John Brawley

8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

Jim (Jannard) started his project in his mind along the last century's end, even though, he had hired the best man Jarred in that late 2005 from dvxuser webmaster to be RED chief and help him to finish the whole camera concept a few months before that NAB announcement the year after.

 

Maybe you forgot that Ted Schilowitz was one of the the first guys that Jim hired ? And was nominally the 2IC. Aka “Red Ted” ? Land was later and it was a good few years before he would take over from Jim.

Ted left after after a few years.  

JB

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

You and JB are both crazy LoL. He is going to build a whole factory, hire everyone, and engineer, and build them, and ship them 1 3/4 years later, yeah, sure that is what happened. And I believe in the tooth fairy.

That's exactly what happened.

Here's an early post by Jarrend Land who had founded DVXUSER (now also REDUSER and BMCUSER) and who is now running the show at RED.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?40929-RED-CAMERA-Prelim-Specs&p=372657&viewfull=1#post372657

It says "target" specs.  You don't put a target sensor resolution is you've been designing a sensor for years.

He did not found the company in 1999.

RED's own website history gives the timeline.  You're quoting Wikipedia.  I'm quoting RED.

Their first prototype camera was made in 2006. He shipped the RED ONE 2 years later.  That's about the normal development time if you're starting from scratch.

He bought a lot of his technology and IP in through other existing companies or consultants to shorcut the development time. Companies like Cineform are rumoured to be what Redcode is.  He bought the tessive guys, turned that into motion mount.  He bought Accuscene and they became the first EVF.  Trying to remember but he also bought a matte-box company too. 

I was there too when the first announcement came and there was a lot of naysayers on CML.  I seem to remember a bet and someone eating a cake in the shape of a hat.

JB

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Red Camera was started in 1999. You don't ship a camera the first day you start i business! That is 19 years ago. I have owned two Incorporated company's and I sure never hit the ground running the next day with products or services LoL.

 

I'm not sure where you get that from.

RED's own history page says

"The genesis of RED® stirred in 2005, with the first RED ONE® camera being delivered in August of 2007. Jim Jannard, the owner and founder of sportswear and sunglass icon, Oakley, set out to realize his ultimate quest, to build the world's best cameras. "

And there's also a picture of their first camera, which they say was their first camera.

"Built in early 2006, RED's first testing platform, a mere sliver of what would ultimately become MYSTERIUM®, was used to create the first image. "

http://www.red.com/history

JB

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Red has been building cameras for going on almost 20 years now. I know, I had the original Red One on order for over a year. 

Umm.

Shipping for more like 10 years (just) and not much longer than that as a company.

JB

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

E mount is a major advantage though, as that opens up a wealth of options. (for instance any of the zillions of E mount adapters, or many manual E mount lenses such as the Veydra cinema lenses!)
 

Just to be clear, the E mount option on Kinefininty is a DUMB mount as far as I know. No Iris control etc. 

You can't actually use native E mount lenses on there, but it's an intermediate mount for adapting to many others. 

Just like the MFT version of the BMCC that BMD did. DUMB MFT mount as a way to adapting to other mounts.

MFT offers the same "open" flexibility of a short FFD too and adapts to pretty much anything that E can adapt to. And on this camera it's a native MFT mount too with all the options ?

JB

8 hours ago, squig said:

The backyard test (paling fence in full shade, blue sky, fluffy clouds) sorts the actual from the aspirational dynamic range. BM marketed the BMMCC as 13 stops. I tested the BMMCC raw against the 5D Mk3 raw (11.7 stops) and the 5D had more latitude in the grade.

Good write up on dynamic range vs latitude: http://www.xdcam-user.com/2013/11/whats-the-difference-between-latitude-and-dynamic-range/

How do you measure stops on a "backyard" test ?

Again the only meaningful way to measure in my view is to shoot side by side in the same situation.  Then you can say categorically one is better than the other.

Like when I comapred an Alexa to an Ursa Mini 4.6K here

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/ursa-mini-4-6-and-alexa-side-by-side/

I think all camera manufacturer claims are kind of meaningless.  They're almost ALWAYS derived by calculating a theoretical dynamic range from the sensor SNR and not from actually photographing anything. They don't sit their with charts in a lab.  The do it with maths from a spec sheet.   Arri are the only company that have actively UNDERSTATED their claims of DR. 

Most accept that an Alexa is a stop and half better than what Arri claim.

