RED Sensors getting bigger

[Chris Keth]

But can you blame people for being excited about getting some great new tools like these?

 

 

Of course not. It's something to get excited about! I realize I seem argumentative but it's just because I want to try and push some ideas to help these tools become great ones, rather than half-baked like the RED1 was when it first shipped.

[Tenolian Bell]

Thus far AF has not worked in narrative cinema the same way it works in still photography. In narrative cinema focus is used as a subjective story element. This can only be done most effectively by a human being who understands what needs to be in focus and why. An AF system (at least at this point) cannot understand these thematic choices.

 

 

 

 

I had a crazy thought, maybe they're onto some kind of super-hi-tech auto focus or something. I mean, the follow-focus issues with these larger chip sizes should make people very afraid. But, whenever it comes up, it seems to be ignored, most notably by the RED crew themselves. It seems there are a few smart people over there at RED, so who knows. Guess we'll have to wait and see. It would be great if someone could improve the existing AF systems. IMO working auto focus systems had a bigger impact on still action photography than digital ever did.

[Francis Kuhn]

Maybe some of those "jokers" shoot landscapes for National Geographic? Maybe FF35 DOF is not a real issue for them? Ever thought how nice a moving "Baraka" style landscape image from a big FF 6K sensor downsampled and projected at 4K would look? Assuming the cinematographer has talent, probably pretty damn awesome.

 

In order to get that type of shooting quality 10 years ago, you would have needed a big 65mm camera, lots of experience, and lots of money, not to mention lots of muscles to haul the camera wherever you were shooting outdoors.

 

A new camera will not help bad cinematographers become good ones. But can you blame people for being excited about getting some great new tools like these?

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

You are absolutely right, and those larger-chip cameras will be tremendously useful for exactly the things you mention. Actually, when I saw the 617 back, my first thought was to do exactly what Jay Taylor thought would not be practical--shoot handheld close-ups at wide-open apertures. I would love to experiment with something that has that little depth-of-field!

 

But I believe Joe's point was that, unless there are 3000 National Geographic contributors posting over at REDuser, there are ultimately going to be a lot of people struggling with some basic focus issues when they try shooting their next indie feature with a 645 camera.

 

Good talking to you again!

 

-Fran

[Tenolian Bell]

Theirs nothing wrong with excitement in of itself. But the excitement stems more from the fact that its new. Rather than rationally looking at the reality of the new cameras usefulness or how it actually improves on what is already available in real world production.

 

 

 

 

A new camera will not help bad cinematographers become good ones. But can you blame people for being excited about getting some great new tools like these?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'll get super excited when I get 7+G to drop on a 35mm scarlet. . . then i'll get less excited when I consider lenses.

Seriously, though; I honestly don't know how they expect to compete with the older large format cameras w/o an optical focus. For stills, I honestly shudder to think of focusing with an EVF/AutoFocus/LCD. That's just for stills, though those same problems will carry over later on.

Perhaps we'll get an F64 club for Film/Stills from it, and that'd be interesting.

Until then I've adopted the wait and see approach. I want to see footage, from the real world, from non-red-working people in the highest quality possible (which for me would be 2K and a favor from a post house nearby . . . ) before I even contemplate purchasing a RED anything. As far as using it; sure thing! Just give me a day or two alone in a room with the camera and a great AC/DIT whose been 'round it and I'm raring-- though in no way just yet even 25% ready-- to go.

For now, the red-users remind me of the Phillies fans of late. We got something great, and now we have to figure out what to do with it! (at least they're not looting and slashing tires on my block. . .)

[Tom Lowe]

But I believe Joe's point was that, unless there are 3000 National Geographic contributors posting over at REDuser, there are ultimately going to be a lot of people struggling with some basic focus issues when they try shooting their next indie feature with a 645 camera.

 

Oh, for sure. I actually made a thread about this very subject at Reduser's cinematography forum.

 

I'm getting the 5Dm2 and the 24mm f1.4 as soon as they come out, and will be dealing with this very issue. That camera will demonstrate to everyone, very quickly, just how difficult and important this focusing issue if going to be with FF35.

 

As far AF goes, perhaps a "joystick" program could be worked out to select certain subjects in the frame - a car, a person's face, etc - and the AF system to try to track and hold focus on those objects?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Problem i could see with that is dealing with real-time tracking of an object while recording etc not to mention what'll happen if suddenly that object goes out of frame. Just seems so much simpler to get a really good AC. Though in concept the joystick motion track idea is great, implementation would probably ruin it. In all honestly, I personally feel a camera should focus on the recording of images primarily and let us humans worry about focus. Though, on these new REDs. . .it might be too much for us humans to handle reasonably. That's a worry I have.

[Francis Kuhn]

Problem i could see with that is dealing with real-time tracking of an object while recording etc not to mention what'll happen if suddenly that object goes out of frame. Just seems so much simpler to get a really good AC. Though in concept the joystick motion track idea is great, implementation would probably ruin it. In all honestly, I personally feel a camera should focus on the recording of images primarily and let us humans worry about focus. Though, on these new REDs. . .it might be too much for us humans to handle reasonably. That's a worry I have.

