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

Your point earlier about the HDMI out having frame line menu options is bang on. This is exactly what the camera needs to be similar to the genisis and d20.

Blair S. Paulsen said:
If the architecture of the RedOne makes adding framlines to the HDMI outs incredibly difficult than perhaps we need an off camera solution. I still think that a video playback operator can take either the HDMI or HD-SDI tap and run it through a computer (or an HD switcher with a DDR) to add the framelines and record a proxy it can handle for immediate replay.

During the morning set up the camera can shoot a test chart so that the video guy can check frame marker alignment, it would only have to be done once.

An AJA card or something similar could be used both for input and to drive a video DA for distrib all over a big set.

Yes this will likely require a desktop style computer on wheels/cart or a laptop with an expansion chassis for PCIe.
Click to expand...

This idea will work and I had thought the exact same things if there is no frame lines option. Unfortunately compared to simply having it in the camera menu like other cameras makes this kind of set up system a little "bush league".
 
HDMI world

HDMI world

Gibby, I wonder what the engineering equation is on the HDMI output resolution? I'm guessing that they have already sacrificed some CPU cycles to scaling a 720 output that runs to the EVF and LCD taps so they just figured they would send the same signal out via HDMI. Since they are also committed (can we use that term around here :rolleyes: ) to a 1080 output to HD-SDI is it really an extra drain on the CPU?

I really like the potential simplicity and cost effectiveness of using commodity displays that already have HDMI taps for client/director monitors. I think that sitting as close as folks usually do in a video village situation there is a perceptable difference between 1080 and 720. I know I won't be able to show them 4k on set but putting the best possible image in front of the people signing my check makes business sense to me.
 
Shhhh

Shhhh

Finner - agreed, its a clumsy fix but it does provide a central point for sending out vid all over the set which was going to require some sort of base station anyway. The playback guy wants to sit at a cart all day, nobody but the tech heads like us really care exactly what is on that cart or which tasks are happening there vs at the camera as long as their feeds are right. Moreover, it could allow the playback tech to create several customized feeds for different departments.

For large crew and union shoots the only difference is under the hood of the playback techs cart and we just added features.
 
Blair, I agree with what you're saying. If they can't up the HDMI from 720p to 1080p, then we'll need to accept that and move on. If 1080p is absolutely necessary or wanted for client/director displays, and HDMI is limited to 720p, then an HD-SDI tap solution will be the only way to go.

My other reason for wanting 1080p HDMI, beyond what you stated, is to be able to review RED One footage in 1080p easily on any 1080p HDMI-equipped HDTV set quickly and easily, without having to get to an edit bay to review footage.

Time and tech limitations will determine what makes the cut on features, and the RED staff has already performed miracles just getting this far down the road. I know they take the suggestions on this thread and the whole board as being constructive input from working pros. That said, they'll accommodate what they can, while still meeting their fiscal and production deadline needs. The field workflow needs raised on this thread are very valid, and I know RED is taking them seriously. I just thinks its entirely amazing to even get the chance to give input into the development of a new camera system. When was the last time we had that opportunity?

Postscript: Those of us who produce, and have regular occasion to bid projects, are familiar with the term "feature creep". Clients and network executive regularly come back at various stages of projects and ask for additions and revisions beyond the original agreement - thus "feature creep". RED has been taking input for about 13 months now, simultaneous with R&D for the camera. As they approach locking in the camera system specs we keep asking for more features. At some point they have to shut off the feature creep or the specs will never be finalized - and the camera production will be delayed. Then again, it's better business to delay the camera production and get it right, than to meet self-imposed deadlines and afterwards wish more features had been added. The decision seats for RED are difficult ones to sit in...and have been since the camera was announced.

All this said, I think the field workflow issues defined on this thread are weighty enough for RED to pay close attention to - something they have been doing (Graeme, Stuart, etc.). I know these guys and I know they've sincerely analyzed the input, and they'll do the best they can, while balancing that with the myriad of other factors they have to consider.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Finner - agreed, its a clumsy fix but it does provide a central point for sending out vid all over the set which was going to require some sort of base station anyway. The playback guy wants to sit at a cart all day, nobody but the tech heads like us really care exactly what is on that cart or which tasks are happening there vs at the camera as long as their feeds are right. Moreover, it could allow the playback tech to create several customized feeds for different departments.

