Couldn't a hood with an eyecup and diopter lens be designed to snap on the LCD screen? Something like the "prisms" that fit on the Hasselblad ground glass. This might be an acceptable compromise for the Doc shooters, etc. Might even aid critical focus.

Failing that: In the "Cage One" rear view it's easy to see how one could attach a curved baffle extending from the top rail to the bottom one in order to minimize extraneous light falling on the LCD screen.

Hi Bill,

While I prefer that one of the RED guys chime in here to confirm this, I'm pretty sure that the optical viewfinder / mechanical shutter will come later on RED Two or whatever the second model is called. I'm amazed that RED One is so loaded as it is for $17.5K but I imagine that an optical VF, mech. shutter would push the price point a ways over $20K. RED One's electronic VF will show more than the recordable area, in other words, it won't suffer from the "90% field of view" that so many other EVFs seem to be saddled with.

My additional thoughts on the cage: mount the HD field monitor of your choosing and put it wherever you want. Modularity and individual preference being the operative terms.

Two versions of RED... this first to have an EVF for $17.5K... the next to have an OVF for... ah, some price over $17.5K. Hope this helps,

Hi Bill,

Two versions of RED... this first to have an EVF for $17.5K... the next to have an OVF for... ah, some price over $17.5K. Hope this helps,

thats what I could never understand.
Red One is supposed to be an add to camera...
They said they did not want to make different models like the big guys, but apparently one model that you can customize to your likeing.

So more than one camera goes against this grain...no?

peace

dalen

Hi Dalen,

I'm sure you'll agree with me that an OVF / mech. shutter is a significant and fundamental departure from EVF / elec. shutter which adds considerable expense to any camera design. If RED One had been OVF / mech. then the price point would not have been $17.5K, and as we all know, the lower the price point, the broader the market and more shooters can afford it.

So it may seem like a compromise to have two different models, EVF vs. OVF, but I can understand the reason behind that decision as this is a design difference that lies right at the core of the camera. If the add-on accessories are compatible between both models, then the modularity concept is still intact.

Consider also that RED One has an upgradeable sensor, and is future-proofed at 4K. Most RED One customer probably won't shoot in 4K but when they're ready to, 4K is there). RED One is not crippled at all. There's just this big fundamental difference: EVF / elec. shutter vs. OVF / mech. shutter, which is not really an "upgrade" path nor can you have both in one machine, therefore it's got to be two separate bodies... but at least they will be as externally similar as possible. Do you follow?

Hi Dalen,

Consider also that RED One has an upgradeable sensor, and is future-proofed at 4K. Most RED One customer probably won't shoot in 4K but when they're ready to, 4K is there). RED One is not crippled at all. There's just this big fundamental difference: EVF / elec. shutter vs. OVF / mech. shutter, which is not really an "upgrade" path nor can you have both in one machine, therefore it's got to be two separate bodies... but at least they will be as externally similar as possible. Do you follow?

Thanks Chris,

Thats cool. I guess in the back of my mind, I was wondering if this doesnt lead to potential other items that may require another camera...but this does not appear to be the case.

As all of this is relatively new to me, I am using the forums as one means to try to understand better the convergence of digital/film.
(Thus the apparently awkward questions such as can an EVF from Red replace the need for an OVF? It appears they have some proprietary technology they are working on...what are the exact issues? I realize one is seeing the picture and framing it without turning the camera on...another is resolution, which can be solved with technology...and seeing true colors is yet another?)

note:Im a producer with a motion graphics background now getting into actual filming.
(though I have done basic filming with an xl-1, I never got into tech or eng aspects...)

Thanks

peace

dalen

I believe Jim Jannard explains RED's position on that in my interview with him...

Chris, I couldn't agree more. I hope the above didn't sound like criticism. RED is everything I could have hoped for. RED one fits my needs entirely, but I was pondering the outdoor shooters, etc. and thought maybe a prism/eye cup would help with handheld eye level work in bright conditions. I think I used the wrong word when I said "compromise"- I imagine it's not one of Jim's favorite expressions. The "prism" idea was not meant to replace an optical viewfinder, just enhance the lcd screen- if that's practical?