 

Hi Adrian,

 

There's no need to wait a year to find out what it is like to follow focus on a 645. Go rent a Mamiya 645, put an 80mm lens on it, put it on a fluid head and try following a moving subject while focusing by hand. Try it at f11, it's quite challenging. At f2.8 it's a nightmare.

 

 

BTW Found a good cheesteak place in Pasadena. The have Amoroso rolls flown in daily from Philly, LOL. :)

 

-Fran

[Satsuki Murashige]

BTW, Glen "1.2--no problem!" Alexander, I like your can-do attitude!!

But can he actually do it? I highly doubt it.

 

Glen, just give it a rest already - you've done enough damage to your reputation in this thread as it is.

 

To the otherwise sane members of the forum, there's a helpful tool called "Ignored Users List" in My Controls that you can use to mask posts from your screen by user name. I highly recommend that you make use of it.

[Chris Keth]

But can he actually do it? I highly doubt it.

 

Glen, just give it a rest already - you've done enough damage to your reputation in this thread as it is.

 

To the otherwise sane members of the forum, there's a helpful tool called "Ignored Users List" in My Controls that you can use to mask posts from your screen by user name. I highly recommend that you make use of it.

 

I should take that advice to heart. I lost it a bit.

 

Anyway, an automatic tracking wouldn't do all that well either. What happens when your subject leaves frame or you want to pull from that person to another? Then you start needing a way to override it and then reengage. It's much better, IMO, to just have a good focus puller. Only a little of that statement is because that's how I currently make my living.;)

 

One thought for everyone: If shooting 645 size frames becomes popular, lighting to a T5.6-8 or better had better become popular as well.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

But can he actually do it? I highly doubt it.

 

Glen, just give it a rest already - you've done enough damage to your reputation in this thread as it is.

 

To the otherwise sane members of the forum, there's a helpful tool called "Ignored Users List" in My Controls that you can use to mask posts from your screen by user name. I highly recommend that you make use of it.

 

In the words of Crow T. Robot, "Bite me", if I was in Australia, I'd say, "Fcuk Off", in Germany, "Verpisst dich."

 

Maybe there should be a list for people like you "Ignorant User List", warning Neanderthals dragging there knuckles on the ground lurking about.

 

I already did do it, the max I shot was 600mm f4 because the 200mm f2 wasn't available, I used all of the high-speed lenses that Paramount had/has every f1.2, every f1.4 as well as some f2's and f2.8s'.

 

saying putting someone on some list, shows your own ignorance, i rarely pay people like you any attention be glad i took the time even to respond without blocking anyone.

 

so start walking erect and evolve.

[Max Jacoby]

In the words of Crow T. Robot, "Bite me", if I was in Australia, I'd say, "Fcuk Off", in Germany, "Verpisst dich."

It is actually 'Verpiss dich' ;)

[Max Jacoby]

I enjoy the banter with Max and Stephen. But I think time will tell who is right and who is wrong about digital cinema and what people will be shooting on in 3 years.

There you go hiding in the future again Tom.

[K Borowski]

It is actually 'Verpiss dich' ;)

 

Thanks Max, for the first practical piece of knowledge in this whole thread!

[Will Earl]

If Stephen is "always correct" why didn't he plunk down five or six figures against Jim Jannard on our little digital vs film debate?

 

Probably the same reasons why you aren't prepared to put down five or six figures on this bet.

[Max Jacoby]

Thanks Max, for the first practical piece of knowledge in this whole thread!

Feel free to contact me if you're ever in need of colorful German insults ;)

[Adrian Sierkowski]

BTW Found a good cheesteak place in Pasadena. The have Amoroso rolls flown in daily from Philly, LOL. :)

 

-Fran

That must be incredibly expensive. . . good thing I can walk down the block to Pat's! Of course it is 18 degrees here. . .alright you win!

I'd start practice right no on larger format images. . . but I'm far too broke to rent from calumet! I've always wanted to get a nice mayima though (anyone here feeling generous for x mas?)

 

 

Feel free to contact me if you're ever in need of colorful German insults ;)

 

Where were you, Max, when I was in Munich airport. I bet you could've helped me find matches to actually use the smoking lounges much faster!

[Tom Lowe]

Okay, this thread is going downhill pretty fast.. hahaha.

[Stephen Williams]

Okay, this thread is going downhill pretty fast.. hahaha.

 

Hi Tom,

 

That always happens when Fanboys get involved in a thread. :lol: I understand you are getting a 5D?

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

 

That always happens when Fanboys get involved in a thread. :lol: I understand you are getting a 5D?

 

Stephen

 

Yeah. Along with the new EF 24mm f/1.4 II, so I can sharpen my Jedi still-lens FF35 focus-pulling skills. :)

 

The 5D Mark II has been delayed until sometime in the first two weeks of Dec, supposedly. :(

[Francis Kuhn]

One thought for everyone: If shooting 645 size frames becomes popular, lighting to a T5.6-8 or better had better become popular as well.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I thought of that too. Didn't bring it up on REDuser, mostly because no one was interested in the even more obvious depth-of-field issues. My guess is people will simply boost the working ASA to allow more DOF with smaller lighting packages. Or no lighting packages. Who needs lights, anyway, when you've got a camera with a 645 chip and iPod connectivity. ;)

 

-Fran

[John Sprung]

One thought for everyone: If shooting 645 size frames becomes popular, lighting to a T5.6-8 or better had better become popular as well.

