, I believe in maximizing technology, retaining mobility, and keeping the cost of accessories moderate - and consequently I definitely prefer an EVF to an OVF. The RED EVF is the very best one I've used in my career - bar none. As James has mentioned, its latency is virtually non-existent. With RED One's 1:1 image magnification and the RED EVF's excellent diopter, eye focusing is easily enabled. I expect the new RED Bomb EVF to even be much better than the current EVF. BTW - I've been using a RED EVF extensively since November 2007 (got my first RED camera in August 2007).

I don't want an OVF on my RED cameras - I'm extremely happy with the performance of the current RED EVF, and look forward to the new RED Bomb EVF, with its added resolution (1920x1080 vs. 1280x848), and smaller size/weight. Epic and Scarlet will be smaller than RED One, which enables mobility in production. The last thing I'd want to do with that new mobility is to then decrease it by adding a bigger, heavier (and more expensive) OVF to these new cameras.

I have great respect for traditional cinematography - in fact I sometimes use it when it is the best choice for a project - but for most of my productions I much prefer digital cinematography equipment, with its electronic camera accessories - such as an EVF.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Personally I can fully understand why such artists like Roger Deakins prefer an optical viewfinder. An EVF cannot give you such a intense realtionship between you, the camera operator, and the action happing in front of you like an optical VF does. I can remember very well when Arri introduced with their 535 and 435 the new viewfinder generation. They where brighter and a had a wider, more dimensional feel, great experience. You will never have that with an EVF.

Nontheless there are many applications where an EFV is better for operation. It's harder to judge focus with an optical viewfinder and pulling focus by sight with a spinning mirror is almost impossible. I fully agree with Gibby's opinion in his regard.

If you don't look at this topic technically but mentally, an optical VF can make the cinematographer more happy, does inspire him/her - and make ideas possible that an another setup would not. I know how important a comfort zone is. Fighting against technical shortcomings, inconveniencies etc... makes the work not better. And it's not only some old men who need a comfortzone. I'm 41 and used the last 15 years of my career optical VFs. But I must admit that Red's EVF is the best I ever worked with and I'm fine with Red's EVF. But even though, I'm the first who would buy an optical VF system/adaptor for the next generation of Red cameras.

It's great to have a choice.

Hans

 

[Tico Llaurador]

It's great to have a choice.

Hans

My sentiments exactly, Hans. Yet, the choice is not there.

:sad:

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

As we know well the fact that to RED1 was "offered" the optical viewfinder by P+S Technik as a part of IMS for RED option.

Till today RED didn't certified officially IMS for RED1 as a third party mount.

If this could happen one day that RED1 will be only one digital/analog camera with both viewfinders, electronic and optical.

And then you could choose what you would like to have for a certain shooting situation.

 

[martinnoweck]

but you loose one stop!

i tested the p&s optical viewfinder in combination with the si-2k and it's not bad at all, but you loose light ... and with 320 / 250 / 200 ASA ...

regards,
martin

 

[Jannard]

You ever tried to use an optical viewfinder in really low light? You can shoot fast film to get the shot... but what do you do when you can't see shit in the viewfinder? Just curious...

Jim

 

[Darren Orange]

You ever tried to use an optical viewfinder in really low light? You can shoot fast film to get the shot... but what do you do when you can't see shit in the viewfinder? Just curious...

Jim

Ouch! I like the way you think Jim, good call on that!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

You ever tried to use an optical viewfinder in really low light? You can shoot fast film to get the shot... but what do you do when you can't see shit in the viewfinder? Just curious...

Jim

As I said you could choose between EFV and OVF in that case and only on RED1.

No any other digital or analog camera system would have it.

OVF could be a variant to get more "classic style cinematographers" to jump in RED "train".

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Hurry up, hurry up...

Hurry up, hurry up...

Hurry up, hurry up... thats all I hear out of my Brother when we use the Konvas since it does not have a 20x zoom on its standard eyepiece. Even with the Mitchell NC and its zoom I can only be sure of the focus wide open, at f/8 the ground glass makes the image too dark to see where the focus is.

I made a high power finder for the Konvas, but it is hard to change from one finder to another in the field or hand held. I was able to focus at night outdoors at f/1.2 but with the subject out of tape range it was by eye, and it did take too long to set up, a bright electronic finder would have been much faster to use since I could barely see through the optical finder, at night the iris in your eye opens up and if you have Astigmatism in both eyes like I do it gets much worse. I cannot see the full frame with my glasses on, so I can just peek into the "black hole" of the viewfinder and see a small part of the frame to focus on.

Once the mirror starts to spin, I could never follow focus through the finder at night at f/1.2.

A 1920x1080 electronic viewfinder with 2x zoom (1:1 zoom) would be a hundred times a bright and let me view with my glasses on. Much easer to see what I am doing.

If you take the ground glass out of the optical finder and make it into a "bright finder" with just a field lens you get a bright image at any f/ stop, but you cannot be sure of the focus since your eye can focus "through" the focal plane, that is what gives some optical finders the "3D" lifelike feel, your eye can focus in depth through the optical system, but that does not help you get the lens on the focal plane of the film or sensor.

It is the "dead" feel of the electronic finder, the fact that it prevents your eye from re-focusing on the subjects in the finder that is a good feature not a bad feature, since you should be focusing the camera with the focus ring on the lens, and not focusing what you see in the finder with your eye's mussels...

What was said above about being able to "anticipate" the subjects movements may have something to do with feeling in your eye the subject move in a bright finder and having the lens at less than f/8 would give enough depth of field to the image plane that the focus errors would not show up. In other words, for some tasks a skilled operator may be able to use a bright finder to judge distance changes by way of the tension in his eye telling him the subject is moving away or near of the current focus setting. That would not work with a strong diffuser or heavy ground glass in the optical finder since you cannot see through those as much as you can through a field lens of a "bright finder" type reflex system. Some finders have both a field lens and a semi-ground glass and give both some see through and some DOF judgement. I have to take the Ground Glass out of the NC and wash it with Acetone so we can focus well at f/1.1, otherwise you get the problem Stanley kubrick had with his f/0.7 lens, they could not focus the camera using the optical finder he probably did not know enough to get the oil off the ground glass, it creeps on from the movement that gets oiled on each mag change.

Rather than work on an optical finder, it would be better to work on a 4K electronic view finder, that would show true focus anyone can see all the time.

As to feeling the focus change before the image is too far out of focus, that can only work with a bright optical finder and small f/ stops, if at all, and most people do not have that skill, so it is a small market.