Would you buy this RED product?

[Todd Anderson]

For around the $1,000 price range, how many RED owners would be interested in a "RED Director's Viewfinder"?

Basically the idea would be a "single frame", small and light weight, PL mountable device that could be used for lining up shots, checking exposure, lighting ratios, location scouting, (exporting of files via FlashCard, etc)

And yes, some could argue that other director viewfinders exists, and that one could use any DSLR for checking exposure, lighting ratios, etc. But obviously, if you could have the exact same Mysterium CMOS sensor to export a file that would be an exact REDCODE RAW version of a still that could be dialed in the exact way as your RED ONE is set up, this would seem to be invaluable.

Good idea? Wouldn't every RED owner put one of these on their shopping list? Would these sell like hot cakes?

Todd

Note: I'm not proposing to manufacture one myself (for obvious reasons) but am putting out this request to Jim and his team.

 

[Jarred Land]

Not a far out idea Todd... but it would need to be about the size of a Scarlet.. which then begs the question, why not just use a Scarlet?

 

[M Most]

Not a far out idea Todd... but it would need to be about the size of a Scarlet.. which then begs the question, why not just use a Scarlet?

Because the Scarlet might be living on a dolly, a hothead, or sticks, and you might want to be lining up a shot from the other side of the set or on another set. Or you might be location scouting. Or you might not want to power up the camera. Or.....

Basically, take the reasons cameramen and directors currently use directors viewfinders that accommodate production lenses. Same reasoning applies here.

 

[Jarred Land]

You have a second one..

 

[Todd Anderson]

Hey Jarred,

Yeah... that would seem like the follow up question, but the idea would be to sell every RED ONE owner one of these (at a reasonable $1,000) versus a few RED owners a scarlet (they may not feel they need at $3,000). Kind of a expendable "accessory", versus something you would want to baby and feel guilty for not using. An item that every set would need a few of?

Just my thinking.

Todd

 

[Simon Blackledge]

But DVF's dont record anything ? Or am I missing the point..

Like a DOP getting Kodak to load a 35mm reel for his SLR.. gets bigger when ya wanna save..

 

[Jarred Land]

We could not make a S35 directors finder for $1000 with a Mysterium S35 Sensor plus all the processing chips to make this happen... not even close.

 

[Jeff Butcher]

I would rather put the money towards a second brain.. then I have a directors viewfinder/backup brain/ 2nd camera if needed.

 

[M Most]

We could not make a S35 directors finder for $1000 with a Mysterium S35 Sensor plus all the processing chips to make this happen... not even close.

I didn't think you could. But you asked what it would be used for, so I answered accordingly. Personally, I don't see any problem with doing what we do now, which is to use a directors' viewfinder with a lens mount. Ground glass markings can be made to display any specific frame size.

 

[Jarred Land]

Agree Mmost ( real name please )... the only problem is that a "dumb" ARRI PL directors Viewfinder costs $6000... and you wouldn't be able to see exposure/Look etc.

 

[Todd Anderson]

Jarred,

Understadable. But can't you make it kind of close if you can make the upcoming Scarlet body and lens full kit for $3,000? (yes, realize that is 2/3") What is the next step down if you stripped away everything you don't need? $1,500? $2,000? Can you trim anything? Again, just stills and not motion...

And worst case, then something that is better and cheaper than the "dumb" ARRI PL director viewfinders for $6,000...

And why let Canon and Nikon sell their $1,000 DLR's to the locations scouts and the people checking lighting ratio's on set.. etc..

Just trying to suggest, you know, an iPod for you guys...

Todd

 

[Jarred Land]

its kinda wonky to use a 2/3" sensor to make framing/etc. decisions for use against a RED ONE ( S35).

 

[Todd Anderson]

Yeah agreed. But not thinking of using the 2/3" ... just wondering if by cutting motion processing and other features on a 35mm crop size sensor (and if Nikon and Canon are making crop sensors for that price range) if there was anything you guys could design. But obviously, the market would have to dictate everything (and I realize Nikon and Canon are selling a lot more $1,000 cameras than you would director view finders)

How about a "maybe in the future" possibility and leave it at that, Jarred?

Todd

 

[M Most]

Agree Mmost ( real name please )... the only problem is that a "dumb" ARRI PL directors Viewfinder costs $6000... and you wouldn't be able to see exposure/Look etc.

MMost IS my real name (Mike Most). I'll be happy to change it, but I believe you told me previously that it was OK to leave it alone because it's an initial and a last name. If you want me to change it, say the word and I will.

As for the topic at hand, I really don't see any need to see a "look" when I'm lining up a scene through a lens. Personally, I think this whole "look" business is a bit overblown. If lighting is not correct, no amount of manipulation is going to make it right. If one wants producers and agency reps to see something a bit more representative of a final product at the Video Village, that I understand. But for a competent cameraman, I really don't see the necessity or usefulness of seeing this through a director's viewfinder, whose primary use is simply for selecting a lens and lining up the shot. Maybe I'm missing something here...

 

[Jason Ramsey]

adjusted the formatting a bit on your name, Mike. thanks.

</threadjack>

later,
Jason

 

[XiaoSu Han]

The question is:

Why hasn't anyone made a dumb PL viewfinder under 1000 USD?

Since more and more people own PL lenses now, it would make sense to pack a PL mount , a prism and a GG into a casing and sell it as a dumb PL viewfinder? I can't believe that there are PL 35mm adapters out there for under 1000 USD but not a simple dumb PL viewfinder.

anyone?

 

[Nick Gardner]

I can't believe that there are PL 35mm adapters out there for under 1000 USD but not a simple dumb PL viewfinder.

Well, those dof adapters don't have an optical finder (expensive), or a real GG (expensive), and anyway they do - CAvision makes one.

Nick

 

[Nick Gardner]

As an after thought, there is joy in making a really beautiful peace of equipment, and in owning one. Making something really precise and beautiful is expensive - there is no way around that. There is no joy in making a piece of crap, or owning one.

Just a thought, and as always, only my opinion.

Nick

PS-I think the CAvision is over a grand, and it may not include a GG.