For large crew and union shoots the only difference is under the hood of the playback techs cart and we just added features.
Click to expand...

Blair,

Your suggestion would work, but is really not feasible. Again, for RED to break into the 'film' world of commercials, it needs to work as a film camera does, with respect to video assist. A whole extra cart of equipment JUST to get frame lines is not efficient enough. There are frame line generators out there that are small enough to fit on our (video assist) current carts, and that would work better.

That said, I am very interested in you and your ideas, as I am working on a very similar setup for myself. Over time, I would love to share ideas back and forth to get the ultimate RED support system for on set workflow set up. Cheers man.
 
I think in an ideal world, frame lines would be added downstream of the playback / recorder device, or as part of it's output. It would make sense to me that the playback / recorder records clean frames, and then, it should be able to output that clean feed with user-selectable framing guides, to be able to aspect ratio convert, letterbox, pillarbox etc. etc. That, to me, would be the most flexible approach. Of course, the playout section should have 2 or 3 independent feeds that all could be ganged together, or unique in their views or guides. To me, taking what the camera outputs in terms of guides is limiting, not enabling. Thoughts??

Graeme
 
I also just want to try and post a few pics of a video setup. As you will see, the video cart can get pretty loaded as it is (depending on the number of cameras shooting) and there really isn't much room to add stuff simply to generate framelines. And to have an entire second cart JUST for this won't work, unless a 2nd person is hired to run it, and this is just silly if it is only to generate framelines.

Also, there is a pic there of a camera car setup, with a technocrane on the back. Video assist is setup on the top of the camera car, and the director, DOP, AD and me (the guy in the orange hat) sit up there. A feed is then transmitted to a client chase vehicle. Looking at this picture it is a good example of why generating framelines almost HAS to be done from within the camera. I couldn't imagine telling the AD that I HAVE to bring a cart with a full MAC system setup on the camera car somewhere to generate framelines. They would laugh at me first, then fire me, which, on a cold day like that, would be okay.

The fianl pic of of video village. You can see the client area, the video guy's cart, and in the background, the director's monitors. Imagine telling the camera department that because we now have a RED camera on set, we didn't hire a video guy, and they are responsible for wiring all that, moving it around all day, AND playing back footage. Not gonna happen.

Anyways, here's the pics, assuming I can upload them properly.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I think in an ideal world, frame lines would be added downstream of the playback / recorder device, or as part of it's output. It would make sense to me that the playback / recorder records clean frames, and then, it should be able to output that clean feed with user-selectable framing guides, to be able to aspect ratio convert, letterbox, pillarbox etc. etc. That, to me, would be the most flexible approach. Of course, the playout section should have 2 or 3 independent feeds that all could be ganged together, or unique in their views or guides. To me, taking what the camera outputs in terms of guides is limiting, not enabling. Thoughts??

Graeme
Click to expand...

That's it...user selectable display features at video village, slaved off of the camera, but completely independent of the camera crew. Everyone should be happy then...
 
It would mean someone inventing a DDR device that does that - or perhaps it goes in a distribution amplifier. I'm pretty much thinking out loud here.

Skip, thanks for the pictures - that's helpful indeed.

Graeme
 
An external frame line generator is not a good answer to this. Frame lines are an on set industry standard for monitors. I would guess that for every person that would want a clean feed of the HDMI there would be bare minimum 10 that would want it with frame lines. In the situation of a low budget local commercial or on a camera car like Skip mentions you need the feature of look around with frame lines as a direct camera feature. Now I understand if it is not possible for you guys to do it Graham (it is on the d20 though). If it is not possible to have both options (clean and look around frame lines) out of the HDMI port and only 1 is possible my vote would definately be for the look around with frame lines like on the arri as the clean feature would be something that would really hardly ever be used on set.
 
