RED future...

[Jim Arthurs]

someone from RED should enlighten the situation about the GPI, as we really need that. We have a SFX shooting planned for mid/late january and their might be anything from crane to time lapse, slowmo, stop trick.

So I really need to understand and prepare for that.

The problem starts to get the right connectors in first place, and then do the right cable and interfacing.

Axel

I second Axel's request. I want to do stop-motion using a custom push to make switch, and also want to get it on a local mo-control rig ASAP I take delivery to dial it in for future jobs.

 

[Michael Morlan]

I would like to see different grids and cross hair switchable on/off on the monitor.

Actually, I'd like the ability to load a viewfinder "ground glass" frame/marker setup via a graphic file on an SD card. Kinda future proofed that way.

Michael

 

[Mike Prevette]

The GPI stuff seems pretty straight forward based on whats in the user guide, and whats been posted in the forums.

 

[thornben]

If people are talking about using standard anamorphics in the cropped portion of the lens... that is crazy. You are losing FOV and DOF - the two most important things in Anamorphic for directors, way more important than flaring (And I personally love flaring).
The best thing about Anamorphic is how big the lens SEES... If you are only interested in the flares then get ready for stuff that doesn't cut together in the way that you are used to. And that is what you should all be caring about!
What RED needs is the ability to swap out the Super 35 sensor for a Academy/1.33 one for certain jobs that want to shoot Anamorphic. Or even better - make all the sensors Academy and then everyone can shoot whatever format they want. I would rather have this than anything else on the camera. 99% of the comments here are from techos (no offense intended, but...) - they aren't the ones who choose a camera for a job, it's the Directors, Producers and DPs. Important to remember, Jim.

I am sorry but the client doesn't need to see a 4K display. And niether do any of you except to brag to your mates in the sandbox about how cool your nintendo is or whatever... The only time you deal with 4K on a job is when you are going to go to Cinema and in which case you always go to a proper post house who will also take care of the LUT stuff for you.

The best thing about this is that it was clearly designed for content creation... i.e. to be a Director's Camera. Frankly please keep that as your number one priority no matter what. That and a 1.33 sensor as an option (charge more for it if you like). Also like many have said, overcranking is essential, particularly for effects shots, so that means it has to be in 4K.

 

[thornben]

Ok that was a bit arrogant... Sorry I just got halfway through everyones responses and was reading these crazy requests for amazingly particular things and even stupid stuff like a RED mattebox and a RED dolly (WHY? What for when you can use good ones that already exist?!!)


Anyway, I'm not trying to offend anyone, just trying to be the Cassandra.
Most of you are very bright, especially the people talking about SFX filming concerns, that also determines if the RED will be used on a job. I guess that is what the RED TEAM should be considering is my point: What are the essential filmmaking things that we should do so people will buy/rent the camera... not (sorry) fanboy customization wishlists.

(the requests about the lenses... My god... Am I the only one thinking "just go rent some..."? RED should concentrate on the Camera bodies, leave the lens manufacturing to the experts.)

Oh, and get Panavision to get onto providing some with PV mounts. Maybe you could do custom ones for them that are 1.33:1 Sensors? (Okay, now I'm the one being a fanboy and drooling... It affects us all, doesn't it?)

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Most of you are very bright,

Which of us aren't?..:sheep:

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Me.

:waaa:

 

[Brent J. Craig]

(the requests about the lenses... My god... Am I the only one thinking "just go rent some..."?

That may be easier said than done. There are persistent rumours that some of the places who own the most lenses will refuse to support productions that don't also use their cameras. The Red competes with some systems that certain companies have invested a lot of money into.

I know, for example, that about two-thirds of the available glass where I am will not be rented out without a complete camera package.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Couldn't the camera just mask out the 16:9 to 4:3 like all other prosumer HD(V) cameras can do right now? That'd save some trouble and open up anamorphics.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I know, for example, that about two-thirds of the available glass where I am will not be rented out without a complete camera package.

Hi,

Thats easy just order an Arri 2c body for the production.

