RED Sensors getting bigger

Tenolian Bell · November 20, 2008

Therefore, as seen above, Red is naturally disposed to do a sharper 1080 than a direct 1080 camera, at least more easily than a 1080 camera.

I agree over sampling is always a better place to come from. But like everything Red has to make some compromises. Starting with less information in the first place allows a technology to make less compromise and to some degree nullify the advantage in increased information.

Spec sheets are one thing, seeing a test is what tells the true tale.

Stephen Williams · November 20, 2008

Speaking of potentially interesting FF35 lens solutions....

Hi Tom,

It's a render, RED have been rather slow in delivering high quality motion picture glass, The Red Primes are yet to be released & the 18-85 is in rather short supply. The 18-50 whilst sharp had mechanical issues which don't seem have been addressed.

Stephen

Chris Keth · November 20, 2008

Speaking of potentially interesting FF35 lens solutions....

A slowish wide zoom isn't impressive to me, especially if it's built with the shoddy mechanics of the last RED zoom I worked with. I realize that's just a render but they can't even add witness marks in a render.

Stephen Williams · November 20, 2008

A slowish wide zoom isn't impressive to me, especially if it's built with the shoddy mechanics of the last RED zoom I worked with. I realize that's just a render but they can't even add witness marks in a render.

Hi,

Back to F2.8, hopefully it will be a T someting, when it ships

Stephen

Guest User · November 20, 2008

Speaking of potentially interesting FF35 lens solutions....

That focus scale is completely useless for narrative filmmaking.

Stephen Williams · November 20, 2008

That focus scale is completely useless for narrative filmmaking.

Hi Max,

That won't stop people buying it!

Stephen

Guest User · November 20, 2008

Hi Max,

That won't stop people buying it!

Stephen

Maybe they'll end up locking the focus at the hyperfocal distance and stage everything in long shots, thereby creating a new filmmaking trend ;)

Paul Bruening · November 20, 2008

You know, Tom. In four years of goofing on this forum I can't recall Stephen or Max ever making an incorrect statement. You're more like me, going around with my foot half in my mouth. I try not to get into any pissing matches with these two guys.

Stephen Williams · November 20, 2008

Maybe they'll end up locking the focus at the hyperfocal distance and stage everything in long shots, thereby creating a new filmmaking trend ;)

Hi Max,

The 2/3 inch Scarlet will be more useful for many ;)

Stephen

Joe Walker · November 20, 2008

Yeah when I saw that 15-25mm lens I was thinking, "Wow, pulling focus on a FF35 with this puppy will be a challenge!"

Tom Lowe · November 20, 2008

You know, Tom. In four years of goofing on this forum I can't recall Stephen or Max ever making an incorrect statement.

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.

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? He could have lightened Jannard's wallet enough to afford an Epic for himself. :lol:

Francis Kuhn · November 21, 2008

Yeah when I saw that 15-25mm lens I was thinking, "Wow, pulling focus on a FF35 with this puppy will be a challenge!"

Joe,

Yeah. I thought the same thing. And that's going to be easy compared to getting on a more normal or telephoto lens.

Mentioned it in one of the REDuser threads. It was utterly ignored and immediately buried by 35 pages of the usual "You Go Girl" comments.

But, hey, what do I know? :)

-Fran

Jay Taylor · November 21, 2008

Mentioned it in one of the REDuser threads. It was utterly ignored and immediately buried by 35 pages of the usual "You Go Girl" comments.

Hey,

I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but I was amazed by something Jim Jannard said over at reduser. The thread is here? http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22453

Someone mentions an optical viewfinder, or more specifically, needing a mirror for the dlsr functions of these new cameras. Jim says this?

I take exception to the "we need a mirror" suggestion. Until you actually see the viewing options (new ones coming with this system), you don't really know if a mirror will ever be needed in the future. We heard that same argument (with passion) with regards to the RED ONE. No one asks for an optical finder now. In fact, if we offered that option, I don't think we would sell any.

It's funny, because all I keep reading are people requesting some sort of optical viewfinder for the Red One. People were hoping Epic would have an optical viewfinder, but that's not going to happen apparently. Who is he listening to?

Jay

Francis Kuhn · November 21, 2008

Hey,

I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but I was amazed by something Jim Jannard said over at reduser. The thread is here… http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22453

Someone mentions an optical viewfinder, or more specifically, needing a mirror for the dlsr functions of these new cameras. Jim says this…

It's funny, because all I keep reading are people requesting some sort of optical viewfinder for the Red One. People were hoping Epic would have an optical viewfinder, but that's not going to happen apparently. Who is he listening to?

Jay

Jay,

I read that one, too, Lee Jay's thread, I believe.

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.

-Fran

Jay Taylor · November 21, 2008

Hey Fran,

They must be working on something. Focusing is going to be quite a challenge with a 28k camera. Although, I seriously doubt anyone's going to bother trying to shoot handheld, wide open, closeups with that type of camera.