This is a good tread, I like it... =)

I know this is about asking for features but I think it's better to be shot down rather than never lift off. The thought that I have is timecode, can that be in-frame also, since we now are asking for stuff in-frame, on a VFX heavy commercial that I've been on we needed to sync up greenscreen with live action and the problem was the take that had been choosen, we needed to match stuff up on set. Then when editing the whole thing we would have saved like a day if we could have had proper timecode on the playback's comps that was done on set.

Then when I'm doing videoassist, there is most of the time a little break here and there, I like to do small edits and see how stuff syncs up, then if the director/producer like some of my edits, I would have accurate timecode so it's easy when they go into edit. (Saves a bit of time in the long run.)

Thanks for listening RED team. You rock. (The ones that reads all this rocks aswell.)
 
Burned in timecode would indeed be useful. Although there is obviously embedded timecode in the Dual-Link HD-SDI output. Would that also be embedded in the monitoring output? It would be useful if it was, then as cnilsson says, on-set rough cuts and comps could be transferred much more easily to the edit. Many capture systems can read RP-188 embedded timecode.
 
I second Finner on that frameline business.

On a commercial shoot it is absolutely necessary to have proper monitoring with framelines. Monitoring for clients is different compared to monitoring for the camera department. The camera-department needs to know how the picture looks like technically, HDSDI will do this. The clients want to know what the picture will look contentwise. Clients are used to crappy videoassist on which you can say things like: "This is out of frame. The picture will be more bluish, like we had in the moods." 720p is plenty enough for any client monitoring.

So: HDSDI for clean picture monitoring. HDMI 720P with framelines for client/producer and all the others (like me) who need framelines.

Is this possible?

Hans
 
Finner said:
An external frame line generator is not a good answer to this. Frame lines are an on set industry standard for monitors. I would guess that for every person that would want a clean feed of the HDMI there would be bare minimum 10 that would want it with frame lines.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with skipdivils and Finner...

I brought this topic up back in Nov. on DVInfo (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80097) as well as on my own forum and I am very happy to see it getting more attention here. As a 24-frame Video Coordinator and Playback operator, I have also witnessed how vital the Video Assist workflow is on all of the productions I've worked on. (Mostly these have been Features, 1 Hour Episodic, and Sitcoms). On this forum, I've noticed that there seems to be 2 very different views on how this should work - one comes from smart, logical thinking, and the other comes from real-world production experience (also smart, by the way :) ) . Both are definitely legitimate in their own right.

In the logical version, ideas have been mentioned such as playing back from the Camera, adding Framelines downstream, etc. Technically, these can work, but practically, they don't.

In the real world, when on set, there are certain procedures that have evolved over a long period of time for good reason. There are also specific jobs for specific people, and unions which regulate who does what. As mentioned here, Camera Operators will not do playback on Union shows. There will be a Video Assist operator, who will be expecting composite or HD output with framelines. Depending on the type of show, type of setup, and also the preference of the Camera Dept. and Video Assist operator, I have sometimes seen the Assist operator add custom framelines from their own cart, but this has been VERY rare.

The workflow is the main reason why the current method is in use today.

I think the root of a lot of the discussion here comes from the idea that the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs on the Camera were originally intended as recordable outputs, not necessarily as frameline monitor outputs(?). (The framelines would be in the viewfinder and LCD.) The idea of adding framelines essentially makes a potential recording output unusable in that manner. This, I believe, has led to the idea of adding the framelines downstream, which logically makes sense... therefore you don't lose functionality.

Unfortunately, the way most productions are run, this is not practical, and would disrupt alot of current workflow procedures and crew responsibilities. On the film shoots I've been on, there is a Video Tap on the cameras which outputs a composite feed with framelines (by cable or transmitter) to the Video Assist operator, who then routes the feed to the set monitors and records all of the takes to playback instantly when requested.

Also, something not mentioned here (as far as I can tell) is the needs of the Sound Mixer. Almost all Mixers I have worked with heavily rely on Video Assist and the Framelines to communicate to their Boom operators when the Boom is nearing entering the frame. They are in constant communication over a wireless transmitter, and if the mic gets to close to the frameline, the Mixer will tell the Boom operator. So the Video Assist operator will also be expected to wire a feed to the Mixer's small monitor(s). Doing this all in HD may not be practical, so the Video Assist operator may need to have a converter to go Composite.