Arri also make their own DR chart which I've never seen anyone use publicly..

https://www.arri.com/arriajax?mod=productList&product=263

The actual photographable DR is pretty much impossible to measure anyway because none of us can agree on how much noise is too much.  What you think is acceptable I may not. So who is right ?

Noise is subjective. Everyone feels differently about how much is acceptable.  That's why oyu can post a picture of a 20 wedge chart and say hey it's got 20 stops !

And by the way that article trying to make use of the word "latitude" is also highly subjective.  It's some individual person's SUBJECTIVE view about what's USEABLE DR. So what is useable DR ?  What does that mean in a SCIENTIFIC repeatable way ?   Latitude is another meaningless phrase like "useable dynamic range"

What does useable mean to that one individual ?

In what scenarios does that change ?  Low light / low contrast over daylight high contrast ?

The only time I see the phrase "useable dynamic range" being useful is when you're in log encoded video and you're trying top re-position a tone that's been recorded near clipping and when you try that it can look pallid and weak.

So you have a skin tone that isn't technically clipped but when you put it from 90% and put it at 30% it looks crappy and weird.

This is not a limitation of dynamic range per se, but the shortcoming of LOG encoding video curve being used and assigning less "bits" to that part of the curve.  It's a form of compression.  

Arri do 16 bit linear-->12 bit log at RAW.  So do Blackmagic when shooting DNG.  Sony RAW is also 16 bit LIN @ 3:1 (on an F55 anyway)

JB

4 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

Those 18 stop RED claims are ridiculous.  Download the R3D's of the xyla chart and try them out for yourself in davinci resolve.  It's VERY hard to produce the dynamic range numbers they are claiming.  Those xyla chart images are misleading as they use frame averaging of multiple frames to remove noise and they use multiple ISO settings within the R3D and composite the results together.  That's not how you use a xyla chart.

 

The sensor in that video that's 18 stops is the Dragon 8K VV sensor which was never released.  Now it's the monstro sensor which supposedly is a little better

Actually RED initially were claiming 20 stops when they were first releasing images. Anyone else remember this ?

www.thephoblographer.com/2013/01/01/reds-dragon-sensor-lives-up-to-hype-of-20-stops-of-dynamic-range/amp/

and sure you can count 20 stops in that image. 

But we all know they don’t really have 20 stops. 

So anytime someone makes a claim about stops (including Blackmagic) I always judge by actually shooting something, preferably alongside another known like an Alexa. 

JB

On 6/18/2018 at 6:11 PM, webrunner5 said:

Heck the original Olympus E1 which was just beautiful looking output photo wise, used a CCD sensor.

It was all kodak sensor.

Same family as used in the Digital Bolex.

And the Leica M8 M9 M-E and the Leica S.

JB

-Owner of 3 x Olympus E1’s, an M8, M-E and Leica S 006.

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't see how they can sell it for 500 dollars with the BM coming out. And at some time you will be able to buy the 4K BMPCC without the Resolve Dongle. You know that is going to happen, and that it will really be just 995 bucks. 

Huh ?  

Can't see that happening ever.  They've never done it.  More like they do a price drop sometime WITH resolve to $995.  They did something similar with the pocket about 18 months after they launched if I remember.  In fact I think it dropped even more than that.

JB

42 minutes ago, cantsin said:

The image of the old Pocket still has two weaknesses:

• moiré - if you watch the video carefully and in full resolution, you see it everywhere;
• resolution - with a native 1920x1080 Bayer sensor, the camera realistically just produces an optical resolution of about 720p.

There are third-party OLPFs for the old Pocket that greatly reduce - but not eliminate - moiré, but they lower resolution even more. 

There's a chance that the 4k sensor of the new Pocket alleviates moiré with high-resolution lenses. No doubt the camera will produce excellent 2k/1080p when downsampling its footage in post. But it doesn't have an OLPF either, unlike the GH5s (which likely has the same sensor), so I'm afraid that moiré will remain an issue.

A collerateral damage of the Pocket 4K's smaller sensor pixels will be dynamic range. Blackmagic advertises it as one stop less than the old Pocket. (And another question is whether using the camera at its second native ISO of 2500 will mean the loss of yet another stop of DR.) For the video that I posted here, this would have meant that the windows would have been completely blown out in all shots against the light.