I believe Jim Jannard explains RED's position on that in my interview with him...

read it...still not sure the advantages/disadvantages of it.

also...wasnt sure if this lead to other potential issues that would require yet another camera. (again Im learning as i read...never thought I would see so much demand for an OVF, though it makes sense from what I have read, yet red seems to be trying to address this arent they with the EVF? Some proprietary technology coupled with it?)

thanks for your reply

peace

dalen

But then the EVF would make all I've said moot. Don't know how I missed the EVF spec.

The EVF will see outside the frame area - an advantage enjoyed in optical viewfinders. The on-board screen will be datachable, and can mount anywhere. An output to any other outboard monitor will be included. RED says the proprietary focus assist will be a major plus. They haven't committed to the on-board screen technology (LCD, OLED, LCoS), but it will undoubtedly be high res, and very capable.

Thanks Steve. It just keeps getting better.

Don't they usually call that a Sports Finder in the still photography world? Where you can see outside the captured frame a little bit.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that an OVF / mech. shutter is a significant and fundamental departure from EVF / elec. shutter which adds considerable expense to any camera design. If RED One had been OVF / mech. then the price point would not have been $17.5K, and as we all know, the lower the price point, the broader the market and more shooters can afford it.

I think Jim mentioned somewhere that an OVF would cost at least another $5k. I imagine it would make the camera significantly larger too, but I did wonder if maybe we'd see a RED TWO somewhere down the line that added in an OVF and one or two "film-like" features to really target that end of the market.

I realise with RED ONE that they're trying to cover pretty much every basis, and not create a "product range" of high to low-end cameras, but I reckon a second camera may not be too far a stretch. And at $25-30k it'd still be a steal compared to the Genesis/D20/Origin etc.

They can't compromise quality on a optical viewfinder, because the "look through" is of great importance to camera operators.

If they plan to go for that sector of the market the V/F have to stand up against the current high end cameras, unless they want to leave the high budget sector to Arri & Dalsa and go for the lower end of the market.

They can't compromise quality on a optical viewfinder, because the "look through" is of great importance to camera operators.

If they plan to go for that sector of the market the V/F have to stand up against the current high end cameras, unless they want to leave the high budget sector to Arri & Dalsa and go for the lower end of the market.

So this OVF is so important, the despite the fact that the camera blows away the competition, people would still shell out 100s of thousands just to get a camera that had it? Amazing indeed.

peace

dalen

Brian: if you read between the lines it is kinda promised that this is just the
first model. It also reads that an opticial viewfinder will probably come for a
future model.

As with all new technology see if it works for you (when it is out and available),
if it doesn't then get something else.

The camera has just been announced. All the features are not yet set in stone,
not footage has been seen or the final model. Wait for all of that to happen
and then see if it fits your workflow.

As they have clearly said, this project is under development. I would not jump
to conclusions until I have the final working version in my hands.

I would expect an opticial viewfinder version to arrive someday. Just not in the
first model. In the meantime use what you've always used to shoot your movies.

I'd say that the OVF model will be a secondary camera body, just for those who are still stuck in the film ages with optical viewfinders and mechanical shutters. It's less of a "Better-Worse" situation than it is just making sure that whatever you're comfortable with, RED can do.

I think that with what Jim and his techs have up their sleeves here will blow us away in the EVF field, and for those who still just aren't comfortable, he'll make a model with OVFs to make them happy. Maybe it won't be the RED2 but the RED1o. Something like that. As I said, not an upgrade, just another creature comfort.

I know that the current RED design proposal is the first in a line.

The comments on the optical V/F are how much importance camera operators place on the quality of their V/F. It wasn't a belief that RED don't have plans beyond the mock up they had on display at NAB.

Gents:

When a EVF is able to provide as much information on critical focus as an OVF, then a bridge will have been crossed and this discussion will be moot. Please do not believe that the "legitimate" film industry is made up entirely of snobs with status-quo attitudes who only want what they are used to rather than having progressive attitudes. Those who have had the experience of working with high-quality OVF's know how important they are for providing focus feedback to the focus puller, and have yet to see their equivalent in the EVF world. Today I spent time with the Sony viewfinder on the Genesis, trying to see if I could adjust peaking etc. to give me what I needed to be able to judge critical focus, and ultimately felt it just wasn't there.

This is not an issue of comfort, habit or snobbery--it's what it takes to get dailies that are in focus.

