Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: fredjeang on June 05, 2010, 05:53:06 AM

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: fredjeang on June 05, 2010, 05:53:06 AM
Hi,

Can Red camera being a game changer in photography business?

It's been said here, both by Michael Reichmann in some articles and by some knowledgable Lu-La members that Red Camera can change the all panorama.
I have read the articles and if I understand many points, I'm still not capable to understand the deep reasons of such statement.
Not everyday you read that a brand is able to drop a bomb and change the game in the industry.

A wired point,
When I was living in Paris, I use to end some nights in a place called "Les Bains Douches" (we called it "les bains").
At that time, this place gained a real fame because they understood a simple law: More something is unaccessible,
more it creates a legend.
Well, I have a similar sensation with Red. Their communication is just wired.(wired is unperfectly expressed but can't find another word)
I've been trying to collect information, and there is, but at the same time RED plays the ghost. It's not like what we are used to.

These guys are different, the design is different, everything seems different, included their communication.

I can't really measure the real impact this company will/can make on photographers, the industry itself and the business.
I just don't get the point.

We know that video is currently part of the photographer's task, and in that sense, people who have ignored video have less assignments,
while photographers who have embraced video get more work. That tendency, with no temptation to generalise, is indeed anchored.

In that sense, if I think of a tool that had an enormous impact, without being revolutionary, is the Canon 5D II.
First real camera from the convergence age and the crisis time also (and that is important IMO).

If I understand why RED is capable to in the video production, I do not understand it's real capabilities for stills. That is where all my point is.

Why some of the most serious professionals are saying that RED is so important? Is it true, or is it like "les Bain Douches", a legend based of non accessibility. (thinking that we also face an economic crisis where the cost is decisive for most).

What kind of real impact RED can have on the photography industry, business and professionals studios that can afford them?

Thanks you.

Cheers.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: michael on June 05, 2010, 07:06:53 AM
RED (Scarlet) remains an enigma, especially when it comes to stills capability.

As a video camera it offers raw video capability, and as such is capable of things that few other cameras can match at any where near the price. The Epic is about to supersede the RED 1 and looks to be terrific.

As far are stills capability goes, and an impact on the stills / video crossover market, it's the Scarlet that everyone is waiting for, and it's late, very late. The video DSLR hardly existed when Scarlet was announced and now we're seeing many low and even large budget productions being done with them. Panasonic and Sony have both announced "real" video cameras for availability this fall that will take their still lenses (NEX and 4/3) and this will accelerate the crossover. (Video pros will use PL mount Zeiss primes and could care less).

I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

Michael
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 05, 2010, 12:10:40 PM
Hi,

I'd suggest that the raw capability of RED is one of the key issues. The other one is obviously general usefullness. Still cameras are not really intended for video/film.

There was a fascinating test of DSLR video on http://www.zacuto.com (http://www.zacuto.com). The third installment even touches on "raw" capabilty, and the tester seem to say that there is at least a 2.5 stop advantage to "raw" regarding DR. I'd recommend the checking out the "Zacuto shootout at twenty ten", mostly because it gives a lot of insight in real video production with real experts in that area. It's certainly has a good entertainment value, like LuLa's famous Reichmann & Schewe shows. It is always very nice to see people discuss thinks they do know a lot about.

A side note, back in 2008 I spent a week in Tiveden (a small national park in Sweden) with a good friend. Weather was awful, but we were shooting in the morning and had some wine and the Reichmann & Schewe show on Lightroom 2 in the afternoon. had a great time. This year we go to "Gotland" in August and pray for better weather and a Lightroom 3 tutorial from Reichmann & Schewe. The wines we fix our selves.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: michael
RED (Scarlet) remains an enigma, especially when it comes to stills capability.

As a video camera it offers raw video capability, and as such is capable of things that few other cameras can match at any where near the price. The Epic is about to supersede the RED 1 and looks to be terrific.

As far are stills capability goes, and an impact on the stills / video crossover market, it's the Scarlet that everyone is waiting for, and it's late, very late. The video DSLR hardly existed when Scarlet was announced and now we're seeing many low and even large budget productions being done with them. Panasonic and Sony have both announced "real" video cameras for availability this fall that will take their still lenses (NEX and 4/3) and this will accelerate the crossover. (Video pros will use PL mount Zeiss primes and could care less).

I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

Michael
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pcunite on June 05, 2010, 02:49:49 PM
About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 05, 2010, 03:17:59 PM
Hi,

Lot of things are due to happen in two years. Obviously a lot of good things can be done with a Canon 5DII but it may not be ideal camera. I really would suggest checking out the http://www.zacuto.com (http://www.zacuto.com) site for their tests.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: pcunite
About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: bcooter on June 05, 2010, 03:23:05 PM
Quote from: pcunite
About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.


If you are serious about moving to motion then go to this link and listen to #56 featuring Shane Haliburt

http://www.fxguide.com/redcentre (http://www.fxguide.com/redcentre)

Caution, it's very long, so make sure you have something else to do when it's playing in the background or you'll go to sleep.

Anyway, Mr. Haliburt is a real DP, working on real large budget films and he's enamored by the Canons, though more than most understands their limitations, especially in moire and artifacts.

What he likes most is the form factor and the ability to work fast, especially in today's budget /time challanged world.

I'm shooting 5d's in vertical and horizontal mode with a Red Rock rig and they have some goofiness, especially in follow focus, but for the price there is nothing in this world that comes within 1000 miles in the cinema world, though I doubt seriously if anyone would shoot a full length high budget feature using a 5D2 as the primary camera, or only camera.  

If your going to work small crew, I'd give some of that a rethink, because the best way to make motion a faster process is to shoot multiple cameras and then there is the issue of sound.  The 5d2's ability to record sound is just about adequate for a scratch track for syncing.  If your shooting dialog you almost have to have a secondary source for sound recording and an expert technician.

Now I'm not an expert on RED, though would buy the Epic or even a RED with the MX sensor today if it was available, though it seems all of Red's energy is going towards the Epic and the smaller Scarlet.   At least today because RED seems to have the same business model as the medium format still world in that a lot of what is talked about is in the future and not on the shelf.  

Anyway, this link is a good place to start for information on shooting the Canons and just a word to the wise, make sure that your viewing monitor is calibrated and the look you are shooting in camera is 90% of what you want to see on output, since it's not a raw file and the video is 8 bits there is not a lot of moving the file around in post without spending a lot of resource.

BC

P.S.   30 minutes of interesting motion imagery, is a huge undertaking, at least if you don't want the viewer to fall asleep.   Mr. Haliburt's 5d2 demo called 3 minutes is just 3 minutes and you can see how consuming and costly 3 minutes of motion can be even on a budget.

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/ (http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/)

http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/06/01/...last-3-minutes/ (http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/06/01/the-making-of-the-carnival-sequence-from-the-last-3-minutes/)

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: bcooter on June 05, 2010, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: michael
I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

Michael


Though nobody has told me directly, I think the thing with RED is they are trying to cover a lot of territory at once.  First cinema with a full fledged cinema camera that will replace film, which in that world means a camera and file with no issues, no drama, no lack of reliability because in the cinema world a day's worth of redo is a gazillion dollars and opens up a whole lot of fun for the over the line  producer trying to hold talent for an extended period.

Then Red is trying to find their place in the dsmc world of stills and video convergence, which I don't know if I understand given that direction of stills and motion is usually much different.  I would think a dedicated still camera that can go to high iso and a dedicated motion camera would be a better function, but time will tell.