I think the general rule is about a 20-30% hit (in theory) when using Bayer sensor over true pixel resolution.  I think that means the 1920 Bayer is more like 1440, not 720.  The first 4K Red ONE was a 4 K sensor, that in theory was really about 3.2K (with an aggressive OLPF) and never measures on an optical resolution chart more than about 2.7K.  So it arguably makes 4K RAW files filled with 2.7K resolution images.

We can easily test this on a resolution chart with the pcoket, but moire also complicates where you count resolution from.

To my mind the resolution hit of only a 1920 bayer is counter balanced by the substantially increased sharpness of no OLPF.

I think it's more fair to say that the UN-OLPF'ED pocket mostly presents an image that really truely is 1920 in feel, with occasional moire (or a lot depending on your shooting style)

JB

On 3/19/2018 at 11:00 AM, markr041 said:

No color correction other than the Resolve presets converting Slog2 to HLG and level adjustments. It is a real HLG video. You can easily tell which is which, since the 10bit source from RAW is 4K DCI and the 8bit source is 4K UHD.

 

If you do not like the test ("the test is a joke," "the test tells me nothing," "YouTube converts to 8bit anyway, so what?"), suggest what you would want to see instead. I can do anything with the original Slog2 clips, including making them available for download. 
 

I think if you want to test for differences in bit depth then you have to see what happens when you apply a "Look".  You can try different degrees of aggression here.  What you've done is a test of what it looks like straight out of camera, but I think most of us "grade" our pictures. 

In grading the pictures is where you'll notice differences in bit depth. 

JB

How are we getting past the very long integration times on these sensors if we’re shooting video ?  I thought that was pretty much baked in. Last time I tried the X1D it wasn’t useable and you can’t really change that. The Fuji footage looks lovely but they’re all locked off shots with little movement.  What happens when you’re hand held ?

JB 

1 hour ago, JordanWright said:

The price on those 1.2 primes was the main reason I haven't gone for them, all the footage i've seen looks fantastic.

Lenses will generally last a lot longer than the camera ?

They're always a good investment in my view

2 hours ago, Jim Giberti said:

On the push pull zoom topic, FWIW I offer the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 Ai-s.

This is one of those "under the radar" lenses that was only on the market very briefly but is pretty widely loved by the folks that have shot with them. 

 

Nikon do some lovely glass.

But for us dedicated manual focus lovers, they focus the wrong way and that's not an insignificant issue with my decades of muscle memory.  I usually like to pull of the barrel in these scenarios but you can get direction reversing gears and reverse a motor of course, but in this kind of area, that's less likely to happen...

JB

1 hour ago, Axel said:

 

 But you can't for the love of god focus manually, because there are no 'positions', and if you try to rehearse a focus transition, the focus ring will just slip under your fingers. Even infinity is infinitely pushed away from you. That's what I meant with "completely useless there" (= on a 4k Pocket). And your son's clip proves little, because it's done with such a narrow aperture, it's almost fixed focus (and still loses it occasionally).

 

 

I agree that a lot of stills lenses are rubbish to manual focus with.   When I first started in my role as an "Olympus Visionary" I told my friends at Olympus the same thing.  I actually have met with the optical and lens designers at their R&D facility in Japan and we talked very specifically about this as I mostly use manual focus when I shoot with these cameras.

The Olympus PRO lenses now have hard stops when in MF, and you seamlessly transition from focus by wire continuous and then into MF mid shot if you want via the way you pull the clutch back.  I love that Olympus have really tried to address this issue.  So far the 7-14, 12-40, 12-100 IS, the 40-150, the 17mm, 25mm and the 45mm 1.2 PRO primes all have this manual focus feature.  

The focus ring itself is all gigantic and actually feels great too, its a true mechanical feel.

JB

There’s no such thing as a standard filter stack. Each manufacturer has a different thickness. 

The filter stack by the way IS the IR filter, but many feel it’s not strong enough. Personally I think it’s bettwr to let more in as mentioned and then you can always filter further if you need, seeing as you’re using ND filters most likely anyway. 

JB

The discussion about the sensor stack thickness affects the optimisation of the speed booster (as I understand it)

It means they have to alter their optical design to make certain lenses perform better post speed booster, and I believe this tends to affect the faster lenses or faster apertures at F1.4 and higher.

JB

25 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I'll bet you snitched on them, too.

Grow up you clown. You’d just sweep a complaint under the rug would you ? 

