Jump to content

RED BUILD 14 FULL TEST


Zac Halberd

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
Again, there is a difference in how an engineer measures latitude and how a cinematographer thinks of it practically on the set. Practically, you tend to think along the lines of "I shouldn't underexpose film by more than four stops... nor overexpose it by more than five stops... before it goes mostly black or mostly white." Now that's only a 9-stop working range, but obviously an engineer can measure more like 14 stops of dynamic range with color negative. Plus it's the difference between measuring specific tones versus a more general attitude towards bright and dark areas in the scene. Cinematographers mainly think in terms of faces (usually Caucasian...) and how they look overexposed and underexposed. On most digital cameras, a face is near black under four to five stops and clipping at three stops over, so that's a 7 or 8-stop range, but again, measurements of charts tend to show more like 10 or 11 or 12 stops for some digital cameras.

 

Sure, I'm speaking "unscientifically" but most of us deal with real world shooting scenarios and generally aren't playing any important information on the extreme ends of the dynamic range.

 

 

David, I believe you and I come from a different time where we judged latitude by all the values in between black and white, and not having to reach the ends of our range for fear of loosing the sweetness of lights mediums and darks. Today its all about numbers, just like every aspect of cinematography now seems with the latest generation. In the past we used to say we had 14 stops to work with but used seven and modestly. Today they like to say they have fourteen stops because the printout says so. And then everyone shakes their heads when they try to achieve that and say, hey what's up with this. In the older days of cinematography we had a gas pedal that you could depress to get the appropriate speed. Today it's an on/off switch so hold your head because this ride is only on or off and you can get whiplash.

 

Unrelated to the topic other than these board may have far more traffic soon: You wanna know the real RED?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/28/beck.commentary/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok... When I posted the whole 5-6 stops thing, I wasn't speaking scientifically. I posted this review basically from a practical, hands-on, good-ol' trusty cameraman point of view. I won't dispute Jim if he tells me that there are 11 stops of DR. Who am I to question these guys? I just looked into the monitor, and thought that there was quite a bit more clippage than I was comfortable with. I understand that LCD's clip early, but to be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable with lighting a scene solely depending on how much range the manual says I have.

 

I agree with David when he says that what an engineer says and what is practical on set are two different things. Engineers are biased. They look at a computer screen and see numbers that make them happy. What counts to a Cinematographer, is what is on the monitor on set.

 

The camera was great. Flat out. I was impressed by the image quality. We were never in a situation where we were like 'Damn, I could really use those extra 4 stops of range. It's just too bright!' However, Simon did mention the sensor sensitivity issue. He didn't complain, or say it was a big deal, he just mentioned it could be a weakness.

 

Walter, that economic article is just depressing... It's like economic fearmongering. Defconomy??? Interesting though.

Edited by Zac Halberd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I agree with David when he says that what an engineer says and what is practical on set are two different things. Engineers are biased. They look at a computer screen and see numbers that make them happy. What counts to a Cinematographer, is what is on the monitor on set.

 

"Biased" is the wrong word. Engineers try to be objective and try to quantify everything. Cinematographers are more subjective, and more generalists -- we don't take fifty spot meter readings before every shot, so to some degree, we count on a decent dynamic range to hold the ends while we concentrate on the middle where the important subjects are.

 

It's also the difference between latitude and dynamic range -- latitude describes a correctable range to work within and is a much smaller range than dynamic range, the number of luminance values, tones, that can be captured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

2 RED brick batteries

4 PAG V-lock batteries (yes they're perfectly compatible)

[...]

 

Thanks for the very useful post! Regarding the "AC Power" indicator, I understand that shows up with any external 12V battery which is not the RED brand battery, due to some proprietary battery data protocol. In other words, maybe the PAG batteries are not 100% compatible with regards to the data chip inside the battery?

 

I tested a Red with firmware #12 last month. Normally I used the back button but I'm almost sure that both front and back record buttons worked normally on that camera, so I wonder if it is a firmware thing?