Third Red is trying to find a place in the consumer world which I think the Scarlet get's close to.  That must be a huge undertaking given Canon, Panasonic, Sony, JVC are all sitting in that room with knives pulled.

Once again, time will tell and your right time will not wait because as Red builds new buildings and 4k screens people are buying Red Rocks, Zagutos to put on their 5/7d's and shooting by the minute.

BC
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 11, 2010, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Lot of things are due to happen in two years. Obviously a lot of good things can be done with a Canon 5DII but it may not be ideal camera. I really would suggest checking out the http://www.zacuto.com (http://www.zacuto.com) site for their tests.

Best regards
Erik


The problem with the Zacuto tests is that they tested 4K film, 2K film, 5DII, 7D etc etc ad nauseam. And the elephant in the room, RED, they simply ignored.

Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: michael on July 11, 2010, 01:17:41 PM
The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

Michael
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: fredjeang on July 11, 2010, 01:31:03 PM
Quote from: michael
The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

Michael
I agree 100% with you that serious film makers, independant cineasts etc...will have much more interest on going to the new "Pana & Co" specialized cameras.
I think that the DSLR's video will keep being successfull for the still photographer on budget that needs videos from time to time. So all his lenses and bodies are the same system,
or the photo reporter or photo journalist on the field.
IMO, both proposals will co-exist pacifically.

I also think that the designers could have done more efforts to reach the convergence and design a proper combocam.
It is not easy, but hey, isn't that for what they are paid for?

Ps: while I writte these lines, I hear the horns and the people warming for the football final...really noisy under my studio's window.
I don't imagine after the game if Spain wins...
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Don Libby on July 11, 2010, 02:07:58 PM
I've never subscribed to the one-size fits all theory.  A still camera capable of achieving great results in single capture isn't going to be capable of capturing the same level of video capture just as the same top notch video camera not being capable of still photography.  They might be close however in the end nothing will beat a high-end video camera for video and an equally high-end still for photography.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Hywel on July 11, 2010, 02:09:02 PM
I agree with Michael's conclusions about the ergonomics of stills vs. video cameras.

We shoot both, using a Hasselblad H3D-ii or 5D2 for stills. We used to use twin HVX200's for video but have recently moved to using a 5D2 and a 7D.

The ergonomics of shooting video with Canons is APPALLING. Really, really, awful. There are so many features from the HVX200's we miss, but the main ones are peaking, zebra and audio bars. We've more than once had to retake a scene because the crappy jack plug from our wireless mike receiver wasn't properly plugged into the camera's audio in... that just plain never happened with XLR connectors, and even if it had done, you'd instantly have seen from the audio bars that all was not well.

The process of waiting to shoot a single still image or setting up to shoot a moving image shot are quite different, and the ergonomics of the cameras end up being very different as a result. In stills one primarily changes things in between shots, so things end up being more quanitized, whereas when the film is rolling you might want to produce a very smooth and predictably and reproducible follow focus action- hence one of the biggest aftermarket $$$ everyone adds to a dSLR, a follow-focus rig and some sort of chest mount.

We recently had a very lightweight trip above the arctic circle and to get in under packing limits we had to take two stills tripods instead of video tripods, and tried to shoot moving footage from them. My god. Never again. You take the action of a proper panning fluid head on a ball mount with different drag settings and nice slide-y action for camera balance totally for granted until it is taken away from you in favour of what suddenly seems to be an antagonistic eight-legged multi-knobbed octopus who is intent on spoiling every pan shot you attempt.

So with all of the misery, why on earth are we using the Canons for video at all?

It is just down to the on-screen glamour of the end result. The simple fact of the matter is that the girls we are photographing look significantly more movie-star gorgeous when shot with the Canons than when shot with the Panasonics. We moan and bitch and curse and repeatedly have to reshoot entire sequences sometimes, just to get the magic glow in the can at the end of the day. The only alternatives are currently WAAAY out of our budgetary reach, or, like shooting actual 35 mm, even less practical for our 100% digital workflow.

I guess there is an advantage when travelling to taking the combo cams, for the overall lowered weight given that our backup stills kit doubles as our video kit.

But we'll sure as mustard be dropping the 5D2/7D from our video shooting line up as soon as someone releases a video camera with a comparable sensor and comparable in-camera image processing magic to give us the same shallow depth of field and gorgeous skin tone rendition, and we'll be trying out the new 4/3 Panasonic as soon as we can get our hands on it because the ergonomics of the HVX200's is very good. The Sony, too, if they can get over their strange fetish for interlacing. One just hopes that Canon have a 7D/5D2 size sensor packaged up in a proper video body (and with internal processing instead of line skipping to get rid of the artefacts, moire and jello-cam too) somewhere in the works.

  Cheers, Hywel.



Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 11, 2010, 04:49:01 PM
Hywel - have you looked at Magic Lantern?

Edmund

Quote from: Hywel
I agree with Michael's conclusions about the ergonomics of stills vs. video cameras.

We shoot both, using a Hasselblad H3D-ii or 5D2 for stills. We used to use twin HVX200's for video but have recently moved to using a 5D2 and a 7D.

The ergonomics of shooting video with Canons is APPALLING. Really, really, awful. There are so many features from the HVX200's we miss, but the main ones are peaking, zebra and audio bars. We've more than once had to retake a scene because the crappy jack plug from our wireless mike receiver wasn't properly plugged into the camera's audio in... that just plain never happened with XLR connectors, and even if it had done, you'd instantly have seen from the audio bars that all was not well.

The process of waiting to shoot a single still image or setting up to shoot a moving image shot are quite different, and the ergonomics of the cameras end up being very different as a result. In stills one primarily changes things in between shots, so things end up being more quanitized, whereas when the film is rolling you might want to produce a very smooth and predictably and reproducible follow focus action- hence one of the biggest aftermarket $$$ everyone adds to a dSLR, a follow-focus rig and some sort of chest mount.

We recently had a very lightweight trip above the arctic circle and to get in under packing limits we had to take two stills tripods instead of video tripods, and tried to shoot moving footage from them. My god. Never again. You take the action of a proper panning fluid head on a ball mount with different drag settings and nice slide-y action for camera balance totally for granted until it is taken away from you in favour of what suddenly seems to be an antagonistic eight-legged multi-knobbed octopus who is intent on spoiling every pan shot you attempt.

So with all of the misery, why on earth are we using the Canons for video at all?

It is just down to the on-screen glamour of the end result. The simple fact of the matter is that the girls we are photographing look significantly more movie-star gorgeous when shot with the Canons than when shot with the Panasonics. We moan and bitch and curse and repeatedly have to reshoot entire sequences sometimes, just to get the magic glow in the can at the end of the day. The only alternatives are currently WAAAY out of our budgetary reach, or, like shooting actual 35 mm, even less practical for our 100% digital workflow.

I guess there is an advantage when travelling to taking the combo cams, for the overall lowered weight given that our backup stills kit doubles as our video kit.

But we'll sure as mustard be dropping the 5D2/7D from our video shooting line up as soon as someone releases a video camera with a comparable sensor and comparable in-camera image processing magic to give us the same shallow depth of field and gorgeous skin tone rendition, and we'll be trying out the new 4/3 Panasonic as soon as we can get our hands on it because the ergonomics of the HVX200's is very good. The Sony, too, if they can get over their strange fetish for interlacing. One just hopes that Canon have a 7D/5D2 size sensor packaged up in a proper video body (and with internal processing instead of line skipping to get rid of the artefacts, moire and jello-cam too) somewhere in the works.

  Cheers, Hywel.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Hywel on July 12, 2010, 09:00:31 AM
Quote from: eronald
Hywel - have you looked at Magic Lantern?