I guess my post came off in the wrong light based on Charles's response, so I guess I'll clarify what I meant. I didn't mean that optical viewfinders are necessarily bad, or that EVFs are better, but assuming that this RED LCD has a high enough resolution, a person who can pull focus relatively well on video shouldn't have too hard of a time. I mean, sure, optical works great, otherwise it definetly wouldn't be around, but I know that personally I'm much more comfortable seeing what's going to tape or to disc.

I guess "Creature comforts" and "comfortable with" are less proper words for what I'm discussing here, more something along the lines of which you're confident you can pull focus with, what you feel will give you the best quality, and which will be the simplest to work with in your workflow. (when you're shooting 1080p and you're doing color grading in-camera, I doubt highly you'll need an OVF) I guess we'll just have to sit and wait it out to see if the magical EVF in the RED will be able to live up to what I think it will be able to, and then maybe it might be possible to pull focus easily on the EVF in 4k, but who knows.

Sorry if that was kind of long and rambling, it's just that I've been put into bad situations when people have either taken my posts the wrong way, have read things into my posts, or just have taken me as being ignorant rather than simply uninformed or with a differing opinion.

assuming that this RED LCD has a high enough resolution, a person who can pull focus relatively well on video shouldn't have too hard of a time..

But see, this is the thing--when you are talking about a 35mm sized sensor and up to 4K resolution, you are now in an arena that is every bit as challenging to pull focus as 35mm film production. Smaller imagers, from 2/3" on down: plenty of depth of field, not too hard. 35mm relay systems on 1/3" cameras, from Mini35's on down: less depth of field, more challenging, but still possible to pull one's own focus in a pinch. But the combination of factors...there's a real reason why we have skilled focus pullers in the film world, and it's not job security or featherbedding or union. It's an extremely difficult and demanding job. And yet, almost every movie you see in the theaters has a soft shot here and there--and that's from guys who have years of experience. The ONLY operators I've seen who can pull their own focus as accurately as a good assistant are the NFL Films guys, and that's a long-practiced skill too.

When I'm shooting 35mm, especially in commercials where the end result is "pieces" i.e. the entire shot is not intended to be used continuously, I will sometimes take the focus knob if we are on a very long lens shooting unrehearsed action, as I will likely get more of it in focus than the assistant. However, if I was expected to get all of it sharp, I'd be in trouble. And that's looking through the best optical eyepiece in the business.

Trust me guys--it's a whole different ball of wax.

Pulling focus will be the big surprise to those moving up from 1/3" or 2/3" sensors. It is a whole new ballgame. Standard LCD's won't cut it. It will take a new "trick" not seen before to help the shooter focus accurately without an optical finder (which many will tell you is still a challenge in lower light conditions). I think we have one.

Jim

There are actually situations where an OVF is the only way to get a particular shot. For example, if you go hand-held and you're aiming for that "documentary" shaky look and the scene is improvised, the operator HAS to be able to rely on his viewfinder for focus (believe me, it isn't that easy even on s16). Anything that doesn't give you a good enough image or that makes you pause to use some form of pixel-matching focus assist renders this type of shot virtually impossible (unless you have an amazingly good operator or focus puller who can guess right every time!)

I'm really interested in what Jim&Co have in mind for their focus-assist. The repeated assertion that it's something "unique" give me hope that they've innovated a way to make this both accurate and simple - this isn't an issue that any other manufacturer has really addressed up until now.

Charles: isn't it so that most (the best?) focus pullers can and will pull focus
without ever looking at the viewfinder / screen? I assume that setting focus
on how far the subject is from the focal plane will still apply in this case?

The "difference" might be that the camera operator still needs to judge / know
if the right bits are actually in focus, right?

Yes, indeed. The AC is relying on various methods to interpret the distance from the focal plane to the subject (which include marks on the floor, sonar-based readouts like the Panatape and Cinetape, and a zillion other tricks and tools. Most will never even glimpse at the onboard monitor during a shot.

The job of the operator is to make sure that focus is maintained as expected, and also to judge the timing of focus racks if used. I usually whisper "you're deep" or "you're shallow" to the AC, whichever is the case so they can touch up the focus. After a take I will let them know if and when there were problems for the next one. Being able to quickly judge whether the focus is shallow or deep is another specific skill that takes a while to develop. There isn't time for the classic type of focusing that one uses with still photography, where you roll through the focus and then come back the other way to make sure it is truly sharp. By that time the subject has already began to move.

