RED 4K footage@IBC D-Cinema screening

[David W Scott]

I'd love to see a switchable focus assist that superimposes a 400% zoom in a small circle in the middle of the viewfinder. Then you could leave it on all the time.

 

I haven't tried JVC's method... of outlining objects with good edge definition. That would seem limiting.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The "outlining objects with good definition" is effectively peaking, that is a very hard high-frequency amplifier or contrast enhancement which effectively applies an extremely high level of edge enhancement but only to objects that are already sharp. This causes objects that are sharply focussed to jump out of the frame with a kind of shimmering outline.

 

It's been used for years in ENG viewfinders and works very well; it's standard practice. The viewfinder does need to have something approaching the full resolution of the picture for it to work very well, though, which is something even the best HD finders struggle to achieve.

 

Phil

[David W Scott]

The "outlining objects with good edge definition" is effectively peaking, that is a very hard high-frequency amplifier

 

Sorry, the wording was from JVC publicity info... I thought they were doing something more than just peaking.

 

I agree, on its own, peaking has limited usefulness when the resolution of your viewfinder is overwhelmed by the source.

[Graeme Nattress]

JVC method sends the image black and white, and "peaks" in colour with a user defined colour around the in focus object. What we're doing is rather different.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

And what you're doing is.....?

 

If the answer is a variation on "not telling you, neener neener", you will find anew why people don't trust you.

 

Phil

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

Personally I find "focus assist" functions -those kind of Picture-in-picture enlargmenst of part of the frame, of limited use, for example if you are panning and racking the P.I.P is often detrimental to your camera move as it throws off your framing. Whereas peaking has saved my arse many times, and doesn't change the frame in you EVF, if it wasn't for peaking the Pro-35 set-up with the F900 would almost have always resulted in soft images for me. I shot/directed a short with this set-up where we had insane racks back and forth where the DOF was too shallow to measure accurately with tape measure and marks on disk, but using the peaking my operator got it sharp every single time (he is very skilled though). My point is I would MUCH rather have peaking than some P.I.P type focus assist enlargment function that interferes with the framing. But that's just me...what would you chose if you could only have one Phil??? (peaking I pressume?).

Cheers.

[Greg Lowry]

Hi,

 

And what you're doing is.....?

 

If the answer is a variation on "not telling you, neener neener", you will find anew why people don't trust you.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Many of the non-specific items on the RED feature set come from people asking questions (often relentlessly) about if there are plans for the camera to have a certain capability. The focus assist feature (or whatever it's called) is one of those. I don't see a problem with RED indicating that a general feature is in the works without providing specific technical details. The "work in progress" nature of RED's approach is unusual and sometimes disorienting, and can lead to occasional misinterpretation or misinformation, but I have come to see the approach as valuable for both RED and prospective users of the camera. Rather than holding everything up to a microscope and parsing every word, I think we should be a little more relaxed and supportive during the development phase. There will be plenty of time for independent testing and analysis in due course. The altenative is for RED to go into stealth mode. I don't think that serves anyone. RED isn't Sony. RED isn't ARRI. RED is a small, talented, enthusiastic, ambitious team out to create an interesting and economical new tool for us. Fortunately, they're well-funded. Sometimes I think the resentment from some quarters (and this isn't directed at you) is because Jim Jannard is wealthy. As he's self-made, I see that as more reason to admire him and believe he'll do what he says he'll do. There is nothing in his history to indicate otherwise. He's not a faceless suit in a black tower somewhere. I see no reason not to trust the RED crew. Are they perfect? Who is? Have they so far done everything they said they'd do? I think so. I see an abundance of goodwill flowing from RED. It's fair to remain skeptical, but to suggest there's anything shady going on just isn't supported by the facts.

 

Regards,

Greg

Edited September 14, 2006 by Greg Lowry

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I don't see a problem with RED indicating that a general feature is in the works without providing specific

> technical details.

 

Sure.

 

But what they can't do is say "Oh we're doing that... but MUCH better....oh, you'll just have to trust us, but it's way better."

 

Sorry, no, I don't automatically trust you, and you are asking for a lot of my money so I will microscopically examine it all I like.

 

Phil

[Greg Lowry]

Hi,

 

> I don't see a problem with RED indicating that a general feature is in the works without providing specific

> technical details.

 

Sure.

 

But what they can't do is say "Oh we're doing that... but MUCH better....oh, you'll just have to trust us, but it's way better."

 

Sorry, no, I don't automatically trust you, and you are asking for a lot of my money so I will microscopically examine it all I like.

 

Phil

 

I don't take "it'll be way better" statements seriously until I see the product. The production community will ultimately be the judge of whether it's better or not.

 

They're not asking for "a lot of money" until you purchase a camera (and at $17.5k for the camera body, "a lot of money" is a relative term), unless you consider the $1000 refundable deposit a lot of money. No one is being forced to do anything. If one is skeptical, then don't reserve a camera. Are you worried about other people's money? Let them worry about that.

[Jim Jannard]

Sorry, no, I don't automatically trust you, and you are asking for a lot of my money so I will microscopically examine it all I like.

 

Phil

 

Phil... we aren't asking for any of your money. In fact we don't want to take a reservation from anyone who is nervous. If someone changed their minds after placing a reservation and gets nervous, we'll promptly refund their $1000 deposit. And we will present what we are doing as we see fit.

 

Jim

Edited September 14, 2006 by Jim Jannard

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> And we will present what we are doing as we see fit.

 

Yes that's fine and completely your prerogative, I'm just trying to point out that a few of the things you are doing in your presentation are, I think fairly unmistakably, causing people to doubt and cross-examine you.

 

Now of course this is getting you an enormous amount of online buzz, and as I said to Mr. Nattress the other day, you're clearly a professional when it comes to the grass-roots promotion you're doing. I think you could achieve the same with less aggravation, though.

 

Phil