Edmund

Yes, it's lovely, but doesn't help with the 7D (yet, anyway).

One does wonder what the Canon firmware guys are playing at with their half-assed implementation of audio bars- I'm guessing none o the engineering team actually shoots moving pictures and sound for a living... !

  Cheers, Hywel.


Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 12, 2010, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: michael
The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

Michael

Michael,

It is interesting that you and the Zacuto audience have such different opinions.

This might be due to the fact that they do set-pieces with highly controlled lighting and their subjects are heavily made-up, and multiple takes (the equivalent of still fashion and beauty photography), while you shoot field documentaries in available light and you want to get it right first time.

Thus to be respectful of both their competence and yours, I would assume  that the market will segment, and we will have products close to actual video cameras, with long zooms and good stabilisation, that will write compressed and quickly usable formats that can be processed on small computers and will be used mostly in documentaries, and others which will basically be shooting RAW with low compression and fixed lenses that will be used on soundstages and location when a big postprod budget is available.

Except a miracle, I would expect SLRs to fill the "heavy" feature film and TV serial niche in the near future, as Japanese companies have a habit of not fixing what's not broken, and the Zacuto crowd really do those jobs so they know what they are talking about.  I do foresee some new features and accessories being marketed for those SLRs eg. remote focus /viewfinder/trigger modules.  On the other hand, it's clear that the pro video camera market segment is going to get upgraded as you state.

The various little problems with follow focus and sound, though very annoying, could be fixed even now. Focus in particular could be done via an electronic remote.

Edmund



Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on July 14, 2010, 09:02:42 AM
This is the consumer version, what kind of impact, the prosumer, the pro version and FF version will have?
And of course similar products that will be made by Canon, Panasonic and Samsung.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEXVG10/NEXVG10A.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEXVG10/NEXVG10A.HTM)

this baby costs only 1100$ or Euros, excluding the lens and the bundled editing software.
It can carry CZ lenses too.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 14, 2010, 09:24:38 AM
Quote from: ziocan
This is the consumer version, what kind of impact, the prosumer, the pro version and FF version will have?
And of course similar products that will be made by Canon, Panasonic and Samsung.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEXVG10/NEXVG10A.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEXVG10/NEXVG10A.HTM)

this baby costs only 1100$ or Euros, excluding the lens and the bundled editing software.
It can carry CZ lenses too.


As far as i see from specs, Raw has been removed from both still and video mode to avoid competing with pro video and slr

Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on July 14, 2010, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: eronald
As far as i see from specs, Raw has been removed from both still and video mode to avoid competing with pro video and slr

Edmund
It is a consumer model indeed.
They will soon release a prosumer and a pro version, possibly a 35mm FF version.
Of course they will be priced accordingly.
Those will have the RAW format.

7d and 5d do not have it either.



Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 14, 2010, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: eronald
As far as i see from specs, Raw has been removed from both still and video mode to avoid competing with pro video and slr ...
"Removed" is a strange word since Sony has never had RAW video out with this sensor, which is still primarily a still imaging sensor modified so as to also produce video output, not one designed from scratch for professional quality video output.  The more likely explanation for having consumer oriented rather than professional features, is the need to give priority to the cost/feature desires of the largest group of potential customers: people who want to make videos to be shown at home after at most some basic editing.  Adding pro level features like RAW output that most potential consumers have no interest in would pointlessly increase cost and so hurt sales and profitability. "One 'pro' sale gained is not worth dozens of consumer sales lost", the bean counters in the Sony consumer products division would say.

I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 14, 2010, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: BJL
"Removed" is a strange word since Sony has never had RAW video out with this sensor, which is still primarily a still imaging sensor modified so as to also produce video output, not one designed from scratch for professional quality video output.  The more likely explanation for having consumer oriented rather than professional features, is the need to give priority to the cost/feature desires of the largest group of potential customers: people who want to make videos to be shown at home after at most some basic editing.  Adding pro level features like RAW output that most potential consumers have no interest in would pointlessly increase cost and so hurt sales and profitability. "One 'pro' sale gained is not worth dozens of consumer sales lost", the bean counters in the Sony consumer products division would say.

I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.

This comes after the pro miniDV fiasco etc.  i stand by my interpretation of the actions of a repeat offender in the area of salami slicing and market segmentatiom.

Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pcunite on July 14, 2010, 02:48:12 PM
Quote from: eronald
I stand by my interpretation of the actions of a repeat offender in the area of salami slicing and market segmentatiom.

Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 14, 2010, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: pcunite
Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.

While Sony's just announced NEX camera indeed sounds like a carefully crippled product to avoid cannibalizing high-end motion camera sales, Panasonic's upcoming MFT motion camera has a promised feature set making it a potentially disruptive camera. And since disruptive is the buzzword in 2010 and pressures to cut costs are bigger than ever, I wouldn't be surprised if the other big guys join in.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on July 14, 2010, 03:12:33 PM
As I understood it from the press release, 'no raw' applies to stills not video where it wasn't even in question that there wouldn't be raw. DPReview also specifically reads it as that. Crippled indeed given that the chip and processing are the same as the NEX5 plus added bits.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Hywel on July 15, 2010, 05:25:49 AM
Quote from: Ben Rubinstein
As I understood it from the press release, 'no raw' applies to stills not video where it wasn't even in question that there wouldn't be raw. DPReview also specifically reads it as that. Crippled indeed given that the chip and processing are the same as the NEX5 plus added bits.

And my comment above about Sony's fetish for interlacing proved prophetic, too.

I have NO idea why Sony has stuck religiously to the bizarre historical accident of interlaced footage on so many of their products. For me, like a lot of people, 24/25 fps (preferably both)  and progressive scan is the fundamental requirement of a motion picture camera. 1080/50i just doesn't cut it, I'll take 720p at 25 fps over that any day, and the Canons are already producing 1080p at 25 fps. No excuse, Sony, this is a very bad decision. So that's the Sony ruled out for me, let's see what the Panasonic is like when it emerges into production.


... EDIT... it looks like the Sony might actually be sending 1080 25p over 1080i. A slightly bizarre choice, but easier to recover to true 25p in post if that's true. No use for NTSC countries who will at best be stick with 30p over 60i, less bad for people like me who have settled on 25p as a good overall film-like choice without the vagaries of 24-fps-ish frame rates and fiddling about... but still, if the damn thing is recording 1080 25p, send it out as that.

  Cheers, Hywel.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pcunite on July 15, 2010, 08:26:12 PM
Quote from: feppe
Panasonic's upcoming MFT motion camera has a promised feature set making it a potentially disruptive camera.

Excellent, I look forward to seeing it.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 08:45:06 AM
Quote from: eronald
The various little problems with follow focus and sound, though very annoying, could be fixed even now. Focus in particular could be done via an electronic remote.
Like this for instance RedRock iPhone remote focus (http://www.redrockmicro.com/microRemote.html).
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 09:14:20 AM
Quote from: BJL
I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.
Maybe because it has basis in truth. The reason RED was set up was because the founder was fed up of the hobbled cameras on offer from the established players, a frustration I also shared, but I'm not rich enough to create a company to fill the hole!
 And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points. Video cameras were particularly dreadful in this respect with certain features being left out of each pricing tier forcing you to jump to a much more expensive camera, just to get something that would have neglible affect on production costs, but is known to be needed for pro production work. Just like train prices at commuter times can be 10 times the off peak cost.  And every couple of years, the cameras would be upgraded ever so slightly with a tiny trickle of features that should have been there in the first place [a marketing tactic Apple are masters at].
I also seem to vaguely recall it is part of Japanese business practice not to upset how business is done by seriously undercutting your Japanese rivals, not quite a cartel, but more like a gentleman's agreement. And interestingly, it was a brash American who changed things.
For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs  and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices  is directly because of RED's emergence.  RED completely disrupted the old business model. DSLRs always had the potential to do video as it's just a firmware upgrade, just like all the pocket cameras do. But the camera makers wanted to protect their video divisions [except Nikon who aren't really that interested in video], so they never enabled the feature until there was possible competition and even if RED disappears due to its slowness in bringing kit to market, they still will have been massively influential and indeed game changers as Canon, Sony and Panasonic were forcedby RED's new business model of not hobbling cameras to offer professional features at price points that were affordable.
Before RED, people always rented cameras for film/high end video shoots, now many production companies buy them outright and still save money.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 16, 2010, 09:36:05 AM
Actually, it was Nikon and Canon who retaliated against Sony by modding their still camera for video  when Sony moved into the dSLR business.