Stephen

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If people are talking about using standard anamorphics in the cropped portion of the lens... that is crazy. You are losing FOV and DOF - the two most important things in Anamorphic for directors, way more important than flaring (And I personally love flaring).
The best thing about Anamorphic is how big the lens SEES... If you are only interested in the flares then get ready for stuff that doesn't cut together in the way that you are used to. And that is what you should all be caring about!
What RED needs is the ability to swap out the Super 35 sensor for a Academy/1.33 one for certain jobs that want to shoot Anamorphic. Or even better - make all the sensors Academy and then everyone can shoot whatever format they want. I would rather have this than anything else on the camera. 99% of the comments here are from techos (no offense intended, but...) - they aren't the ones who choose a camera for a job, it's the Directors, Producers and DPs. Important to remember, Jim.

First of all, as Soderberg is doing now, you can use 2X anamorphic lenses. Since the RED sensor is the height of 3-perf 35mm, you are losing some vertical view compared to 4-perf anamorphic photography, but it is not significant -- it's not like cropping the image in half. So you're not changing depth of field radicially, it's more like shooting on a 40mm anamorphic lens when you'd normally be using a 50mm anamorphic lens. Most directors actually would rather get a little more depth of field out of anamorphic lenses, hence why many DP's light a scene in anamorphic to at least f/4. And it's also the reason why most directors prefer Super-35. So a little more usable depth of field is not such a bad thing -- anyway, you can light the scene to f/2.8 instead of f/4 if you want to compensate.

And as for field of view, you compensate by using a little wider-angle lens, a 40mm instead of a 50mm, or a 50mm instead of a 75mm, let's say.

When you say "Academy" sensor, let's be clear -- do you mean a 4K 4x3 sensor? Technically, the 35mm anamorphic frame scanned at "4K" is 3656 x 3112 pixels, so basically to match that, the RED sensor would have to be 3112 pixels tall rather than 2540. That's an increase in recorded resolution over 16x9 4K.

Because even though Soderberg is cropping the sides of his RED sensor to get 2.40 with an anamorphic lens, the image is still larger than a "2K" scan of 4-perf 35mm anamorphic, which is 1828 x 1556 pixels.

The only reason that cropping the sensor before it gets recorded might be a good idea is to reduce unnecessary data amounts.

 

[thornben]

Hi David,

Yes I understand all those compensating tricks... But here is the problem - What this also means is that you can't see as wide as you should be able to while also being flat... which is sort of the point of using anamorphic in my opinion. The way a 100mm works as the perfect close-up lens, which is Soderberg's opinion too, won't be working the same way. Bottom line.

Yes, I mean 4K 4x3 sensor. But more importantly is a sensor that is the right size. It's less about the information and more about the way the image looks and cuts together. This is determined by the images you get and that will change, hence my earlier statement.

As for the stop thing, I flat-out don't agree, and I dislike the look of scope films, like Spy Game for example (watched it again last night, no more special reason than that), which are shot around T4-5.6 - this is partly due to the zooms they used, but I think if the reason you shoot that stop is because of the 1st AC, to make his life easier, then that is a bad reason to be making an aesthetic choice. I know at least one of the focus pullers that works with me is probably going to read this, but he already knows I am an a-hole. ;-)

As the lens opens up the contrast changes and the wider the better for me usually, except on an ultra-long lens like a 600mm or something, of course. I know what you are going to say, working with the cropped part of the image actually allows you to do this more easily, as well...

Perhaps this could be put down to personal opinion. But you say the difference is not significant. It is. 35mm Anamorphic is great because of what it is. The cropped image is significantly NOT the full image size, which is significantly not the same imagery. The diffence is nearly 20% which is not small. The bottom line is that the joy of those lenses is in what they see, how wide they see in a flat composition. If you are cutting off the sides and top you are essentially messing with that. Yes I can see the advantages, like losing the parts of wider lenses that vignette, but then you also can't get as wide as you might need...

Maybe I am being a dick about this. Anyway, that is an explanation of my reason for wanting it. I dunno. Either Jannard will consider it or he won't. I think he should because I also like Academy 1.33 Speherical, too.

 

[thornben]

...but then again so much of filmmaking is about making do with what you have got. I understand your opinion.

