RED 4K footage@IBC D-Cinema screening

[Emanuel A Guedes]

First echoes from the IBC public screening of the first RED 4K footage:

 

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/7075.html

 

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/09/red-4k-...old-you-so.html

 

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70365

[Emanuel A Guedes]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=75097

[Max Jacoby]

First echoes from the IBC public screening of the first RED 4K footage:

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/09/red-4k-...old-you-so.html

I love this quote from the above website:

 

"There will be some kind of focus assist that isn't being discussed yet, they are aware that a 4.5K image with a S35mm depth of field has a strong need for a strong focusing capability."

 

No kidding!

 

In the real world we call them focus-pullers.

[Daniel Stigler]

In the real world we call them focus-pullers.

 

 

Where can i buy one of those "focus-pullers"? Will RED be manufacturing them?

 

 

 

:P

[Patrizio De Sica]

I believe this new contender will bring a revolution to this activity.

 

It's not difficult to get that any revolution will sacrifice a few in benefit of something or even others.

 

All that the industry can do is to change. And it wasn't necessary to announce a new sort of digital gear like this camera is. Dogma95, the danish movement, for instance, has been proving this. Small cameras, reduced crews and the form of filmmaking is changing. At least, in a certain level of working.

 

A auto focus feature would be interesting especially associated to a Super35mm sensor output.

Edited September 10, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

[David Mullen ASC]

A auto focus feature would be interesting especially associated to a Super35mm sensor output.

 

It would have limited use though; usually you are follow-focusing on an actor's eyes, and most focus tracking systems, unless manually controlled, tend to get thrown off when an actor passes behind a foreground person or object, or moves rapidly, etc. so there is a lot of human decision making when following focus. Any indie person who thinks that they can eliminate the focus puller when shooting with 35mm depth of field is seriously deluded; an auto-focus system would have to be carefully set-up and controlled by the focus puller when the types of shots where it is valuable comes along.

 

The problem with autofocus is that when it goes wrong, it basically ruins the shot. Sometimes you'd actually be better off with manual focus that is slightly off than with something sharp that suddenly racks to the wrong part of the frame.

 

I don't think the 1st AC / focus-puller is in any danger of being eliminated by any new technology for narrative productions that involve following actors around in close-ups; it's only in one-man documentary situations where you might not have a focus-puller, and generally those folks up til now have been using 16mm or 2/3" (or smaller) CCD's and that type of depth of field, so eyeballing focus while operating has been acceptable, plus you're allowed more slack by the viewer in a documentary with focus mistakes.

[Francesco Bonomo]

I believe this new contender will bring a revolution to this activity.

 

Every time a new hd camera is announced or some footage is screened there are people talking about revolutions and big changes ahead. It's been going on for years and the truth is not much has changed, or at least not the way many supporters of the "digital revolution" had predicted.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new tools available to us to better tell stories, but I frankly don't understand the excitement for a new camera.

 

All that the industry can do is to change. And it wasn't necessary to announce a new sort of digital gear like this camera is. Dogma95, the danish movement, for instance, has been proving this. Small cameras, reduced crews and the form of filmmaking is changing. At least, in a certain level of working.

 

Dogma95 hasn't proven anything. It's just one of the pseudo-snob-intellectual crap by Von Trier: no one ever followed those rules.

[David Mullen ASC]

There have always been movies made by tiny and huge crews, in all formats. I suspect even the 65mm Todd-AO crew of "Baraka" was pretty small as they travelled the globe.

 

And the notion that a DP/operator and a camera assistant to help set-up and pull-focus (remotely or on-camera) is too large a crew size is ridiculous. The camera assistant is one of the last positions that will ever be eliminated in most kinds of filmmaking except the extremely small ones. And we already know the types of productions that might use a single camera person for everything; I don't think that practice would extend further into typical filmmaking productions where you would use a camera assistant because the typical reasons you have a camera assistant are somewhat format agnostic.

 

Anyway, we all admit that the reason one would shoot 35mm or 4K is for the quality of the image, and most people would put focusing the image as part of getting a high-quality image, so you need a focus-puller when you have limited depth of field and moving subjects that are beyond an operator to follow the focus themselves. And we all know the limitations of auto-focus systems, even as they improve. Hence why I personally think any indie person salivating at the thought of getting 35mm-type depth of field while shooting narrative scenes but eliminating a focus-puller is deluded.

[Brian Drysdale]

I believe this new contender will bring a revolution to this activity.

 

It's not difficult to get that any revolution will sacrifice a few in benefit of something or even others.

 

All that the industry can do is to change. And it wasn't necessary to announce a new sort of digital gear like this camera is. Dogma95, the danish movement, for instance, has been proving this. Small cameras, reduced crews and the form of filmmaking is changing. At least, in a certain level of working.

 

A auto focus feature would be interesting especially associated to a Super35mm sensor output.

 

Dogma 95 was really a clever marketing ploy by the Danes and they would bent the rules. Their films often had reasonable budgets and you could operate the same rules on a 16mm film if you wanted to.

 

With the smaller formats you really do need really good actors and a great script, unfortunately most of the people following that route only had the camera.

 

A revolution comes from the ideas, not whither you have a focus puller. Chances are that you can do more revolutionary ideas with the focus puller than the dogma of the auto focus.

 

Could be that the "new" forms of film making were done in the 1920s.

[David W Scott]

It would have limited use though; usually you are follow-focusing on an actor's eyes, and most focus tracking systems, unless manually controlled, tend to get thrown off when an actor passes behind a foreground person or object, or moves rapidly, etc. so there is a lot of human decision making when following focus. Any indie person who thinks that they can eliminate the focus puller when shooting with 35mm depth of field is seriously deluded; an auto-focus system would have to be carefully set-up and controlled by the focus puller when the types of shots where it is valuable comes along.