True, and therein lies the salvation of the whole lens thing -- Given that there's no practical use for faster lenses, they'd only need to make them f/4 or thereabouts. That makes the designs much easier, and the lenses much lighter and cheaper. Manufacturing tolerances become much less critical. Remember that when good lenses for 2/3" became necessary, they were outasight expensive compared with conventional film lenses. Everything gets easier and better when we step back from the extremes.

 

Look at the magnificent still images you can get from, say, an 11x14 view camera using simple spherical optics. The bigger the image, the less critical the lens.

 

Of course you'd need a more sensitive chip or faster film to shoot the stops you need. That means bigger grain or bigger photosites. Bigger photosites means fewer of them per square centimeter, so the "K" number doesn't grow as fast as might be expected.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Francis Kuhn]

True, and therein lies the salvation of the whole lens thing -- Given that there's no practical use for faster lenses, they'd only need to make them f/4 or thereabouts. That makes the designs much easier, and the lenses much lighter and cheaper. Manufacturing tolerances become much less critical. Remember that when good lenses for 2/3" became necessary, they were outasight expensive compared with conventional film lenses. Everything gets easier and better when we step back from the extremes.

 

Look at the magnificent still images you can get from, say, an 11x14 view camera using simple spherical optics. The bigger the image, the less critical the lens.

 

Of course you'd need a more sensitive chip or faster film to shoot the stops you need. That means bigger grain or bigger photosites. Bigger photosites means fewer of them per square centimeter, so the "K" number doesn't grow as fast as might be expected.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

All very good points, John. It's no accident large-format view camera lenses are typically f5.6 or slower, and the only reason to even have anything as "fast" as f5.6 is so you can actually see and focus the image on the ground glass! As I'm sure you know, typical shooting stops are more like f16-45.

 

The thing I'm worried about with these bigger chips is the whole chasing-your-tail dilemma. At least with film, I always found that it was necessary to use higher-speed stocks to get to a workable stop with medium format. What worked at f2.8 on 35mm needed to be shot at f5.6 or 8 on MF. So now, instead of shooting Velvia 50, I'm working with Ektachrome 400. The increase in film size was, to a large extent, offset by the increased grain of the 400 speed film. In the end, the smaller, but finer-grained 50 speed film held up quite well compared to the medium format 400 ASA, and the number of useable frames was always a lot better with 35mm.

 

Of course, digital is different. My understanding is that the real benefit of a larger chip isn't necessarily more resolution as it is the gains made in dynamic range. So, for that reason, I can understand the benefit of going bigger. Just remains to be seen if it plays out in the real world. The same bigger-chip-size benefits already apply in the world of stills, but in reality I see and more pros migrating towards the 35mm systems because they are easier to use and less expensive and still deliver fantastic images. I'll be interested to see how this new 35mm-style, big-chip Leica S2 medium-format system works out.

 

-Fran

 

PS: I would not count out a set of fast MF lenses showing up for these new cameras. Honestly, one of the things I like best about MF is the ability to get extremely shallow DOF.

[Chris Keth]

It's funny you mention large format. I shoot quite a bit of 4x5 and 8x10 and saw something intriguing a few weeks ago on ebay. It was a motorized back for a 4x5. I'm not sure how it worked but you plug it into AC and you plug it's special cable release into the shutter (it only works to full speed with the press shutters that cock automatically). Then you load up to 2 full boxes of film into it and presto, a 4x5 capable of 10 sheets per second.

 

Maybe if we send that to RED we can have a 4x5 back capable of 60FPS and 50K ;)

[Francis Kuhn]

It's funny you mention large format. I shoot quite a bit of 4x5 and 8x10 and saw something intriguing a few weeks ago on ebay. It was a motorized back for a 4x5. I'm not sure how it worked but you plug it into AC and you plug it's special cable release into the shutter (it only works to full speed with the press shutters that cock automatically). Then you load up to 2 full boxes of film into it and presto, a 4x5 capable of 10 sheets per second.

 

Maybe if we send that to RED we can have a 4x5 back capable of 60FPS and 50K ;)

 

 

Hi Chris,

 

Never saw that one, but I'm always impressed with what people dream up. The old Graflex 4x5 press camera sheet film backs are some impressive bits of design and engineering, more that 70 years old.

 

People forget (or, nowadays, more than likely never knew) that film cameras started out big and got progressively smaller. 100 years ago there were no such thing as an enlarger, so everything was shot at the desired final print size. If you wanted an 8x10 print, you shot with an 8x10 camera and contact printed.

 

BTW I'm down to my last two boxes of Polaroid 8x10. Have only 4 more Type 55 4x5. :(

 

-Fran