 

Everyone has their own way of measuring dynamic range. The 11+ stops figure is a "total" dynamic range, and for most people would not be considered a "useful" operating dynamic range. That said, the DNR of the monitor video image does not do justice to what you can get out of the raw file in post. From my viewpoint that's the biggest difference between Red and the various video cameras I've used.

 

With video, it's what you see is what you get... you can do post work but the image quality drops if it wasn't exposed perfectly to begin with. With Red, you HAVE to do some post work, but the image quality goes up, relative to what you saw in the viewfinder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I posted this review basically from a practical, hands-on, good-ol' trusty cameraman point of view... I just looked into the monitor, and thought that there was quite a bit more clippage than I was comfortable with. ... What counts to a Cinematographer, is what is on the monitor on set.

 

My point was that monitor images are prone to errors until tested and proven reliable. I wouldn't trust a monitor image outright any more than I would trust numbers in manual, until I've had the chance to check it properly.

 

Mind you I'm not taking issue with your review; I'm only trying to frame it a little more carefully so that we can all benefit from your posting of your experience with the camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zac,

 

Thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful review of the RED One from your perspective as a 1st A.C.

 

I'd like to add something to your and Mr. Mullen's excellent comments about dynamic range:

 

When shooting digital that has "cine" s-curves applied in camera or planned for post, I have found myself keeping my scene exposures a stop or two away from the ends so the shadows/highlights enjoy a gentle roll-off at the toe/shoulder rather than being rammed hard up against the ends of the resulting digital file's limits. (This is obviously subject to creative and aesthetic choices.) In this case, I could be only using 5-7 stops on the RED One.

 

An alternative, when the control is available, is to use the full range of the camera's linear response then compress the exposure in post before applying the s-curve. This relationship between the ends of the exposure and their location in the s-curve provides a lot of aesthetic choices.

 

As always, test, test, test.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> I won't dispute Jim if he tells me that there are 11 stops of DR.

> Who am I to question these guys?

 

I think that's possibly the worst piece of sycophantic drivel I've ever heard of. Who are you? You're a customer, for christ's sake. You're a professional technician.

 

Good grief, have Red actually got people to the point where they feel that any questioning of the thing is impolite? Yes, I think they have.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Phil. Love you too. I wouldn't have complained about the dynamic range in the first place if I was a drivelling moron. I was being slightly facetious.

 

Thomas, I would love to see some frame grabs myself actually. I tell you what, I'll get on the horn to the director and ask him to post some 4k 16bit tiffage for ya. His name is Andrew Martin, so look out for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zac--great review, very helpful for me in deciding whether to follow through when my reservation number comes up.

 

While I wouldn't put it quite so, er, forcefully as does Phil, I would agree that this camera needs to be treated reasonably but above all critically--the weird defensiveness surrounding RED is helpful to no one--

 

--and Jim Jannard's post complaining about Phil's personal angle on it is apparently made without any sense of irony, sadly; even a casual perusal of the RED company forum will immediately elicit dozens of extremely defensive, even bullying responses from Mr. Jannard and some of his minions to perfectly reasonable questions and considerations posted therein.

 

Please, let's not let THIS forum become the same battleground for RED dogma--let's simply evaluate it as a product and a tool, not as an alternative to Scientology.

 

This question of dynamic range, for example: the idea of using a software-derived chart to claim an 11-stop range is unsatisfying and misleading, I think. I'll be keeping my eyes open for real-world tests with well-documented lighting ranges--anyone know of any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Good grief, have Red actually got people to the point where they feel that any questioning of the thing is impolite? Yes, I think they have.

 

 

This might explain it for you Phil:

 

 

When it comes to shopping, researchers at the University of Iowa have found that sometimes ignorance really is bliss. In what they term the Blissful Ignorance Effect, researchers at the university's Tippie College of Business found that people who have only a little information about a product are happier with that product than people who have more information.

 

"We found that once people commit to buying or consuming something, there's a kind of wishful thinking that happens and they want to like what they've bought," said assistant professor of marketing Dhananjay Nayakankuppam. "The less you know about a product, the easier it is to engage in wishful thinking. But the more information you have, the harder it is to kid yourself. This can be contrasted with what happens before taking any action when people are trying to be accurate and would prefer getting more information to less."