 

The term they used was "focus assist".

 

I may be wrong, but I understand "focus assist" as simply providing maganification in the viewfinder, i.e. a "critical focuser". This is necessary because the native imaging resolution is SO MUCH higher than the resolution of the viewfinders. Obviously this is much less of an issue with optical finders.

 

(But not irrelevant -- I can't correctly focus a medium-format TLR without using the critical focuser magnification.)

[Daniel Stigler]

The term they used was "focus assist".

 

I may be wrong, but I understand "focus assist" as simply providing maganification in the viewfinder, i.e. a "critical focuser". This is necessary because the native imaging resolution is SO MUCH higher than the resolution of the viewfinders. Obviously this is much less of an issue with optical finders.

 

(But not irrelevant -- I can't correctly focus a medium-format TLR without using the critical focuser magnification.)

 

This is a question, not an attack: how do you check your framing if you only see a magnified part of the image?

[Frank DiBugnara]

Kind of pointless to watch to judge quality, but:

 

[Patrizio De Sica]

I have the due respect for all of you, those have participated following my last post. Including Mr. David Mullen who has been inspiring me ever since his cinematography book.

 

However, I also must disagree with you and some other quotes here.

 

I believe your own work is quite different of others. There are so much different experiences and reading your posts sometimes it seems there is one only truth. It's not so, my goodness!

 

Perhaps a autofocus feature or something that can help to avoid "the last position that will ever be eliminated in most kinds of filmmaking" may be our choice or not. Following the new generation of Canon, Sony, Panasonic, RED adds the Super 35mm sensor to it.

[Daniel Stigler]

Perhaps a autofocus feature or something that can help to avoid "the last position that will ever be eliminated in most kinds of filmmaking" may be our choice or not. Following the new generation of Canon, Sony, Panasonic, RED adds the Super 35mm sensor to it.

 

People want 35mm sensors to get the same DOF characteristics 35mm film gives. If you're serious about this you don't want the DOF to just be shallow but you want it to be selective to be used as a tool. There's a lot to pulling focus to make it look good. In many shots there's just one way to do it and that's where an autofocus device could be used. In many other shots desicions have to be made that a machine can't make. I hold the strong believe that in narrative storytelling a good focuspuller will always surpass an autofocus device.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

People want 35mm sensors to get the same DOF characteristics 35mm film gives.

Are you sure?

 

If you're serious about this you don't want the DOF to just be shallow but you want it to be selective to be used as a tool. There's a lot to pulling focus to make it look good. In many shots there's just one way to do it and that's where an autofocus device could be used.

Sure.

 

In many other shots desicions have to be made that a machine can't make. I hold the strong believe that in narrative storytelling a good focuspuller will always surpass an autofocus device.

Narrative storytelling, narrative storytelling... We don't even know if this man wants a RED ONE to that or documentary run & gun work?...

[Daniel Stigler]

Are you sure?

Name another reason.

 

Narrative storytelling, narrative storytelling... We don't even know if this man wants a RED ONE to that or documentary run & gun work?...

 

In narrative storytelling it's the aesthetics of the handling of focus. In documentary run&gun what do you do when the camera focuses on some tree behind the lion in africa but you are out to shoot a documentary about the lion?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Name another reason.

Just one? May res be? (EDIT -- Just) Two? Latitude?

 

In narrative storytelling it's the aesthetics of the handling of focus.

I'm working in narrative storytelling since I remember myself and this is one among other major even bigger points. Otherwise, btw the shallow DOF excitement, I thought Citizen Kane was already shot more than 60 years ago...

 

In documentary run&gun what do you do when the camera focuses on some tree behind the lion in africa but you are out to shoot a documentary about the lion?

?? Edited September 12, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

[Daniel Stigler]

Mr. Guedes, as you seem to take certain parts of my posts and answer them out of context i'll answer this tomorrow after i asked a friend who's english is better than mine for some help in understanding what this is all about.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

res = resolution

btw = by the way

DOF = Depth of Field

Edited September 12, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

[Daniel Stigler]

res = resolution

btw = by the way

DOF = Depth of Field

 

 

Is this sarcasm or are you serious?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

In a friendly manner, it resumes the point.

[Max Jacoby]

Mr. Guedes, as you seem to take certain parts of my posts and answer them out of context i'll answer this tomorrow after i asked a friend who's english is better than mine for some help in understanding what this is all about.

It's certainly not your English that is the problem here.

[Keith Walters]

It's certainly not your English that is the problem here.

Has anybody else noticed that while Mr. Guedes' English is appalling sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, his spelling is always perfect?

 

Are you using the Babelfish Translator by any chance, Mr Guedes?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

It's certainly not your English that is the problem here.

The third post related to me in one day :D, what a honor Mr. Maxx!... :ph34r: I don't have any more words to express my gratitude... :lol: In my non-native english, for sure! :rolleyes:

 

 

Has anybody else noticed that while Mr. Guedes' English is appalling sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, his spelling is always perfect?

 

Are you using the Babelfish Translator by any chance, Mr Guedes?

Since you're a good watcher, I believe you can easily figure out your answer Mr. Walters.

[Tim Tyler]

I love this quote from the above website:

 

"There will be some kind of focus assist that isn't being discussed yet,..."

In the real world we call them focus-pullers.

 

The Panasonic HVX200 and JVC HD100 both have 'focus assist' features which help the operator focus through the lens. I find the HVX's 'digital zoom' method works very well although you can't and wouldn't want to use it while you're rolling, but it's great for setting marks. The JVC's works differently and people seem to like their method too.

 

Any electronic 'focus assist' will requires a real A.C. if your subject or camera will move in the shot.