Edmund

Quote from: jjj
Maybe because it has basis in truth. The reason RED was set up was because the founder was fed up of the hobbled cameras on offer from the established players, a frustration I also shared, but I'm not rich enough to create a company to fill the hole!
 And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points. Video cameras were particularly dreadful in this respect with certain features being left out of each pricing tier forcing you to jump to a much more expensive camera, just to get something that would have neglible affect on production costs, but is known to be needed for pro production work. Just like train prices at commuter times can be 10 times the off peak cost.  And every couple of years, the cameras would be upgraded ever so slightly with a tiny trickle of features that should have been there in the first place [a marketing tactic Apple are masters at].
I also seem to vaguely recall it is part of Japanese business practice not to upset how business is done by seriously undercutting your Japanese rivals, not quite a cartel, but more like a gentleman's agreement. And interestingly, it was a brash American who changed things.
For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs  and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices  is directly because of RED's emergence.  RED completely disrupted the old business model. DSLRs always had the potential to do video as it's just a firmware upgrade, just like all the pocket cameras do. But the camera makers wanted to protect their video divisions [except Nikon who aren't really that interested in video], so they never enabled the feature until there was possible competition and even if RED disappears due to its slowness in bringing kit to market, they still will have been massively influential and indeed game changers as Canon, Sony and Panasonic were forcedby RED's new business model of not hobbling cameras to offer professional features at price points that were affordable.
Before RED, people always rented cameras for film/high end video shoots, now many production companies buy them outright and still save money.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 16, 2010, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: eronald
This comes after the pro miniDV fiasco ...
I haven't heard of that one, can you explain or given me a reference?
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: eronald
Actually, it was Nikon and Canon who retaliated against Sony by modding their still camera for video  when Sony moved into the dSLR business.
It took them over 30 months to 'retaliate' via a firmware tweak and as Sony make Nikon's sensors, Nikon are hardly going to upset their only sensor supplier. Plus Sony took over and rebranded Minolta as opposed to creating a completely new brand, though they did breath new life into ailing Minolta.
RED caused big waves in the film/video industry, that stills photographers were probably unaware of for quite a while and RED certainly precipitated the rise of affordable video from companies that previously charged silly money for the same or actually lesser quality video in their professional camcorders. Canon were fundamentally undermining their own video business. Small film makers do not buy Canon Video gear anymore, they buy 7Ds or 5DIIs or rent REDs if they can't quite afford them yet.
In fact in a discussion  at a recent local film makers gathering, someone was actively discouraged from even considering buying such kit, by one of the regions key producers. Prosumer camcorders like those Canon make are simply seen as a waste of money for serious work now.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 16, 2010, 10:20:18 AM
Quote from: jjj
For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs  and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices  is directly because of RED's emergence.
I am not sure that RED had anything to do with it; the shift to CMOS sensors in DSLR's that naturally support Live View and Video seems to me to have more to do with this trend. Video and Live View are long-standing and popular feature of consumer digicams, and it was natural for both features to move into larger formats once CMS sensors allowed it. Note that both started largely at the consumer end: Live View first in Four Third SLR's, then video in the Nikon D90 followed by Micro Four Thirds. The main goal seems to be overcoming some perceived disadvantages of DSLR's, so as to get more consumer level camera buyers to buy into a more profitable interchangeable lens system, plus the natural idea of adding something useful once new technology makes it cheap and easy to do so. And once the systems support video, offering a camera in a more video friendly form-factor that uses the same lenses (cutting lens costs substantially compared to having a dedicated video-camera only lens system, I would think) is a natural next step.

Nor do any of these "still sensors with some video ability" seem capable of competing with dedicated cine-format video sensors from RED, Sony, etc.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 16, 2010, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: BJL
I haven't heard of that one, can you explain or given me a reference?

When teh tiny DV devices came out, Pro TV stations were supposed to buy the same miniature pocket recording DV gear, with a different encoding scheme. If I remember rightly; of course they just went and bought the consumer models for their field work.

Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 16, 2010, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: jjj
And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points.

In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on July 16, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
Quote from: feppe
In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.
True.
the same has been for computer CPUs.
Intel has been a master at selling crippled processors,
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pcunite on July 16, 2010, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: feppe
In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.

And the public supports that notion expect when it is trivial to actually make the product categories. By publicly voicing our opinion we can hopefully bring change. Do you really want companies charging $1000 more when a 1 becomes a 0? I know you don't, just making a point. When companies are found out for this someone needs to voice this fact and get pricing in line with reality.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 16, 2010, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: pcunite
And the public supports that notion expect when it is trivial to actually make the product categories. By publicly voicing our opinion we can hopefully bring change.

There is only one voice to effectively voice an opinion in this case: with your wallet. The prevalence of crippled products in many industries implies it works, and that the consumers don't mind it.

I sure don't. By and large there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to consumer goods and software. Just imagine how the world would be if Nikon and Canon had only one camera model.

What does get me is nickle and diming, shoddy quality, poor support, and the race to the bottom. Again, consumers are speaking with their wallets by buying the cheapest product there is and ignoring TCO, so unfortunately I think that's (another) losing battle.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: pcunite
Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.
Peter Jackson has bought a stack of REDs and used them for District 9 [he produced it] and parts of Lovely Bones were also shot with REDs. Steven Soderbergh is also a fan of the RED camera and particularly liked the ergonomics.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 08:23:33 PM
Quote from: BJL
I am not sure that RED had anything to do with it; the shift to CMOS sensors in DSLR's that naturally support Live View and Video seems to me to have more to do with this trend.
Canon have used CMOS chips for a long time actually. Since 2000 IIRC.  So that argument doesn't work.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: feppe
In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.
"In fairness"!!  So because other companies price fix or artificially price point products, that makes it all right? It still a con, no matter how many people do it. And if companies collude to do this it is then a cartel and is actually illegal behaviour. Doing so by unspoken agreement is not illegal, but just as bad as it's the same end result.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 16, 2010, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: feppe
There is only one voice to effectively voice an opinion in this case: with your wallet. The prevalence of crippled products in many industries implies it works, and that the consumers don't mind it.
Nonsense. That is such poor logic. Say I want to buy a video camera for professional work and my budget is only £3k, but if cameras at that level are crippled for pro work compared to those costing £20k. I have to buy the crippled product and put up with it. Which was exactly the situation a few years back.  This is why RED was founded in the first place as Jim Jannard was fed up with this behaviour and why film makers are buying 5D+7Ds and not video cameras these days.