 

Nayakankuppam conducted the research with Himansha Mishra, a former UI graduate student now teaching at the University of Utah, and Baba Shiv of Stanford University. Their paper, "The Blissful Ignorance Effect," will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

 

The researchers used three experiments to arrive at their conclusion. Two of them were consumer test-style experiments in which subjects were asked for their opinion of chocolate in one and hand lotion in the other. In each experiment, one group of subjects was given lots of information about the product, the other group much less. In each instance, the subjects who had little information were more optimistic about the chocolate or hand lotion than those who had more information.

 

In the third experiment, subjects were given the opportunity to pick a video to watch. They were told one of the movies had received uniformly good reviews from critics, while the other received mixed reviews. Although more of the subjects selected the movie they were told had received uniformly good reviews, those who selected the movie believing it had mixed reviews were more optimistic about their choice.

 

Nayakankuppam said that the Blissful Ignorance Effect demonstrates that people have a need to be happy with their choice, and will often engage in whatever distortion is needed to justify the purchase. That means playing up the positive aspects while downplaying the negatives.

 

Nayakankuppam said prior research has shown that before people make a buying decision, they generally like to take an objective, clear-headed view of the products they're considering. During this phase, so-called accuracy goals play a larger part of a person's thinking because they want to buy the product that best meets their needs at a reasonable cost. His research, however, shows that once a decision has been made, the Blissful Ignorance Effect takes hold and the buyer makes that emotional commitment to a decision.

 

He said the data suggests a shift in peoples' motivations. While they have a need to be accurate before taking some action, post-action it is the directional need to justify a conclusion that is more important, he said.

 

"Once we've committed to something, we want to be happy about the decision and that drives our perceptions about it," said Nayakankuppam. "It's your decision, it's a part of you, and that creates an emotional attachment. It's sort of like your kid and you want to like it no matter what."

 

In that way, he said the less we know about something, the easier it is to create our own conceptions about it. For instance, he said that if we don't know the chocolate we're eating has hundreds of calories, we can convince ourselves that it isn't expanding our waistline.

 

Although the research used inexpensive items like chocolate and hand lotion in its experiments, Nayakankuppam said the Blissful Ignorance Effect could apply to bigger ticket items, too, such as cars or houses. However, since people tend to do more research before buying expensive items and thus would have more information, the effect would be more limited.

 

STORY SOURCE: University of Iowa News Service, 300 Plaza Centre One, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-2500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goddamn Walter... lol.

 

I must apologise to everyone. I wish I would have had more time to play with the RED and do some more tests. I know it would have helped everyone out. But we only had two and a half days with the camera, and most of that was spent shooting the short.

 

I have sent a message to Andrew Martin, the director, asking if he would post some hi-res TIFFs on this forum for your viewing pleasure. Still waiting for those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bob McKennsta

Zac,

 

 

First off- fantastic post. You have no reason to say you are sorry. I am a reservation holder and I am very very happy with seeing your opinion of the camera while being out in the field and using it. I really do appreciate your time. All your comments seemed accurate and were very informative.

 

 

As far as Phil is concerned:

 

He is quickly loosing all credibility here. I just finished posting a nice long comment on his thread about the camera being horrible. I think everyone here would be totally blind if you can not see that he has a personal vendetta against Jim Jannard and his crew.

 

Here is one of Phil's posts:

 

Yeah, but it's:

 

a) Shitty

Much more expensive to use than anyone seems to realise

c) Built by some quite unpleasant people

 

This is enough to put me off. You of course are free to do what you like.

 

And no, it's not in the same league as an F2

 

 

 

I have always wondered why he always was against the Red, but after I read this.... "Built by some quite unpleasant people.." it made me realize that it is not the camera but it is something else.

 

I am getting ready to place down my cash on this camera, and when I read a post like his and how he slammed the camera, it made me think... "my god.. It does not add up. Why is he hating it so bad..."