The were complaints raised within my department by those affected directly with the HR departments of the studio I was working for. I leaned about it after the fact.  

It’s disgusting that you’re still picking a fight here. Move on.

JB

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

, had a fit over the word "sissy", which infuriates me. in America that isnt "hate speech", you act like he said fa**ot.

Did I ?

FFS, as an afterthought on responding to a post with mostly techo camera geek stuff,  I also ASKED the poster if he might want to also reconsider his use of the word sissy.  Is that a fit in your books ?  

Methinks you complain a bit much. 

Also,  I was born in New York and am currently working in Atlanta.  I'm as American as you are bucko.

In the last 12 months on two different occasions, I've had two of my crew ( a woman in one case and a guy) get into deep doo doo with big studio HR departments for exactly this kind of language.  And when I say doo doo I mean fired.   In your own interests I simply point this out, if you want to crew on any half way professional show, no matter if you agree or not, you need to be respectful to all.  It's a condition of employment.

JB

11 hours ago, Snowfun said:

 

Let’s hope the delivery schedule is still realistic for September - any idea when official footage might be available?

Soon :-)

2 hours ago, Simco123 said:

John Brawley comes from Australia, the land of Crocodile Dundee, Castlemaine XXXX. Argueably one of the lesser PC country on this planet. Regardless the word 'sissy" does not exclusively apply to genderbase. We all know Jonpais did not meant to imply sexism but those who are soft living when he used the word "sissy" but somehow Mr Brawley wanted to out him as some kind of enemy of the #MeToo movement . It was pretentous and immature.

I'm not really worried about what someone calls me.  I've sure heard worse.

I don't really care what you think of me either, but thanks for taking the time to let me know.

I don't wish to derail this thread any more than it already has been.  Don't bother reading below if you don't wish to.

I accept the way I use a camera isn't the way others use a camera.  I love a robust, informed and respectful discussion about features and approaches to workflow.   I'm happy to argue the pros and cons till the cows come home and I love being proven wrong. 

But some users posting here seem to want this argument to be more than that. They are specifically trying to look for contradictory quotes from me for the purposes of muddying the issues being discussed.  I'm happy to chat about that too.

With regards to use of language, I'm going to respond in kind when I perceive that someone is vilifying someone else with language that absolutely has a problematic past.  All I actually did was ask the poster to re-consider the language being used.  The poster then argued he didn't use the word in contention.

Language is highly subjective and contextual.  I merely pointed out that I don't think it's an appropriate way to describe another user of this forum because it's akin to saying you're the equal of someone that's effeminate ( you're the SAME as a woman ) or gay because of how often they change battery.

That's what sissy means.  You may have thought he meant something else.  But I didn't have to look it up to understand he was saying.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy

"Sissy (derived from sister), also sissy baby, sissy boy, sissy man, sissy pants, etc., is a pejorative term for a boy or man who does not conform to male gender stereotypes. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage, strength, athleticism, coordination, testosterone, male libido, and stoic calm, all of which have traditionally been associated with masculinity and considered important to the male role in Western society. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditionally feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion), displaying effeminate behavior (e.g., using hair products or displaying limp wrists), being unathletic, or being homosexual."

I guess you're OK with that choice of language or you genuinely thought it meant something else by wanting to argue it,  but I'm going to call it out if I don't think it's appropriate and invite the poster to edit their post in case they don't realise that some may find it offensive. It's just decent courtesy on a public forum like this.  We're not at the pub with your mates.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that not a single one of you posting here is a woman.   And actually I would love to be surprised if there was someone lurking who wanted to out themselves and weigh in with their views.

I don't think you get to decide if it's offensive or not. You can still call me names for pointing out though if you like ?

While you may not care about such language because you can take a joke, it's not you that's being vilified.

Why do you think women don't post in forums like this ?  Because they are out there.  They read these forums and choose not to engage because of the boys club that this place can be.  Especially when talking about the very kind of issue that makes them not feel comfortable and welcomed in a forum like this.

This is not about being PC . It's about us as men calling out language like this because it does matter.  You're wrong if you think those who are vilified aren't here lurking and choosing not to post.  Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to those one describes by using this language, it matters a great deal.

Maybe you can try asking them.

JB

EDIT . Oh and by the way, in the ACS, the Australian Cinematographers Guild, female members make up about 10% of the membership and only 2% of the accredited members.  I can't think of many other fields where the gender disparity is so high, can you ?

