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 :)

Video Assist on Set

Advertising - Internal Recording

Advertising - Internal Recording

If you DO trust the REDCODE capture for image quality, then the questions become : is there a video recording guy at all, if so what does he do?

Remote control of camera clip playback could be made available via RS232 hard wire or 802.11 wireless, framing guidelines for HD resolution images we can resolve. If you want SD resolution images, there are external converters for that.

So now where's the problem? (again just trying to understand the application)
__________________
Workflow Wizard
 
The focus puller 2nd assistant an operator are often too busy to do playback thus if the production has the money they hire a playback guy. Its pretty simple what the playback guy needs. All he needs is a signal coming of the camera with the shot and the frame lines. He will do all the rest with his equipment, no need for anything more complicated. It is also nice if there is an information area as well that shows shutter and fps info.

I believe we are talking about the same thing but your first post of these last 2 was a little confusing to me.
 
I understand the application completely. Perhaps what is needed
is a way to record to the REDDRIVE and a REDFLASH at the same time.
The REDFLASH should be external to the RED. Perhaps it can record from the HDMI port. Then the "video assist" guy is showing on a monitor what
was recorded from the camera. It would be simple to set-up frame lines
for 1080 or 480. Then the editor can transfer each good take from the REDFLASH as they go. That way the REDDRIVE is filling up and not touched until it needs to be changed.....
 
Playback guy

Playback guy

Finner thanks for that -

If you are using the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, I agree with you. Seems his job is to just to record a proxy of the actual master recording and play that proxy back for the director etc. (If as has been suggested HDMI is desired for that job, Black Magic have a $250 card for ingesting HDMI at 1080p or 720p resolution into a P.C / Mac)

But if you don't trust the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, then the HD-SDI signal from the camera must be free of any frame guidlines as this signal will be recorded as the master recording. In this case the recorder itself can generate these framing guidleines and SD resolution copies.
 
RED GUY. Either I am going crazy or I just do not understand properly but to me these suggestions are way off.

The focus puller needs to be the only one to deal with anything concerning the camera period. The video playback guy has his own equipment and does not deal with any part of the camera at all, he gets a signal line from the camera and that is it. He records on what ever the heck system he wants to or will work but he does not control any aspect of the camera.

I am not sure why the concept I am trying to explain is not being understood. It seems so simple to me. I will try and lay it out again.

The video playback guy gets a video line out from the camera that signal should contain a picture signal and frame lines that are chosen in the camera and the ability to display the fps and shutter would be great. He then records this signal on what ever equipment he wants to. This is used just for playback for the director and other people on set that want to review this footage. This is just for reviewing for performance and gets erased later. I can not stress enough that the video playback guy should have no access to any part of the camera other then the video line comming off of it.
 
Stuart English said:
Finner thanks for that -

If you are using the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, I agree with you. Seems his job is to just to record a proxy of the actual master recording and play that proxy back for the director etc. (If as has been suggested HDMI is desired for that job, Black Magic have a $250 card for ingesting HDMI at 1080p or 720p resolution into a P.C / Mac)

But if you don't trust the REDCODE on-board recording as the master recording, then the HD-SDI signal from the camera must be free of any frame guidlines as this signal will be recorded as the master recording. In this case the recorder itself can generate these framing guidleines and SD resolution copies.
Click to expand...

I see, you are talking about using the out going signal out to actually record this to a deck to use as the main captured footage. It seems like to me the way you are developing this camera that this is a redundant feature that very few people will use.

What I think is way more important and will be used on pretty much every shoot will be a signal that will have the exact same options as the EVF and LCD. This feature is much more important then the HD-SDI signal.
 
Finner is absolutely correct. The camera and its "negative" should be left alone.
The VTR guy should be provided a feed that contains some useful info (frame lines, fps, etc.) and record and play back. Whether this is HD or SD and where the framelines are generated is less important.
It's a quick, efficient system that works in film and HD. It leaves the camera original untouched. It frees up the camera crew and the imaging device to move along and finesse the shot, or get more footage.
As long as Red outputs some flavor of HD-SDI, an intermediate device can add framelines of your choice. An AJA downconverter would work.
But playing back from the camera won't fly on commercial shoots.
Cheers,
Harry
 
RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?
 
donatello said:
RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?
Click to expand...