 

I then leave hear with a sour feeling- I go back over to Reduser and I look at all the 100s of postings of stills, videos, and raw files and I start laughing at what I am seeing on my computer screen.. I say to myself... "My god this camera is freaking amazing... Look at that image..."

 

I then walk away feeling much better- and realizing that there is something going on between Phil and Red.

 

When Phil reads this reply, he is going to say.. "Look another Red Fan Boy..." Most of the die hard cinematography dot com guys will follow in his footsteps and laugh..

 

I have won several awards for my commercials- so Phil is going to have a tough time convincing me that I suck as a cinematographer and that I am just another guy who thinks the Red will suddenly bring me fame and fortune. Its not that- I am sick and tired of upgrading cameras every year. I am ready to take a nice large step into the 4K world. Even if it was 2K- it is still an amazing camera.

 

Guys- seeing is believing. Go to reduser.net look on the tab that says "Footage / Field Tests". Check the footage out yourself. See the real deal. Make your judgement on that...

 

Don't waist your time listening to a "nay sayer" like Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
.... When Phil reads this reply, he is going to say.. "Look another Red Fan Boy..." Most of the die hard cinematography dot com guys will follow in his footsteps and laugh......

 

I very much doubt that a majority of us follow -- or agree with -- Phil on this. I sure don't. He's neither stupid nor ignorant, but he's clearly going with emotion over reason on this.

 

The Red camera is neither perfect nor worthless. To me, it's about where the Arriflex was 70 years ago. It needs some major improvements, but the fundamental shape of it, the architecture, is there. Now is the time for constructive rather than destructive criticism.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
I very much doubt that a majority of us follow -- or agree with -- Phil on this. I sure don't. He's neither stupid nor ignorant, but he's clearly going with emotion over reason on this.

 

The Red camera is neither perfect nor worthless. To me, it's about where the Arriflex was 70 years ago. It needs some major improvements, but the fundamental shape of it, the architecture, is there. Now is the time for constructive rather than destructive criticism.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

 

I second this,

 

 

I think the RED is a great example of what a small entrepreneurial shop can put together out of off the shelf parts, I don't think it will ever be a no compromise solution but the pics seem good to me for the price. It is certainly a interesting camera even without the fury surrounding it. Interested to see their little camera.

 

 

If you want no compromise D-Cine then the Origin is really the only way to go, no rolling shutter, 16bit A/D on chip better dynamic range, etc. It still looks Digital to me but is fully functional and no compromise and of course costs accordingly.

 

Bottom line is that the red is a camera, it won't make your member bigger, cure cancer or get you a direct line to a higher being and all the hater aide back and forth is just getting tiring, especially as the thing gets closer to being fully functional.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
16bit A/D on chip better dynamic range, etc. -Rob-

 

The Origin does not have an on-chip ADC.

 

The reason for its high performance is that it uses a very old but very low-noise CCD technology that dates back to the early 1970s. While this is by far the most sensitive of all the electronic imaging technologies, the drawback is that it needs a mechancial shutter to work properly. This is why most camera manufacturers went to lower-performance but more practical technologies that work without the need for mechanical assistance.

 

However Dalsa have turned this complication into an advantage by fitting a film-type reflex viewing mirror to the shutter, so it gives a full resolution colour image in the viewfinder, even with the power off.

 

CMOS is a much less efficient technology, but it allows the manufacturer to build the ADC on the same chip as the image sensor. However because of the poor speed performance of such devices, it is normal to have more than one ADC on the chip.

 

Manufacturers like RED have been able to improve the performance of their cameras using microlenses although there is some debate about the desirability of this, as it can cause "portholing" effects with some lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's worth pointing out that techniques typically used on CMOS imagers tend to reduce the performance of the thing per se, although they do usually increase the price-to-performance ratio. Mainly, this is down to the additional circuitry occupying space between pixels - or at least the connecting traces occupying this space - which can reduce the fill factor, well size, and other characteristics which can negatively affect dynamic range, noisefloor and aliasing.

 

That said the option to put ADC (or at least many output amps) on the same substrate as the sensor is what makes something like Red technically practical. You probably could make a CCD that size but the cost of it, and its associated ADC board, would be enormous. That said it would generally be expected have very much better performance than Red.