But I have to say you have to fight so hard on everything to get anything you want to be done or working properly, and it sucks to not have this one thing, which for me is the most important thing in the look of any project, not be working properly. There is just too much compromise out there in the world and when you are using and paying for anamorphic lenses then it sucks to not have this thing you desperately want. For me, filmmaking is an emotional journey, maybe too emotional(!), but getting the pictures you want how you want is really important when you have had little to no sleep the night before and you are freaking out about money and time, the need for having things look beautiful and how you imagined... That is priceless to me, to keep my energy and excitement up. Compromise blows and makes my heart deflate and I start asking myself "Why am I doing this to myself? Why did I get myself into this?" etc etc.

Yes. I am wierd. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just really care about this stuff. And this camera is made by dreamers for dreamers, so I happily, and I hope not too pretentiously, belong to that club.

 

[thornben]

That may be easier said than done. There are persistent rumours that some of the places who own the most lenses will refuse to support productions that don't also use their cameras. The Red competes with some systems that certain companies have invested a lot of money into.

I know, for example, that about two-thirds of the available glass where I am will not be rented out without a complete camera package.

That is bizarre. How does that benifit anybody? I really don't think they will do that because you will just go somewhere else and they will lose the rental.

It is not to their advantage anyway, if they are smart enough - the more prospective clients, the better. The film industry in any city is small, and word of mouth gets around. If they get a reputation as being mean then it isn't going to help them. If they want their own kits going out then they should buy some REDs themselves.

Thankfully that is not happening where I am.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see the compromise in switching from a 50mm anamorphic to a 40mm anamorphic (or a 40mm to a 35mm) on the RED camera to compensate for the cropping to maintain a wider-angle view -- what difference does it really make? It's still got all the anamorphic distortions, you can get wider-angle views by using shorter focal lengths, you've gained maybe a stop more depth of field at the most (maybe more like 2/3's of a stop) which can be compensated for by opening up the lens a little more.

I've shot four features in 35mm anamorphic so I'm well aware of the visual attributes of the format. I think you're making a big deal out of the simple fact that the 4x3 area of the RED sensor is 20% smaller than the 4x3 area of the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic frame, as if that just ruins the whole anamorphic effect, when all you have to do is use a slightly wider-angle lens slightly more wide-open to compensate.

I mean, honestly, what's the big deal about shooting a master on a 40mm at T/2.8 rather than on a 50mm at T/4? Even at T/4 in anamorphic, you've got a fairly shallow focus look once you start getting in close -- it's almost like shooting at T/2 in Super-35.

You make it sound like the whole thing is unworkable because of this 20% size difference.

People ask me about putting anamorphic lenses on a 16mm camera all the time, and that's a challenge in terms of finding short-enough focal lengths, but in this case, it's like putting the lens on a 3-perf camera, which can be compensated for enough to give you plenty of that anamorphic look, in spades. I'm sure a C-Series anamorphic lens shot wide-open on the RED camera is giving Soderberg more than enough anamorphic artifacts all around -- shallow focus, flares, distortions, etc. I don't think it's going to be mistaken for spherical lens photography. Sure, there will be a little less barrel distortion and edge fall-off, but that's not the end of the world.

Trouble with those Tony Scott movies you mention is that they use rear-adapted anamorphic zoom and telephoto lenses, which have almost no traditional anamorphic artifacts anyway -- the only advantage over Super-35 at that point is the larger negative area. A 180mm E-Series front-element anamorphic lens shot at T/5.6 still has anamorphic artifacts, just less pronounced than at T/4 or T/2.8.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

For example, here's a frame from "Astronaut Farmer" shot at T/4 in anamorphic, I think on the 100mm or 75mm:

Is that too much depth of field? Not enough anamorphic attributes? You don't have to shoot at T/2.8 to get shallow focus in anamorphic...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, crunching the numbers, it's a little worse than I suggested.

The 35mm anamorphic frame is 22mm x 18.59mm, which is a 1.18343 aspect ratio but with a 2X squeeze to the image.

So the 4096 x 2304 recorded 16x9 area of the RED sensor (which is 4520 x 2540 at the biggest) is therefore 22.11mm x 12.427mm (out of 24.4mm x 13.7mm at the biggest).

So given a height of 12.427mm, the usable width for using an anamorphic lens and cropping to scope would be 14.71mm.

That's basically a 1.5X magnification factor between the size of the 35mm anamorphic frame and the RED sensor cropped horizontally to get scope when using an anamorphic lens.