Quote
I sure don't. By and large there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to consumer goods and software. Just imagine how the world would be if Nikon and Canon had only one camera model.
One size fits all is a different issue to crippling products. Besides DSLRs within brands don't exactly vary much except by features. Cheap Canons tend to be very similar to expensive Canons in most ways, just as as all Nikons are quite similar. And basically it is one size fits all as if you want a FF Canon with video and your budget is £2K, you have the choice of one single camera.

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 17, 2010, 04:20:42 AM
Quote from: jjj
Nonsense. That is such poor logic. Say I want to buy a video camera for professional work and my budget is only £3k, but if cameras at that level are crippled for pro work compared to those costing £20k. I have to buy the crippled product and put up with it. Which was exactly the situation a few years back.  This is why RED was founded in the first place as Jim Jannard was fed up with this behaviour and why film makers are buying 5D+7Ds and not video cameras these days.

So you want to pay 3k for a 20k camera? What else do you want; mermaids?

This kind of mentality is exactly the reason why unemployment in the western world is increasing.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: bcooter on July 17, 2010, 05:49:43 AM
Quote from: jjj
This is why RED was founded in the first place as Jim Jannard was fed up with this behaviour and why film makers are buying 5D+7Ds and not video cameras these days.

It's not just about costs.  It's about what you can shoot, how pretty you can shoot it and if you can turn a profit.

A $20,000 camera should be worth $20,000 and that includes a large enough chip to throw focus, a file you can correct and color grade, professional inputs, standard lens mounts and the ability to upgrade.

Whether RED succeeds or not is up them their accountants and engineers, but I wish them well, if only because they changed the status quo of the standard "prosumer" video camera that is $2,000 worth of in between.  Almost there with iso, almost there with lenses, almost there with usability, but in 12 months something that sits on the shelf when you buy  the next $4,000 camera that does shoot a progessive file and might have xlr inputs, but probably never, ever raw.

I know the electronic business model is to upgrade us every 18 months, heck we all know this, but with professional equipment you look for longer term use.

Regardless, there is a reason that many of us use a 5d2 that costs a 1/10th of  the gizmos we put on and around it.  They can change the camera in a year (probably will) but the investment in lenses, mounts, cradles, xlr jacks, lavs, heads etc. are still viable.  (in the case of the 5d2 this holds true for still or motion work).

I have a lot of cameras in every format and if I could bundle them all up and sell them for even 1/4 of what I paid retail I'd sell them and buy 4 more 5d2's because they cover so much territory.

IMO

BC
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pschefz on July 17, 2010, 08:18:10 PM
Quote from: feppe
So you want to pay 3k for a 20k camera? What else do you want; mermaids?

This kind of mentality is exactly the reason why unemployment in the western world is increasing.

part of the problem is that the difference between a 3 and 20k camera is really only the number of units sold....canon has ( over the years) put so much more r&d into the 5dii but can sell it for so much less....they can even sell it for cost and make money on lenses....red can't do that....

if someone would try to make a competitor for the iphone4 today, they would not come close and they would still have to charge 10x more and still loose money....

just because something is 5x more expensive does not mean it is even 2x better....

an example...after doing research and trying several solutions ( and after having owned broncolor and Hensel units) for portable flash power, I finally gave in and got (oh my god) Paul bluff vagabond iis for my profoto d1 s.....now profoto comes out with the bat pac....the difference? the profoto is all black and costs 4x as much....and has worse customer service and warranty.....seriously....I even heard from somebody who actually used them that the recycle is slower with the profoto....

i have heard a lot of dps mentioning that one of the reasons everybody jumped on the red was that it was the first affordable system....everything in the movie world is completely crazy priced.....go to B&H and look for monitors.....you can get the highest end 30" graphics screen for less then some dedicated 7" LCD camera screens....

the price of the camera really does not mean anything anymore.....does not mean you can't enjoy a more expensive camera or that there are certain features that simply aren't found on cheaper cameras.....and if you really want or need that, you have to pay the price no matter what it is....
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 17, 2010, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: pschefz
if someone would try to make a competitor for the iphone4 today, they would not come close and they would still have to charge 10x more and still loose money....

Uhh what? iPhone has less than quarter of smart phone market share, and Android is closing in on that fast - and was launched after iPhone. Android phones with much better feature sets than any iPhone cost less, and I'm positive HTC et al don't lose money on them.

...
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 18, 2010, 05:04:04 AM
Quote from: pschefz
the price of the camera really does not mean anything anymore.....does not mean you can't enjoy a more expensive camera or that there are certain features that simply aren't found on cheaper cameras.....and if you really want or need that, you have to pay the price no matter what it is....


I have a gut feeling that you are probably right.

Pricing in photography has always had a base that consists of part reality, part myth and all the chutzpah you can muster.

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 19, 2010, 06:40:47 AM
Quote from: feppe
So you want to pay 3k for a 20k camera? What else do you want; mermaids?

This kind of mentality is exactly the reason why unemployment in the western world is increasing.
More complete nonsense. Try reading all the words in a post before replying.
I wrote that if you can only afford a £3k camera, you won't be buying a £20k camera [that may be only very slightly better].
So you do not really have a free choice in what to buy, as people normally buy what they can afford. So you do not get to 'vote' with your wallet as voting implies a free choice.

As it happens, RED upset the apple cart and changed things, because you can buy a RED for the cost of renting the cameras it rivals in quality. The knock on effect is that £3k will now buy you a camera that is much better in many ways than 'professional' broadcast video cameras costing £20k.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 19, 2010, 06:52:31 AM
Quote from: bcooter
A $20,000 camera should be worth $20,000.
They simply used to cost £20k, not be worth £20k. As there was no other option, not because they were vastly better.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 19, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: jjj
More complete nonsense. Try reading all the words in a post before replying.
I wrote that if you can only afford a £3k camera, you won't be buying a £20k camera [that may be only very slightly better].
So you do not really have a free choice in what to buy, as people normally buy what they can afford. So you do not get to 'vote' with your wallet as voting implies a free choice.

My reading comprehension is fine, but the snippet above as well as your response to bcooter show that you and I have fundamental philosophical and political differences in how we view economic value and pricing, which is beyond the topics of this forum, so I'm done here.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 19, 2010, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: jjj
Canon have used CMOS chips for a long time actually. Since 2000 IIRC.  So that argument doesn't work.
True; Canon as for some reason a bit slow to offer Live View/video mode, not doing so until Olympus and Panasonic launched Live View and also coming slightly after the Nikon D90 with video. I suppose that support for video output (including Live View) requires some modification of the sensor and/or support chips, and Canon did not bother with the cost of that until the competition did ... that competition coming from other brands of consumer level DSLRs, not RED cameras, with which DSLR video model do not really compete anyway ... special purpose usage of the 5DII notwithstanding in one episode of one TV show notwithstanding.

P. S. As an aside, DSLR sensors needed to get to about 12MP before even 720 line HD was viable, and to about 15MP before 1080 line HD has any significant advantage of 720 line, the way DSLR's do down-ressing.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pschefz on July 19, 2010, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: feppe
Uhh what? iPhone has less than quarter of smart phone market share, and Android is closing in on that fast - and was launched after iPhone. Android phones with much better feature sets than any iPhone cost less, and I'm positive HTC et al don't lose money on them.