 

When I say "it looks like a cellphone camera" that is an opinion informed by this information. It looks clippy and frankly kind of cheap because that's how it works - they have made these compromises knowing, or at least presumably knowing, what the results were going to be like. It doesn't have an 11-stop range largely because it's a CMOS chip, and you know what, that might just be absolutely fine. It is what it is. It's got lots of resolution and doesn't cost much. That might well be an acceptable compromise.

 

The point at which this becomes a problem is when do this in full knowledge of the compromises you have made, and then you write in the literature that it has an 11-stop range.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I then leave hear with a sour feeling- I go back over to Reduser

Every person with 3 posts on this site and a Red reservation says the same thing. It's the equivalent of saying, "screw you guys! I'm taking my ball and going home." No offense, but see ya...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I say this because the majority of the people that participate for more than one thread on cinematography.com understand that the members here care about getting ALL of the facts, good and bad, and then making decisions based on those facts and their own personal findings. We don't just listen to one person's or company's opinion or "statement of fact" and believe it as the gospel without searching for and evaluating other information. Of course, this isn't to say that I agree with Phil either. He and I have disagreed more times than I can remember on this site, and I disagree with his tactics regarding this camera, but he also makes some good points. In between some of the anger are some very valid thoughts.

Anyway, if reading posts by ONE person will turn you off to this whole website and it's thousands of members, then I doubt you'd fit in with the type of thinking that I described above. I may be right and I may be wrong, just like Phil. But thankfully, we have the right to free speech on this forum.

 

 

I have won several awards for my commercials-

I am sick and tired of upgrading cameras every year.

Awards are nice. Which ones have you won? Although I'm not sure what awards have to do with anything in this thread...

Actually, I'm surprised to hear you shoot commercials, and you're "upgrading" to a Red, since the vast majority (has to be around 90%) of national commercials shoot on 35mm. That's the nice thing about shooting commercials....the 435 (THE commercial camera) very rarely needs an upgrade, and when it gets one it generally comes from Kodak, Zeiss, Cooke, etc., not Arri.

Do you think Red won't have upgrades? Do you think they'll be free when there are upgrades? I'm sure no one could be that naive.

 

 

Guys- seeing is believing. Go to reduser.net look on the tab that says "Footage / Field Tests". Check the footage out yourself. See the real deal. Make your judgement on that...

Don't waist your time listening to a "nay sayer" like Phil.

Could you send me a link to all the crappy footage that's been shot by a Red already? No? I'm not surprised, because who would want to post the stuff that didn't turn out as well as they'd hoped? And who could blame them? That's why testing yourself and talking to people who shoot on many different formats is important. So saying, "make your judgement on that..." is silly. Everyone knows the camera isn't an XL1. (Actually, this fury surrounding Red reminds me a lot of the fury surrounding the XL1 when it first came out. I knew TONS of people who bought that camera....I'm sure they're ALL still shooting on it....)

I wish all the people buying Red cameras good luck. It's a cool camera, and being that we all use cameras as a TOOL for our jobs, that's a good thing. Whether it will change the world or not, I don't know. It's very doubtful, but who knows. I'm looking forward to using it soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bob McKennsta

First of Brad,

 

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.. I want to see posts from guys like Zac. That was a fantastic post and very accurate. He was not either for the Red nor was he against it. It was a perfect unbiased opinion. Then you go and look at our pal Phil and what he posts. Give me a break. I expect to see guys not liking the camera but at least post a detailed reason as to why and what equipment was being used. So- to answer your question..... that is why I come here. I am not a Fan Boy ( as so many of you have called us "reservation holders" )

I want accurate information- and I don't want it from a guy who has a personal vendetta against guys at RED.

 

I have no experience with 35mm. I have been using prosumer cameras over the last 20 years. I have won two Emmys and several regional Addys for my work - using prosumer cameras. So is the Red an upgrade? Hell yeah... Will it help me and my production company? I certainly hope so.