17 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I think you called yourself that. I didn't call anybody anything.

Sir. You used the word in a way that everyone undstands to mean gay or effiminate.

JB

16 hours ago, anonim said:

Agree. I remember that I was sold for usability of solo and solo+gimbal possibilities of IBIS after watched two brilliant examples, and after remarkable author encouraged and favored combined usage of both in the second example: "In fact I tested the camera on the gimbal with IS turned off and on and I expected that having it ON would make it worse because they would fight each other....however I found that the camera IS being turned on whilst on the gimbal helped improve the overall feel of the shot and took out a few of the minor jitters." 

Hi. 

Thank you for the words. 

I only used a Gimbal in Curiosity and it was only for a handful of shots. The orbit around the actor on the bush track and the wide in the water pumping station along with a few shots at the end.

Intrigue, the other clip, is entirely hand held aside from a couple of obvious car mount shots (where I forgot to turn IBIS OFF)

I have mixed feelings about gimbals and just like IBIS, they’re good in certain situations. I tend to use something like a gimbal for tracking shots rather than relying on IBIS. 

As I mentioned way back, ibis works best to stabilise hand held shots that aren’t tracking in some way. Which is not the same as locked off shots. 

Any good operator knows that on a long lens the shot is easier to hold steady if you keep it moving slightly. This can be a gentle rock of changing weight as you operate the shot. By keeping the shot “alive” you’re less likely to notice jitter.  With very light and small MILC and dslr style cameras they’re actually harder to hand hold when they have less mass. 

IBIS helps smooth out the jitter on hand held shots like this that aren’t tracking but you’re also not locked into one position.

Depending on the storytelling style you might prefer hand held in a more “natural” style too.  After trying gimbals out for a while when they first became available I’ve tended to not really use them except for very particular shots that they’re great at.

But for 97% of my work it’s not stabilised by gimbal or IBIS, mostly because I only use these kinds of rigs for shots where I need IBIS. 

JB

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Nobody said anything about using anything all the time, John. And I don’t know anyone who thinks IBIS is a replacement for a slider.... do you?

Edit: earlier you said IS was problematic on tracking shots, now you’re saying you used it successfully on a tracking shot...

I know plenty that feel IBIS is almost as good as a gimbal and therefore can be used in place of a dolly for tracking shots. 

As as opposed to me in a car tracking someone, the example I gave.

Thats two different types of tracking shots. 

And by the way you said “locked off” shots which I didn’t actually say and is not what I’m talking about IBIS being good at.

Keep trying.

JB

7 hours ago, jonpais said:

IBIS worked well enough for your video of Hula expert Roxanna shot with Olympus. At the time you had this to say:

One of the main reasons I like shooting Olympus so much in this platform is that their stabiliser is really world class.  And the best thing is that because it’s built into the body itself, any lens you mount on their can be turned into a stabilised lens.  Any vintage lens, and cinema lens I happen to adapt.  Or the wonderful new APO primes from SLR Magic.

Curiously, no mention at all of IBIS only being good for locked off shots - if that were the case, it would be of no use whatsoever. Unfortunately, mirrorless cameras are more prone to jitters than heavy cinema cameras, so IBIS comes in pretty handy. It also helps enormously to iron out the wriggles in gimbal shots, as demonstrated in numerous videos online. 

Which is the reason I like IBIS so much - it turns my Veydras into stabilized lenses that can be handheld at eqiuvalent focal lengths of 238 mm, allowing me to shoot in places where a tripod or gimbal would either be forbidden or attract too much attention.

Just in case anyone misunderstands, I could care less whether the Batcam’s got IBIS or not. And I’m thrilled it’s not going to have functioning AF-C either, because, as Mr Glencairn rightly points out, true cinematographers don’t need that shit.

I'm not sure what point you're making ?

I use many cameras in the course of the work that I do.  One of the reasons I CHOOSE to use a camera like the EM1 Mark II is because it has IBIS.  I just used it recently on a pilot I was shooting in Chicago for some tracking shots in a vehicle.  The small size is perfect and the IBIS works great.  Those shots are in the finished pilot and the director loved them.

But I wouldn't use IBIS all the time because it's not really a replacement for a dolly move or slider, though a lot of people expect it to be able to do those kinds of shots. 

Does that clarify your confusion ?

JB