Right idea except you want only one line comming off the camera and a splitter box to be at the video playback guys station that then goes out to other monitors.
 
donatello said:
RED has a EFV & LCD out that has the frame lines - would it be possible to run one of those out's to somekind of small box ( attached to Redcage) that could then distribute the 720p signal to more then one LCD/monitor ?
Click to expand...

To add to that, to not have to run another hardline, and minimize camera clutter, wireless it from the camera out to video village, to a splitter, then hook up as many monitors to the splitter as you please - each showing the frame lines. Interactivity as far as on/off switch of frame lines would not be available in video village, but the people there want to see the active framing that the camera op is using anyway.
 
Surely, if it matches, overlaying the guide frames "external" from the camera is a much better option. Trusting "pure data on a Hard Drive" for a lot of production houses is going to be a lot more scary than HDCAM-SR masters.

A lot of HD monitors these days have guide-frames. But if you don't trust that then I have another question:

"How much extra bandwidth is left on the HD-SDI feed?" Is it possible to also put "hidden" test-out data down the pipe which can be then translated by an external "test-out box"?

I've got no idea how complex, nor how expensive such an option would be, but it leaves things simple and clean at the camera end. Video guy can then have two taps out of the box - one with overlay data, the other clean to split off to whoever needs what.

Perhaps it only needs a few dip-switches to select which data is to be overlayed in the picture.

Not cheap I'm sure - but nice.
 
So current solutions may be :

a) run a wireless feed off of the EVF/LCD
to the video cats station. Or less ideal another line from the cam.
b) add frame lines to the 1080p dual link
feed - with the ability to turn them on
and off. Then whoever needs the feed
can get it.

Frame lines are pretty important (to understate the case). Even on a narrative shoot, for example, on a recent one; the director didn't leave the monitor while adjusting framing on set. Especially on large locations; you're not going to get the director to go over to the cam every time he wants to make frame adjustments. And yes, WYSISYG except for 2.35.1 framing, or if they're shooting variable fps and intercutting with other footage.

In short, frame lines for the 1080p dual link video out is absolutely essential.

In my wee baby mogul opinion.
:beer:
 
Finner said:
Heres an example that may make you see where this would be a problem. Lets say someone had a remote that could control some aspects of your edit suite at will but they were in a different room then you and could access and do things while you were in the middle of editing. I think that kind of set up would last about 1 hour before you killed the guy with the remote.
Click to expand...

If their remote let them do things that clashed with what I was doing I agree. I do however often give an assistant network access to the bins in my project, so that they can work on sub-clipping and marking up takes. I would never give them access to the time-line I was working on.

In the same way I was envisioning a remote which gave the playback operator access only to the playback functions of the camera, and which would not interfere with 'camera side' operations. But maybe this is not possible. In that case, my second scenario would be more analogous to the edit suite situation, where the playback operator can browse the files on the RED-DRIVE, and download them or play them back directly from the RED-DRIVE, but using his own computer, not the camera's playback engine. That way what he is doing should not affect the camera department.

EDIT
This is a reply to a post from Finner two pages back (which I started typing then left for a while) so probably makes no sense in the context of where the discussion is at now! Probably best ignored! Sorry
 
Nick Shaw said:
If their remote let them do things that clashed with what I was doing I agree. I do however often give an assistant network access to the bins in my project, so that they can work on sub-clipping and marking up takes. I would never give them access to the time-line I was working on.

In the same way I was envisioning a remote which gave the playback operator access only to the playback functions of the camera, and which would not interfere with 'camera side' operations. But maybe this is not possible. In that case, my second scenario would be more analogous to the edit suite situation, where the playback operator can browse the files on the RED-DRIVE, and download them or play them back directly from the RED-DRIVE, but using his own computer, not the camera's playback engine. That way what he is doing should not affect the camera department.