Jay

Chris Keth · November 21, 2008

Who is he listening to?
Jay

Nobody, apparently. I sent him a fairly long, polite, well-thought-out letter after doing a couple of jobs with the RED one. My purpose was to alert him to improvements that could be made from my standpoint, as a working camera assistant. The need for an optical viewfinder was one of my big points along with many small things like a way to lock the buttons on the EVF to keep them from getting bumped on/off, things like that. I didn't get a reply or even a confirmation that the letter was received.

I would think that the opinion of the people that use the equipment professionally would be of value, but then again I'm just a camera assistant.

Francis Kuhn · November 21, 2008

Hey Fran,

They must be working on something. Focusing is going to be quite a challenge with a 28k camera. Although, I seriously doubt anyone's going to bother trying to shoot handheld, wide open, closeups with that type of camera.

Jay

Hi Jay,

I'm no different--the lure of a bigger image is pretty seductive, but I know from practical experience it's difficult to get good results with moving subjects using larger formats (at least with stills) compared to 35mm. I have never tried shooting anamorphic or 65mm motion, but I suspect the larger motion formats have similar limitations, or, at least, similar depth-of-field issues.

I once built a modified backpack frame to hold my 8x10 Toyo M Field Camera on my chest. I used it to try and shoot action photos for motorcycle print ads. I rigged up a little wire-frame gunsight finder and had an assistant with a two-foot cable release trigger the lens when the bike hit it's mark. It yeilded an interesting look that was also totally unpredictable and un-repeatable. Not surprising, since the "standard" lens for an 8x10 is about 300mm; I was using a 600mm telephoto Nikkor. Needless to say, ( but I'll say it anyway) the area in focus was razor thin--and this was at f16.

Next, I tried shooting action shots with a Toyo 4x5 by putting a 35mm camera on a bracket on top of the Toyo. I used the smaller camera to frame and follow the subject and would pan on a fluid head. It sometimes worked, but the success rate was pretty low. Interestingly, at typical magazine print sizes, this huge piece of film simply looked like a bad, blurry 35mm shot.

I tried for years to shoot action with medium format systems, everything from a 503 Hasselblad to a Fuji GX680. The smallest of the MF systems, the Mamiya 645 Pro, was the only one that came even remotely close to yielding useable frames. Even with that camera, one or two good frames per roll was about the best I ever got because there is simply not enough depth-of-field for most subjects, even with the fastest fine-grain films available (usually 400-speed chrome).

Another thing I noticed is how differently motion blur is rendered with those bigger formats. Nothing scientific, but just from experience I'd say you need to go up two higher shutter speeds to get the same action-stopping capability as 35mm systems. I have no idea why, it's just what I saw on the light table.

When these larger format chips show up, I'll certainly want to try them. Hopefully, there will be some remedies to the typical problems I've had in the past.

-Fran

Joe Walker · November 21, 2008

Joe,

Yeah. I thought the same thing. And that's going to be easy compared to getting on a more normal or telephoto lens.

Mentioned it in one of the REDuser threads. It was utterly ignored and immediately buried by 35 pages of the usual "You Go Girl" comments.

But, hey, what do I know? :)

-Fran

I'm not surprised, Reduser.net has a tendency to lean towards fantasy. I've generally found that posting "problems" or "reality" over there seems to get you in a heap of trouble. I've been using a RED One at my place of business since April, and while I marvel at the imagery and what this thing can do, I also marvel at the things that are not perfected. I also marvel at the REDusers who proclaim that we need a FF35 sensor or that they intend to shoot their independent films with a 645 sensor. Put it this way, I was pulling focus recently with a Cooke 18-100mm zoom, we were on the long end at 100mm at T3. I had to follow a subject from infinity to 15ft, and it took me two takes to make that happen...in focus. And these jokers think a FF35 or god forbid a 645 are going to somehow be a walk in the park?!?!?!?! I digress, I've been chewed out for less over there. So, I feel your pain.

Gary McClurg · November 21, 2008

Maybe they'll end up locking the focus at the hyperfocal distance and stage everything in long shots, thereby creating a new filmmaking trend ;)

So that was what the megaphone was for in the old days... I hope I got that right... :rolleyes:

Edited November 21, 2008 by Gary McClurg

Tom Lowe · November 21, 2008

Put it this way, I was pulling focus recently with a Cooke 18-100mm zoom, we were on the long end at 100mm at T3. I had to follow a subject from infinity to 15ft, and it took me two takes to make that happen...in focus. And these jokers think a FF35 or god forbid a 645 are going to somehow be a walk in the park?!?!?!?! I digress, I've been chewed out for less over there. So, I feel your pain.

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?

Tenolian Bell · November 21, 2008

This issue will become even more crucial as sensor size and file size increase. A low resolution digital viewfinder makes it more challenging to find critical focus.

It's funny, because all I keep reading are people requesting some sort of optical viewfinder for the Red One. People were hoping Epic would have an optical viewfinder, but that's not going to happen apparently. Who is he listening to?

Chris Keth · November 21, 2008

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 · November 21, 2008

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 · November 21, 2008

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 · November 21, 2008

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?