This sort of thing doesn't tend to show up in cinematography books or behind-the-scenes docs in DVD's, etc. It's not all that sexy. But it is a significant part of the workload of the 1st AC and the operator.

Jim, I agree that even an optical finder is not necesarily the best solution, it's simply the best available solution. I look forward to seeing what you have up your sleeve!

Jim, I agree that even an optical finder is not necesarily the best solution, it's simply the best available solution. I look forward to seeing what you have up your sleeve!

After reading the rest of the post, it would be cool if red would find a solution that would be the answer.
Sounds overly complicated even with a OVF.
The camera needs to be the 1st AC, how about that? :-)

peace

dalen

After reading the rest of the post, it would be cool if red would find a solution that would be the answer.
Sounds overly complicated even with a OVF.
The camera needs to be the 1st AC, how about that? :-)

peace

dalen


It needs anticipation on the focus. Perhaps A.I. is needed for that.

It needs anticipation on the focus. Perhaps A.I. is needed for that.
Now we're talking! :-)

Seriously, though, Im just hoping for the simplest thing to be able to create what it is I want to create.

No I never shot using an OVF, I have read post here & elsewhere to get the idea that there is quite a bit of difference in shooting with this type of sensor.
Ive taken various film classes, albeit mostly to do with producing, etc. (wait, I have taken everything from lighting, sound, etc...all but camera. doh!!! heheh
thats what I get for thinking I figured it all out with the canon xl-1 :-)

Seriously though, it is good to hear the comments about it...never realized this whole film camera thing took 15 people to get to work. It almost takes the punch out of the joke of how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb...or in this case, operate a camera. :-)

peace

dalen

To add a little to what charles said and occasionally working as a (mediocre) 1st on set. There is another factor that comes into play when monitoring off of an HD monitor vs. the tap out of a film cam into an SD monitor. IF you're using a 35mm rig on an HD cam and it's being monitored in HD you will need spot on focusing, instead of really good focusing that you can get away with on SD monitoring in the film world. (only the operator in the film world get's the real "resolution" with an OVF)

Pulling focus will be the big surprise to those moving up from 1/3" or 2/3" sensors. It is a whole new ballgame. Standard LCD's won't cut it. It will take a new "trick" not seen before to help the shooter focus accurately without an optical finder (which many will tell you is still a challenge in lower light conditions). I think we have one.

Jim

I'm in the midwest right now working on a documentary that's being shot on 16mm for exteriors and a JVC HD100 for interiors. The Focus Assist on the HD100 has been a life-saver on more than one occasion. I don't leave it on or anything, but in challenging conditions I'll flick it on to reassure me. As you rack focus it will highlight the edges of things as they come into focus. Seeing that red fringe around someone's head really allows me a sigh of relief sometimes. I'd like to see more cameras incorporate that system.

-Rob

I'm in the midwest right now working on a documentary that's being shot on 16mm for exteriors and a JVC HD100 for interiors. The Focus Assist on the HD100 has been a life-saver on more than one occasion. I don't leave it on or anything, but in challenging conditions I'll flick it on to reassure me. As you rack focus it will highlight the edges of things as they come into focus. Seeing that red fringe around someone's head really allows me a sigh of relief sometimes. I'd like to see more cameras incorporate that system.

-Rob


So basically, if Im understanding all of this clearly now, it all boils down to this.

The monitor just isnt WYSISYG?
i.e. You see it in focus, but you can never be sure (that is not cool), but this red outline is basically the camera telling you that it is in focus?

So I guess you just train your eye to look for a red outline and stop.

Anyway, Jim looks like he is doing something different, Im sure they will come up with something cool, and who knows, one of these days someone will make a viewfinder with enough resolution to show what is going on.

Technoglogy feels like its in the stone age sometimes...this is something basic I expect any piece of equipment to do. Guess we take for granted some things...
gives me a better appreciation for my eyes. :-)

peace

dalen

This sort of thing doesn't tend to show up in cinematography books or behind-the-scenes docs in DVD's, etc. It's not all that sexy. But it is a significant part of the workload of the 1st AC and the operator.

Thanks for the concise description of camera dept responsibilities regarding focus. I'm an AC and you're right our jobs aren't sexy but essential.

Having pulled 35mm focus for the first time recently, I wonder if filmmakers really understand what they're signing up for re: shallow DoF. When talent moves his head forward a couple inches suddenly and you have to "use the force" to touch up focus - it is as Jim said a whole different ballpark.