...

not sure which MUCH better features you are talking about but regardless, either you missed the point or I failed to make my point....
both htc and google have put enourmous amounts of time and resources into their phones which is why they provide great competition ( or even a superior product in your opinion)... the are not newcomers by any means....
so they would be the nikon to canon or something similar......red comes out of nowhere and started with 0 which surely helped them in some aspects but still makes competing with companies like canon, Sony or panasonic very difficult.....

it seems to me the only reason red can compete and is in the position they are in, is that canon, Sony and all others simply did not realize the need for this kind of product.....the 5 dii is the perfect example....if canon would have dreamed about this camera being used to shoot entire tv episodes, they would have done things differently.....

but none of the big ones are sleeping and we are seeing so much stuff coming out right now that I am not sure red will be able to sustain the momentum.....

and of course price is a huge consideration these days ( always has been)....

I can tell you from talking to DPs that they have all used the red, nobody has anything bad to say ( other then the same thing still guys say about it that the raw image out of the camera looks like crap but can be tweaked much more then all others) but they are all using canons now (unless they are shooting film) because they feel that that is where things will be in the near future anyway....

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 19, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
Quote from: pschefz
it seems to me the only reason red can compete and is in the position they are in, is that canon, Sony and all others simply did not realize the need for this kind of product.....the 5 dii is the perfect example....if canon would have dreamed about this camera being used to shoot entire tv episodes, they would have done things differently.....

I'm convinced the bigger reason Canon or Sony didn't produce the product earlier is because they were protecting their high-margin pro motion camera lines. Red entering the scene forced them to start offering half-assed products in the form of 5D2, 7D and the Sony SXFZTZXQ-100* or whatever the NEX motion camera is.

Quite shockingly it seems that Panasonic is the one with the most serious offering in the pipeline with the MFT motion camera coming this fall. Shocking because they have the biggest stake in high-end motion cameras. Perhaps they hope the budding cinematographers will graduate later to the full-sized ones, or maybe they are out there to really disrupt the market place, and carve share in a market which really didn't exist just three years ago.

I'm very curious to see what Photokina brings. I'm sure Canon will answer with a proper motion camera or two positioned squarely against the Sony and Panny, or perhaps slightly upscale.

In any case, we the customers win.

* who comes up with these names?
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 19, 2010, 07:22:12 PM
Quote from: feppe
My reading comprehension is fine,
No it isn't. You read my posts to mean something completely different to what I had actually written.

 
Quote
but the snippet above as well as your response to bcooter show that you and I have fundamental philosophical and political differences in how we view economic value and pricing, which is beyond the topics of this forum, so I'm done here.
How could you even tell if my philosophy is different when you misread my posts so fundamentally?

Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 19, 2010, 08:32:14 PM
Quote from: BJL
True; Canon as for some reason a bit slow to offer Live View/video mode, not doing so until Olympus and Panasonic launched Live View and also coming slightly after the Nikon D90 with video. I suppose that support for video output (including Live View) requires some modification of the sensor and/or support chips, and Canon did not bother with the cost of that until the competition did ... that competition coming from other brands of consumer level DSLRs, not RED cameras, with which DSLR video model do not really compete anyway ... special purpose usage of the 5DII notwithstanding in one episode of one TV show notwithstanding.
Canon got quite lazy as their cameras were so much better than the competition, in fact there wasn't any for many years if you wanted FF and god high ISO images. So it seemed like Canon coasted for a while until Nikon got their act together and then Olympus/Panasonic also started making inroads. And then there was RED as well.

DSLRs have been used on far more than just a single episode of House. I just watched a beautifully shot BBC Drama last week which was shot on REDs and 7Ds. The Canon kit and REDs are certainly in competition as they both produce amazing images, compared to traditional HD video, particularly in low lighting. RED being better as it shoots RAW, but RAW processing is still a puzzle to many film makers, who are used to a finished [JPEG equivalent] product, which cannot be tweaked as much as RAW files.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 19, 2010, 08:49:51 PM
Quote from: feppe
I'm convinced the bigger reason Canon or Sony didn't produce the product earlier is because they were protecting their high-margin pro motion camera lines. Red entering the scene forced them to start offering half-assed products in the form of 5D2, 7D and the Sony SXFZTZXQ-100* or whatever the NEX motion camera is.
Absolutely.

Quote
Quite shockingly it seems that Panasonic is the one with the most serious offering in the pipeline with the MFT motion camera coming this fall. Shocking because they have the biggest stake in high-end motion cameras. Perhaps they hope the budding cinematographers will graduate later to the full-sized ones, or maybe they are out there to really disrupt the market place, and carve share in a market which really didn't exist just three years ago.
There is potentially more money to be made by selling to the non-movie industry market as it is so much bigger and economies of scale make it cheaper to produce the goods. Particularly as the Pro film market don't buy cameras, they rent them, so not the biggest market if it's rental houses that are your main customers.
Also Panasonic don't make high end movie kit, broadcast or ENG kit yes. RED's rivals in the movie market are companies like Panavison, Arri, Dalsa and Silicon Imaging.

Quote
* who comes up with these names?
Idiots.
But at least they are equally awful in every market with little chance of it meaning something rude in Albanian or Hindi.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: pschefz on July 20, 2010, 12:01:48 AM
Quote from: feppe
I'm convinced the bigger reason Canon or Sony didn't produce the product earlier is because they were protecting their high-margin pro motion camera lines. Red entering the scene forced them to start offering half-assed products in the form of 5D2, 7D and the Sony SXFZTZXQ-100* or whatever the NEX motion camera is.

Quite shockingly it seems that Panasonic is the one with the most serious offering in the pipeline with the MFT motion camera coming this fall. Shocking because they have the biggest stake in high-end motion cameras. Perhaps they hope the budding cinematographers will graduate later to the full-sized ones, or maybe they are out there to really disrupt the market place, and carve share in a market which really didn't exist just three years ago.

I'm very curious to see what Photokina brings. I'm sure Canon will answer with a proper motion camera or two positioned squarely against the Sony and Panny, or perhaps slightly upscale.

In any case, we the customers win.

* who comes up with these names?

I think the 7d is much less half assed then the 5dii was when it came out.....and it comes down to the same....how many of units of the pro motion lines did they sell? I doubt the margins were that high....with the 7d they don't have to be high....and they still make way more money with them....and the borders are blurred anyway since the motion pros shoot with 7ds....

the Sony camera does not look half assed at all to me.....3 years ago people would have signed on for 10x as much for less features....

there won't be many more 20000$ cameras....
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on July 20, 2010, 03:40:41 AM
Quote from: pschefz
the Sony camera does not look half assed at all to me.....3 years ago people would have signed on for 10x as much for less features....

there won't be many more 20000$ cameras....
It also shoot in Progressive mode. It saves it in interlaced mode, but on the editing software it will shows as progressive.

IMO at 1100$ (excluding the lens) is almost a disposable camera.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 20, 2010, 04:00:17 AM
Quote from: jjj
But at least they are equally awful in every market with little chance of it meaning something rude in Albanian or Hindi.



Like the Pajero vehicle which raises amused smiles everywhere they speak Spanish.

I once used to dream of owning a yacht called Tumescent. The attraction was the name on the side of the tender.

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: rethmeier on July 20, 2010, 04:48:00 AM
Pajero = little wanker?

Rob C I like your style,
maybe we have something in common after all.
Cheers,
Willem
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 20, 2010, 06:45:19 AM
Quote from: jjj
Also Panasonic don't make high end movie kit, broadcast or ENG kit yes. RED's rivals in the movie market are companies like Panavison, Arri, Dalsa and Silicon Imaging.
Yes; those plus Sony stuff like the F35 (though some of the Sony stuff is joint with Panavision).

These cinematic class digital cameras are what RED is competing with, and the responses to that so far are less expensive professional gear announced at NAB 2010; the Sony S35 and the ARRI Alexa.


