John Brawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Lenses will generally last a lot longer than the camera ? They're always a good investment in my view 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

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

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

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

Soon :-)

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 ?

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

It sounds like you’re threatened by this camera so you’re making sure you point out any and all shortcomings you can. Isn’t sissy a bit emotional ? You’re reaching. Some people will be happy with 10bit 422 as their maximum image quality as long as they have a tilt able screen and autofocus. Most serious image makers know that 12bit raw and 10 bit ProRes for half the price trumps the MILC features you’re desperately trying to remind everyone your precious GH5s has. Mostly because “filmmakers” don’t tend to use those features anyway. I don’t use AF. But I shoot narrative drama. What I need isn’t what others need. For the majority, they will prefer the utility of the form factor, longer battery life, AF and IBIS on the GH5 and will find the bare minimum for serious work 400Mbps codec to be good enough. People who care about image fidelity will likely prefer what a Pocket 2 produces side by side and will also decide that they can work around the shortcomings that pertain to the way they work. The same way others will prefer to work around the shortcomings of a lower bit depth more compressed and sub sampled image because other features are important to them. On board batteries on an Alexa mini on my last show were lasting about 40 mins by the way. I guess you’re calling me a sissy. JB EDIT by the way, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate to use sissy, a word that means effeminate man or homosexual. Maybe you want to change that.

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

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

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