The monitor just isnt WYSISYG?
i.e. You see it in focus, but you can never be sure (that is not cool), but this red outline is basically the camera telling you that it is in focus?

The issue isn't so much that it looks in focus. It's that it tends to look soft even if you're in focus. The problem tends to get worse in low-light conditions.

The issue isn't so much that it looks in focus. It's that it tends to look soft even if you're in focus. The problem tends to get worse in low-light conditions.

What really sucks with shallow focus in 35mm is when something in the foreground looks sharper than your subject. Sometimes it isn't even a case of it being in focus, but it has sharp lines like a telephone or something. I'll look at footage that I'm happy with otherwise and think, "Well, that's unusable."

Larger film formats present some challenges when it comes to focus.

What really sucks with shallow focus in 35mm is when something in the foreground looks sharper than your subject. Sometimes it isn't even a case of it being in focus, but it has sharp lines like a telephone or something. I'll look at footage that I'm happy with otherwise and think, "Well, that's unusable."

Larger film formats present some challenges when it comes to focus.

Well Chien & Robert, good to hear this stuff...totally interesting, never realized it was this much of an issue.

Thanks for your input, helps me understand the whole issue a bit better.

peace

dalen

Once you get onto a large screen, what looked sharp on a monitor can be prove to be soft. That's why you should really check rushes on a large screen and when you edit on a NLE without having watched projected 35mm rushes you can find yourself watching soft shots in your final film.

With HD you need a large monitor to be sure.

The RED camera system is being designed for use in cine-style and ENG-style production environments. If you analyze the formats, resolutions, form factor, lens mount options, etc. of the proposed RED camera, it's designed for you to make it what you want it to be. The genre of the project will necessarily determine the production style and how the camera is accessorized and used. If you do strictly one style or even one genre within that style of production, by all means, accessorize the camera for exactly your style of production. If you do multiple genres within a particular style, you'll need to either buy additional accessories to accommodate that, or more cost-effectively, simply rent the occasionally needed accessories on a per-project basis.

Traditional cine-style crewmembers, which need just a cine-style camera system, and are used to large crews, are naturally going to want RED to fit their work scenario. They're used to having a focus puller and an OVF. Traditional ENG-style crewmembers, on the other hand, are used to small crews (or working alone), using deeper DOF from 2/3", 1/2", or even 1/3" sensor cameras, they'll probably want the RED camera to have an EVF or focus-assisted LCD, and their mobility and budgets don't include a focus puller. The market for the RED camera spans both of these camps. There is also a third camp though, and that's the convergent shooter whose career developed in cine-style or ENG-style and they have since, for interest and/or fiscal reasons, have cross-train to learn the opposite style of production. I'm one of those.

Though I've been dealing with prime lenses and shallow DOF since 1969, when I first bought a Nikon F for 35mm stills, my motion media career for about 30 years has centered on ENG-style production. My 35mm stills experience with long primes helped me immensely in my choice of shots in creative ENG-style work. The last five years I've been cross-training to learn cine-style production, because it makes great professional sense in a convergent production world. I don't like being niched as an ENG-style guy, any more than I'd like to be niched as just a cine-style guy. I'd much rather be defined as someone who can direct or shoot any style of production that a project calls for. I think it's time for all of us to stop thinking of ourselves as niched crew and realize that we're members of a unified, converged, production family, and that we can all learn techniques of production from each other.

I'm one of those NFL films type guys that someone mentioned earlier in this thread. A huge portion of my shooting career has been for non-hardlined, ENG-style, 2/3" chip camera shooting of sports and adventure travel television. Focus and DOF have always been concerns. In any given day of shooting I may be on sticks with a 33x lens on doubler doing tight-framed follow of sports action in low light where DOF is shallow and I have to pull/push, pan/tilt and rack focus constantly while maintaining framing and exposure - working completely by myself. Later that day I may need to shoot creative b-roll with a wide-angle lens. Later that day I may be shooting multiple interviews or talent. DOF, exposure, composition, focus, etc. are only seen by me throughout the day, as we are not hardlined, and the director is trusting me to get it right. When we do hardlined or trucked shoots, the scenario changes somewhat, as the technical director controls many parameters of the camera and the director can see what each camera is getting.