EDIT
This is a reply to a post from Finner two pages back (which I started typing then left for a while) so probably makes no sense in the context of where the discussion is at now! Probably best ignored! Sorry
Click to expand...


It's just camera guys are very touchy when it comes to anyone else having any kind of control of the camera. It just seems a lot more complicated then it needs to be. Video playback guys have their equipment and all they really want is a signal feed off the camera with some info (fps, shutter) to do their job. There is really no use making the camera more complicated in this area. I know with my camera I would never let a playback guy have any control of any of its features.
 
Finner said:
RED GUY. Either I am going crazy or I just do not understand properly but to me these suggestions are way off.

The focus puller needs to be the only one to deal with anything concerning the camera period. The video playback guy has his own equipment and does not deal with any part of the camera at all, he gets a signal line from the camera and that is it. He records on what ever the heck system he wants to or will work but he does not control any aspect of the camera.

I am not sure why the concept I am trying to explain is not being understood. It seems so simple to me. I will try and lay it out again.

The video playback guy gets a video line out from the camera that signal should contain a picture signal and frame lines that are chosen in the camera and the ability to display the fps and shutter would be great. He then records this signal on what ever equipment he wants to. This is used just for playback for the director and other people on set that want to review this footage. This is just for reviewing for performance and gets erased later. I can not stress enough that the video playback guy should have no access to any part of the camera other then the video line comming off of it.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I was saying take the HDMI feed from the camera....
record on another box that RED can make...call it the RED FLASH BOX.....
The whole concept as exists for film/video assist is quite obsolete. In future the whole idea to have a spot cut together on location with footage direct from the camera will be the way to go....plus the whole advertising industry is in for a big shake-up anyway...but that is a whole nother topic.
 
Red Guy said:
In future the whole idea to have a spot cut together on location with footage direct from the camera will be the way to go....
Click to expand...

Sorry Red Guy... I think this is not correct...
Yep, the technology walk, but why "on set"?
Or you intend a "rough cut" just to test the sequence of the shots?
In this case, you're right (my opinion).
 
Elcurado said:
Sorry Red Guy... I think this is not correct...
Yep, the technology walk, but why "on set"?
Or you intend a "rough cut" just to test the sequence of the shots?
In this case, you're right (my opinion).
Click to expand...

Yes, not a finished locked-in edit...unless you had a decked out
motor home with all the bells & whistles....
What I am saying is an edit with footage that is a mirror clone
of the actual footage, not a crappy black & white footage
with frame lines....You could have multiple sequences....
Here is your HD look Mr. Director - Here it is on a full raster 4:3 monitor...
here is action safe that the poor old 4:3 viewer will see.....
Here is your iPod version, here is the cell phone version....etc.
 
Red Guy said:
Yes, not a finished locked-in edit...unless you had a decked out
motor home with all the bells & whistles....
What I am saying is an edit with footage that is a mirror clone
of the actual footage, not a crappy black & white footage
with frame lines....You could have multiple sequences....
Here is your HD look Mr. Director - Here it is on a full raster 4:3 monitor...
here is action safe that the poor old 4:3 viewer will see.....
Here is your iPod version, here is the cell phone version....etc.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I never seem to work on jobs where there is any time spare to view multiple sequences! IMHO video assist slows down the whole process of film making.

Stephen
 
Sounds like these people who are back-seat driving on commercials don't trust the professionals operating the camera. Stephen's comment is a good one.

I understand that the reality for many people is very different though. That's why it's great to listen to all the posters with their own experiences.

I like how we're all thinking of better ways that the problems outlined can be solved. It's been a great brainstorm so far, so let's see what we can end up with!!

Graeme
 
I usually have active reticules for 16x9, 90% safe, and 4x3 active all at once. Furthermore, it helps to have the reticules available on at least two external taps in addition to the EVF, so that an LCD mounted on an arm and a feed to a video village can each see the frameline information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top