So if you would normally use a 50mm anamorphic lens, you'd use a 35mm anamorphic lens, and if you would normally use a 40mm anamorphic lens, you'd use a 28mm anamorphic lens. And you'd have to open-up 1 to 1.5 stops to match depth of field (the DOF lens charts say more like 2 stops except that it doesn't factor that you are magnifying the RED image more, so you have to use a smaller CoC, same argument as to why 2K windowed is 2-stops more depth of field than 4K, instead of 4-stops.)

So other than being limited in really wide-angle shots (most anamorphic shows consider a 40mm to be the traditional wide-angle lens, 35mm a bit distorted wide-angle because of increased barrel distortion), you'd have to open up one to one and a half to compensate for the increase in depth of field.

It would be a pretty simple test to put some anamorphic lenses on a RED camera, shoot wide-open with some lights in the b.g. (like Christmas tree lights) and see if it looks like a traditional anamorphic image. I suspect it would.

 

[Samuel Doyle]

tact

s

best reply all night....


S

 

[thornben]

Hi David,

What should I say, you are right and I am wrong? Of course it is not unworkable, what I am saying is that is not the same and the lens is not working the same nor seeing the same thing. I don't want to argue, I haven't shot any features, let alone any in anamorphic, and I am not a DP, but what I am saying is not technically incorrect.

What I like is to have the same DOF as your shot about in a 35mm, say ala 'The Prestige', not a 75mm (which is what it looks like) - hence the T2.8 idea. But if I had to switch to a 28mm there is going to be more distortion in the subject's face if I wanted the same subject size in the frame and the same relative FOV. You have to admit it would not provide the same effect. And yes, okay, most of the time if I had to use the RED in the way we are talking about I would just back the camera off a bit and stay on the same lens, but that doesn't always work on interior locations, does it? Okay, that is a pretty particular need, but that is my style of working.
I know I am right strictly speaking, but I admit that the spirit of what you are saying is true too. Yes, I would just do it with 2X Anamorphic Lenses and crop the frame for sure over shooting Spherical 2.35:1 in most situations as I prefer the look.
But consider the back end of this equation too. It takes a LOT longer to process 4K frame sequences, more than twice is long I find, and you can't just do 2K sequences now because after the cropping and distortion you are looking at a lower-resolution image than is acceptable. And that time costs money. And we are back to one of the standard problems with 35mm Anamorphic again with this method. It costs more. And you lose 20% of the image in FOV and in resolution.

Because the point I was really trying to make, and trying to get the RED TEAM to do, is: why not make a 1.33 sensor? It makes no sense for RED to waste money on developing 1.33X Anamorphic lenses that won't be as good as 2X ones that have massive R&D budgets and have been developed by the masters and are tried and tested, when they could instead develop a 1.33/Academy sized sensor. What Jannard should do is concentrate on making the cameras excellent and not over-diversify. I truly believe that is, and will be, a mistake. Someone will always make 3rd party accessories for the camera which will take care of most people's requests, but only RED can make the core elements of the camera. Nobody needs RED-branded stuff. What we need is this camera to stay a directors camera and get the core things fantastic as they have so far been on the road to doing. And before I foget, I just want to say thank you to everyone at RED for doing so. This is the digital camera I have waited years for and I am so glad someone had the skill and the balls to do it. I don't want to seem ungrateful. Anyway I think we can put this subject to bed because I get your point and I have made mine clearer now.

Cool?

Thanks David.

 

[thornben]

Oh sorry David, I apologise, I missed your last statement! Lost what I wrote and then had to write it again. But I think what I'm saying makes even more sense, because to do a shot with equivalent FOV to a 35mm you would need something like a 21mm. And then you DEFINATELY are going to get distortion on a MCU, and you will also need to use Close-Focus lenses. What I have been saying is not about the DOF as much as FOV. And the issue about resolution I discussed and the requirement to process the sequences at 4K is even more necessary.

Anyway I am not going to harp on. Thanks for updating the information.

We should work together someday, it would be fun. Would love to meet you in the store rooms of Panavision and geek over lenses. It's my favourite place in the world, even better than being a kid in a toy store.

-Benjamin