 

However, according to Phil, since I am using the Red, I guess that means I can't find my head out of my ass and I don't know a damn thing about cinematography.

 

You guys need to stop and adjust your hearing aids. Listen to the crap that is said from guys like him. My mission is to dis-credit him.

 

Thats it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flippin heck! There's some serious mud flingage going on in here. lol. It just goes to show that everyone here is passionate about their trade, and at least we know that whether the RED is a good or bad camera, it's stirring things up a bit.

 

Back to the original post:

 

I was driving this morning, and started to remember a few more things about the RED that you guys might be interested in knowing:

 

 

Make sure you have a decent set of Alan keys. The RED has allan nuts all over it, and although the rental house will probably give you a set that RED gave them, they give them to you in a freakin ziplock baggie. As you all know, puting something in a zippie bag during a shoot, just spells disaster. I bought one of those really cheap alan key sets that swivel in and out of an aluminium grip. I spent like £2.

 

The main handle that you mount on the top of the camera is attached by two alan bolts. The camera weighs a ton, so after about a day of swinging the camera up onto your shoulder, those two bolts become loose. It wasn't a pain or anything, I'm just super paranoid with my cameras, and don't like loose bits.

 

Somebody said in one of these forums (can't remember where, sorry) that you can easily scratch the sensor when mounting a lense??? No way. The sensor is behind a coated piece of high quality glass, and is far enough back into the camera to be perfectly safe. Interestingly enough though, the glass that protects the sensor has a red coating or something over it, so I was wondering if that's why they call it the RED??? Or were they just being clever, and puting a red tinge to the sensor for fun? I'm guessing it's some sort of UHT coating? Any confirmation Jim?

 

I have to say that building the camera is a bit faster than normal HD systems. The 19mm bars slide right into the main body's plate, so there's no need to use all those different plates you always recieve in the Matte Box kit during your initial build on day one. Normally, it takes me 10 minutes to build first thing in the morning on set, but the RED only takes me under 5!

 

When I said that the camera does a callibration when it turns on, I was wrong. It's just loading the firmware or something. It even has the courtesy to say 'INITIALIZING' in massive letters. Just under 1.5 min though.

 

Ok, I discovered you don't have to black balance this camera. However, we did do a BLACK SHADING test before rolling. I just put the lense cap on, and closed my aperture all the way and started. It takes around 5 minutes, but once it's done, it's done.

 

I would love if Jim could confirm the focal plane indicator location. I haven't been able to find anything about it, or anyone who can give me a straight answer.

 

The LCD monitor was the sharpest LCD I think I've ever seen. You can make out alot of detail, and is quite accurate, although you have to be looking from straight on really. The contrast from a wide angle is horrible. That's why I had to basically hug the operator to check my sharps occasionally. Don't really know if that's worth $1700.00!!! Then again, I'm a cheap-ass.

 

The Porta Brace bag that we were given to keep and carry the RED in was poop. There was this little velcro border thing inside the bag that they had managed to sort of fit the shape of the camera body, but there was loads of room inside the case for the camera to slide around in. I couldn't find an official RED carry case. When I packed up at the end of the day, I was always fearful of puting the RED cradle loose in the bag with the RED because it might scratch the little LCD on the back. (the tiny LCD on the actual camera itself) Would be nice if I could find a bag actually designed for all of these bits and bobs. They might do, but I haven't seen one yet.

 

If I think of any more stuff, I'll post.

 

Z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love if Jim could confirm the focal plane indicator location. I haven't been able to find anything about it, or anyone who can give me a straight answer.

 

Apparently there currently isn't a focal plane indicator. There have been negative comments about this on Reduser and the slow delivery of focus hooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there currently isn't a focal plane indicator. There have been negative comments about this on Reduser and the slow delivery of focus hooks.

 

There isnt´t the usual O with a slash through it, but there is a divide in the body at the approximate location of the sensor (maybe 2mm behind it, it has been discussed in on reduser.net - I haven´t yet opened my camera to check, but it seems to be accurate.)

 

I also don´t recall any "slow delivery of focus hook", I believe they are widely availalbe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...