I believe the best ideas I have heard so far are to have options for both the HDMI and HD-SDI (and SDI?) feeds to have an assortment of independantly toggle-able framelines (with modes for combined framelines (1.85 and 4:3, etc.) since many productions shoot for more than one viewing method.) Also, if possible, and I know this will be frowned upon by some, a composite output. This also was mentioned here before... keep in mind that many Video Assist setups have to travel long distances (carts located very far from the set, camera on a technocrane, etc.) I'm not sure the distance HDMI and HD-SDI can travel before needing a DA. (plus the additional costs of high-end cabling and DAs or converters). These are all real-world factors to keep in mind.

Thanks for being so open minded. It is yet another reason Red sets itself apart. And while Red is a ground breaking camera company, it must also respect and understand the current workflows in use today if it is to be accepted in many professional environments. I do not expect all of our feature requests to make it in, and understand how difficult a task is at hand, but I felt this was an important issue to chime in about.
 
I think RED are committed to digital only outputs. The idea of a composite output has been rejected on a number of occasions. This means that for people who need a composite feed to work with an existing video assist setup will need a down stream converter anyway. The Miranda down-converter can also add burned in time-code and frame lines, so may in fact be the solution to many people's requirements.
 
Yes, digital and HD only on the outputs. We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.

But please, this is a wonderful discussion and I'm personally learning a lot.

Graeme
 
Splitting the LCD feed?

Splitting the LCD feed?

Thanks Nick. Perhaps the Miranda is the answer. If it actually lives on the camera it would add a little heft and potentially quite a bit of cable clutter but it is certainly less added kit than my Mac on a cart scenario, although it seems like there is already a playback tech cart anyway...

One thing that really hasn't been sussed out here with the Red Team is whether we can split off the on board LCD feed to mirror it; overlays, graticules and all off to video village / client world. Avoids the Miranda and if all it requires is a proper cable as a Red accessory that might be the easiest way.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Yes, digital and HD only on the outputs. We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.
Graeme
Click to expand...

While I think it would be wise to add a composite output, I also respect the reasons for keeping the price down. My concern with the HDMI output mainly regards signal impedance (cable length limitations). Most standard HDMI cables have a signal impedance limit of around 15 feet. Heavier gauge professional HDMI cables have a longer range but max out around 50 feet. This can become a problem in certain production environments when trying to send a signal to a Video Assist cart which may be far off the set, or if the camera location is far away or difficult to get to (such as a Technocrane).

HDMI extender boxes and fiber-optic based HDMI cables are also options, but can be very costly and are probably not going to be available from most Video Assist operator's kits.

I have done some more research and have found a new brand of HDMI cable that is not too costly (~$220), support up to 1080p, and has built in amplification with a range of up to 150 feet, from a company called Accell. (They, of course, make other shorter lengths as well). This is starting to get close to what is required in certain production situations. If anyone is interested, you can check out their products at:

http://www.accellcables.com/products/installer/videoCables/HDMI/HDMI_hdmi_URcable.html

And here is a good article re: HDMI and these new cables.

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec05/articles/accell/hdmi.htm

Perhaps these cables could be tested in-house. If they work as advertised, they could be a valuable tool for Red users and Video Assist operators and help achieve the workflow we are hoping for.

The HDMI feed would come from the camera (with framelines) and from there, a Miranda box (or other down converter solution) could be used to get Composite Video feeds to other monitors on set which do not require an HD feed or to send to a UHF transmitter.
 
Hdmi / Preview Hd-sdi / Record Hd-sdi

Hdmi / Preview Hd-sdi / Record Hd-sdi

Lets recap what we have / what we need to have ...

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area (they have to if you want to record these outputs) These two HD-SDI outputs must also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, apparently requires some degree of user selection / control over frame guide overlays, and also has embedded digital audio plus timecode. If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top