I have the greatest respect for the traditional cine-style shooters. Their art speaks for itself. I also have the greatest respect for the ENG-style shooters. The challenges they face often go unheralded.

On the RED camera, Jim Jannard has stated previously, and in this thread, that though the first RED camera will not have an OVF, that the EVF or on-board screen will be able to see outside the frame, and that the new RED focus assist function will help solve the issue of critical focus in the S35 DOF environment of the RED camera. That's important to cine-style and ENG-style users of RED, because S35 DOF from the sensor is usually maintained down through all the formats that RED shoots. Bottom line is that traditional 2/3" sensor ENG-style shooters are going to need that to deal with S35 DOF when they shoot in RED's 1080p, 1080i, and 720p formats - even if they hardly ever shoot in 2k or 4k. Until there's a OVF option in future RED incarnations, cine-style shooters will need to learn how to pull critical focus using the RED focus assist function and/or high-res peripheral monitors. We all have to adjust our thinking and workflow a little when using this new tool.

I'm a producer, director, and DP, so sometimes I'll be hands on with the RED, and sometimes not. When I'm producing or directing, and the project is cine-style, especially in 4k, I'll hire an expert cine-style DP like Charles Papert. When the project is to be in a more ENG-style, and in 1080p, 1080i, or 720p, and I can't personally shoot, I'll hire a longtime ENG-style DP for the job. For projects that call for both cine-style and ENG-style shooting, I may hire individual specialists in those styles, but if there are true convergent shooters that can shoot both styles equally well, obviously I'll hire them. As a producer/director budget is always a concern.

I think it’s time for traditional ENG-style shooters to stop viewing traditional cine-style shooters as headstrong resisters of technology and realize that they simply want to continue getting their quality results while utilizing the new technology. Conversely, I feel that its time for traditional cine-style shooters to realize that it’s a melding of ENG technology with cinema technology that is the future of motion media, and that ENG-style shooters are not a bunch of dumb camera pointers who only point automated video cameras at subject matter. There’s an enormous amount of knowledge and technology each persuasion bring s to the table. A future-proofed crew will be a convergent crew…

Here's a partial matrix of what Cut4 Media Group will use our RED One cameras for:

- Feature films (4k or 2k)
- Indie films (2k or 1080p)
- HDTV programs and stock footage in the following genres: alternative sports, adventure travel, music, reality, documentaries, cultures, cuisine, mainstream travel, military, nature, events, mainstream sports (1080p or 720p)
- Commercials (2k, 1080p, or 720p)
- Infomercials (2k, 1080p, or 720p)
- Business videos (1080p or 720p)
- News b-roll (1080i for news, and 1080p for promos)
- POV deck (1080p or 720p, with a cigar cam)
- POV vehicle mount camera (2k, 1080p, or 720p)
- In-water camera with a custom housing (2k, 1080p, or 720p)
- Aerial hand held and aircraft mounted (2k, 1080p, or 720p)
- Teaching tools for workshops (selected formats)
- Events (1080p, 1080i, 720p)
- Film festival demonstrations (selected formats)
- Broadcast teases and promos (1080p and 720p)
- Public service announcement (1080p and 720p)
- My kids soccer games (don't laugh - 720p60 for that!, although an HVX200 would be a better choice for this)

And there will undoubtedly be many more uses and genres we will think of!!

RED have mentioned a OVF is going to be in future models and that RED-ONE will be upgradable.

The big question is will RED-ONE be upgradable to the OVF when its gets released? And at what cost?

If the cost of the upgrade is not far off a completely new camera than its hardly worth it, but technically the camera is still upgradable :-)

I'm all for learning new tools but must say the OVF vs EVF is a hard one. OVF allows you to look through the lense and see the REAL World as it happens will a EVF is a video feed.

We are human after all, even though some would wish we where machines :-)

Rory: in my very humble opinion I would not expect the RED ONE to be upgradable
to an opticial viewfinder if it does not come with such an option already.

Why do I think this? To get an optical viewfinder in place requires some large
changes to the chassis and internal workings of a camera if it doesn't have
any preperations for such a system.

Hey Rob

I agree adding a OVF would be a major change in the design although I don't see it unreasonable to be able re-work the RED-ONE components, sending the camera off to the factory and re-use the bits.

This is wishful thinking on my part of course.

Regards
Rory