I will consider video DSLR's as significant competitive response to RED cameras only when one is adopted as the standard camera for a TV series or for a commercial movie production. And I will never consider the first video DSLR, the Nikon D90, as either capable of or intended to compete with RED!

P.S. The use of 7Ds along side the far more expensive and bulky RED's suggests that the 7D does not replace the RED, but complements it for some tasks. And that is not the greater extremes of shallow DOF as with Dr. House's 5DII, so I would guess compactness made the DSLR more convenient for some hand-help work in tight locations.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: BJL on July 20, 2010, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: feppe
I'm convinced the bigger reason Canon or Sony didn't produce the product earlier is because they were protecting their high-margin pro motion camera lines. Red entering the scene forced them to start offering half-assed products in the form of 5D2, 7D and the Sony SXFZTZXQ-100* or whatever the NEX motion camera is.
I still do not see how video in DSLRs are a response to digital cine-cameras like the RED One and Epic; maybe the 2/3" RED Scarlet is more relevant.  When the RED cine-cameras arrived, the main DSLR maker that they were competing with was Sony, by competing with cameras like the Super 35mm format Sony CineAlta F35; maybe some high end 2/3" stuff from Panasonic too, but not Canon's 1/3" camcorders (for TV news, not movies) and certainly not Nikon. Yet Sony, most affected by RED, still does not offer video in any DSLR, and its design decisions make all NEX cameras including the VG100 camcorder very unsuited to compete against RED. So Sony's only effective response so far is the forthcoming CineAlta S35. Ironically it was Nikon, with no camcorder business at all, that was the first DSLR maker to add video, in the D90, and Canon was second, while being second least affected by RED competition.

The pattern of release of "more affordable large sensor digital video" suggests that if Sony, Canon and Panasonic have been protecting anything by previously omitting video from DSLR's, it was their consumer level camcorder product lines, not the professional gear that RED competes with. And it was perhaps Nikon and Panasonic (whose 4/3" format video intentions were probably signaled to the industry by its introduction of Live View in DSLRs) who forced a reaction from Canon and Sony.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 20, 2010, 11:30:49 AM
Quote from: BJL
The use of 7Ds along side the far more expensive and bulky RED's suggests that the 7D does not replace the RED, but complements it for some tasks.
As always your tools add to your creative palette.

Quote
And that is not the greater extremes of shallow DOF as with Dr. House's 5DII, so I would guess compactness made the DSLR more convenient for some hand-help work in tight locations.
The 5DII's main advantage for the House episode that used 5DIIs was for being able to get into very tight spots. Though shallow DoF was also a consideration.
BTW, the BBC programme I saw that apparently used REDs and 7Ds was 'The Silence' and featured lots of extremely shallow DoF. Very good sound design too.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 20, 2010, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: Rob C
Like the Pajero vehicle which raises amused smiles everywhere they speak Spanish.
Exactly!
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 20, 2010, 12:22:01 PM
Quote from: pschefz
I can tell you from talking to DPs that they have all used the red, nobody has anything bad to say ( other then the same thing still guys say about it that the raw image out of the camera looks like crap but can be tweaked much more then all others) but they are all using canons now (unless they are shooting film) because they feel that that is where things will be in the near future anyway....
I have heard complaints about the RED and reliability. It can crash and a DoP I was chatting to a few days back said the one they were using on a 5 day shoot died.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on July 20, 2010, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: BJL
I still do not see how video in DSLRs are a response to digital cine-cameras like the RED One and Epic; maybe the 2/3" RED Scarlet is more relevant.  When the RED cine-cameras arrived, the main DSLR maker that they were competing with was Sony, by competing with cameras like the Super 35mm format Sony CineAlta F35; maybe some high end 2/3" stuff from Panasonic too, but not Canon's 1/3" camcorders (for TV news, not movies) and certainly not Nikon. Yet Sony, most affected by RED, still does not offer video in any DSLR, and its design decisions make all NEX cameras including the VG100 camcorder very unsuited to compete against RED. So Sony's only effective response so far is the forthcoming CineAlta S35. Ironically it was Nikon, with no camcorder business at all, that was the first DSLR maker to add video, in the D90, and Canon was second, while being second least affected by RED competition.

The pattern of release of "more affordable large sensor digital video" suggests that if Sony, Canon and Panasonic have been protecting anything by previously omitting video from DSLR's, it was their consumer level camcorder product lines, not the professional gear that RED competes with. And it was perhaps Nikon and Panasonic (whose 4/3" format video intentions were probably signaled to the industry by its introduction of Live View in DSLRs) who forced a reaction from Canon and Sony.

I wasn't referring to cine cameras - I know there are a few feature films in development to be shot at least in part with DSLRs, but I doubt anyone regards them as a serious competition to real cine cameras in their current form.

The fact that Nikon was the first still camera maker to offer video is not ironic: they had the least to lose since they didn't have to worry about cannibalization. It only reinforces my thesis that Canon was dragged kicking and screaming to the motion DSLR market only when Nikon and RED (Scarlet) released or announced their cameras, and threatened Canon's video camera market. My understanding is that video guys have been begging for something like the Scarlet for years, so Canon knew they couldn't just ignore the threat. Panny and Sony entering the fray must have caused some quite interesting discussions about turf between Canon's still, video and cine product line execs

Agree completely with the 2nd para.

For the record I agree with jjj's assessment that it is likely that selling hundreds of thousands of motion camera systems at less than $10k per pop is likely more profitable than selling a few hundred (?) at $100k+ Having said that, taking that risk in the current economy takes brass balls especially when it requires cannibalization, and at the moment only RED and Panasonic appear to have (or are about) wholeheartedly enter the market with a non-crippled fully featured motion camera designed for the purpose.

That is until Photokina, perhaps.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on July 20, 2010, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: jjj
I have heard complaints about the RED and reliability. It can crash and a DoP I was chatting to a few days back said the one they were using on a 5 day shoot died.
Some DoP states that the RED is significantly impacted by heat, when shooting outside on hot places.
Normally Arri cameras are not.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: TMARK on July 23, 2010, 12:53:54 AM
Quote from: ziocan
Some DoP states that the RED is significantly impacted by heat, when shooting outside on hot places.
Normally Arri cameras are not.

Less the cam and more the accessories get a little flakey, at least in the 100+F its been the last few months.  We put an umbrella over the cam which cooled it off, but was annoying to work under.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: TMARK on July 23, 2010, 12:55:02 AM
Quote from: jjj
I have heard complaints about the RED and reliability. It can crash and a DoP I was chatting to a few days back said the one they were using on a 5 day shoot died.

Maybe they had a crappy one from a rental pool.  No major problems to report over the last two years or so.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: bcooter on July 23, 2010, 03:09:35 AM
Quote from: TMARK
Maybe they had a crappy one from a rental pool.  No major problems to report over the last two years or so.


T,

Do you have the M or MX sensor?  If so, just guess but what is the highest iso you can achieve with either sensor?

Have you pulled stills from the actual footage and if so have they gone through post production and been published?

I hear from a lot of people about the skin tones on the RED.  In fact Arri mentions they have great skintones for their new camera, which I guess is a sales tool against RED.  What is your experience with skin tones?

Thx.

BC
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 23, 2010, 03:15:21 AM
The info I get out of Canon is that the MAJORITY of 5DII sales over here are for video use. The 7D has not seen such an enthusiastic acceptance from the video crowd. As the model is now far from new, this means The 5DII is producing commercially useful video footage.

One thing I've heard is that people are simply cranking up the ISO on the 5DII and not lighting anymore in any significant way. This is going to annoy the hell out of RED and the renters.

Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 23, 2010, 06:08:42 AM
Quote from: TMARK
Maybe they had a crappy one from a rental pool.  No major problems to report over the last two years or so.
Just because you have used a item that has worked without issues, does not mean all other items the same also work.
Usually the argument used by idiot Macolytes. "Mine's never had any problems" to prove it must be true that they all just work.
REDs are still a bit beta-ish so problems are not exactly unlikely.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 23, 2010, 11:55:42 AM
Quote from: rethmeier
Pajero = little wanker?

Rob C I like your style,
maybe we have something in common after all.
Cheers,
Willem



Well, we are both photographers, so that's always a good sign! ;-)

I enjoyed a trip through your website just now, and I have to say that as I get older I find the sort of stuff you and others do here quite a bit more interesting than I use to do. I think it is all about pace. Was a time that I really believed fast and furious gave me better results than the obvious alternative, and maybe in that genre I was right. Nonetheless, there is a growing realisation in my mind about the attractions of the calmer, more studied approach that architecture must demand: maybe a good shot from that method gives even more satisfaction than the rapid fire of some model shoots.

However, I guess that in the end, both genres suffer from the same drawback: you can only be as good as what's in front of the camera.

Looking through your work I am struck with the thought that the ambient temperatures in Sydney and Mallorca must be around the same. However, I see a distinctly different approach to handling that temperature range, though I guess the problems of eucalyptus trees are about equal.

Here, there is great emphasis on shutters to create inner darkness in summer (to keep things cool) and protect the glass from rain and gales in winter. In your pics I see no such things, and I am led to wonder about how folks keep out the sun. Not only is sunshine and heat a damned uncomfortable combination if you can't escape it, but it also kills fabrics and colours; a hell of an experience to live indoors but outside at the same time! What do you all do down there in the south, are all those huge panes protected by rolling blinds both inside and out? I am thinking in particular of the house at Pearl Beach. I hate air-con though I do have it in what was once an office-cum-darkroom and is now just office. And what about privacy?

It's obvious enough that there is an unlimited supply of money available to the owners, and I bet Mrs Owner never has actually to clean any glass wall... I have my family coming out tomorrow for a week or so and I had to clean the french windows I have here; the last time I used no soap and only vinegar-laced water that cuts the cal... this time, not able to face the thought of all that mess dripping onto the carpet, I used those bottles of stuff you spray and wipe. Probably a mistake: it creates a film that's almost impossible to wipe away and is just as tiring as water would have been and not as good.

Must be a moral somewhere.

Ciao

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: TMARK on July 23, 2010, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: jjj
Just because you have used a item that has worked without issues, does not mean all other items the same also work.
Usually the argument used by idiot Macolytes. "Mine's never had any problems" to prove it must be true that they all just work.
REDs are still a bit beta-ish so problems are not exactly unlikely.

I said my Red works, not all Reds work.  People who went to college call that a post hoc falacy.  Rentals often have more problems.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  

And yes, my Macs just work.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: TMARK on July 23, 2010, 10:32:50 PM
BC,

M sensor.  We were in line for M-X, then we lost our place, now back on the horse.  This was our fault.  By "our" I mean my partner who has physical custody.

I'm comfy with 800, better at 640 or 500.  I like to over expose by a stop.  I thought the M-X we tested was really nice up to 1250/1600.  The MX really is much better than the M.

Funny you should ask about frame pulls being printed, as I was just bitching about this yesterday:  No, nothing printed on a web press.  Lots of web stills, but the reality is for print, clients choose the stills shot with stills cameras, be it 4x5, M8, 1ds3 or D3x.  

As to skin tones, its still a digital camera, so lighting and grading is really important.  The Red M sensor likes unfiltered tungsten sources best, at least our Red does.  Skin has a film like sharpness to it, sharp but not PHASE 3.7 sharp. The files are just pretty.

I like the skin tones from the Sony ex3 the best, as long as the scene is lit.  Really amazing stuff. Looks like A900 files after being retouched.

As an aside, I'm starting to really, really like the 7D and 5D2.  We block scenes and shoot it with the Red or on Kodak and then we do a number of takes where I shoot it with the the 5D or 7D. Just a different response from the actors, they are both more and less conscious of the camera, it takes them out of their comfort zone, as they are being filmed from different angles than from rehearsal and you can get rather close.  Its really great, even if only to get a better performance out  the actors.

I've been absent from the web for a while, its been really nice.  When I checked in here recently I found the same measurbating BS and personality disorder windbags that made me pack my bags.  I realized the less I looked at this forum the less I care about gear.  Its liberating.

T


Quote from: bcooter
T,

Do you have the M or MX sensor?  If so, just guess but what is the highest iso you can achieve with either sensor?

Have you pulled stills from the actual footage and if so have they gone through post production and been published?

I hear from a lot of people about the skin tones on the RED.  In fact Arri mentions they have great skintones for their new camera, which I guess is a sales tool against RED.  What is your experience with skin tones?

Thx.

BC
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 24, 2010, 01:33:42 AM
Quote from: TMARK
I said my Red works, not all Reds work.  People who went to college call that a post hoc falacy.  Rentals often have more problems.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  

And yes, my Macs just work.

TMARK,

I always wondered what that common mode of reasoning was called. My name for it would have been false induction.

I just found out and am very surprised by the fact that there are those who would catalogue  fallacies - here in France they say that the only human attribute which aspires to the infinite is idiocy.

And here is the definition of the post hoc fallacy in the idiotic-tionary. I'm not quite convinced it is the right label. And yes, I think you are right, not to care about the label is liberating, so maybe we should not inflict such teachings upon the young.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html)


Edmund
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: fredjeang on July 24, 2010, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: TMARK
I've been absent from the web for a while, its been really nice.  When I checked in here recently I found the same measurbating BS and personality disorder windbags that made me pack my bags.  I realized the less I looked at this forum the less I care about gear.  Its liberating.
T
I'm experimenting exactly the same.

Lu-La is a great forum, but it is a pitty that it is going more and more about gear stuff and brands addiction, not only about gear techs but about gear A against gear B.

In the end I realise more and more that the only motivation for many is just winning with arguments or convince themselves and the others about how great the brand they work with is.
But very little real relevant info emerge from these arguments because most are empty and generally not made to inform but to speculate and win a semantic battle.

I'm completly amazed to see people bringing photography to the same blind support we see in political meeting. Nikon adulation, Canon adulation, DxO addiction, MF vs 35...We are at this teenage level of
consciousness too many times and I've been falling in that gear trap more than once I admit. It is addictive in some ways.

The only "collective" that seem to be free of battle is the LF users. They might be seen as a wired little outdated comité completly cutted from Live-view land and DR summits so they rest in peace, in a little forum's corner.

In the end you nearly beleive all that s....t really matters but when you stop for awhile things just come back at the place they should be.

At least, the great benefit of the forums is after such an indigestion of gear, curves preocupations and scientific speculations, once you vomite them all, you feel cured and liberated.

Gear paranoia is catching the first page cover, fortunatly when you open the pages and search there is a lot more real interesting stuff here in many different sections.

Fred.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: bcooter on July 24, 2010, 04:15:35 AM
T,

I haven't shot the RED yet, mean to, put one on hold, then just get on with the 5d/7d and it works either on the sticks or shoulder mount/hand held.  

A lot of the reason is every time I think I'll shoot the RED, the project is held to the last minute, then we're off and running with no time to go through another learning curve.  

Regardless, what I'm using is working and as you know motion is such a different look than stills.  What looks kind of soft and blurred in a motion still looks great once it's moving.

I'm all for the tungsten part, on any digital camera and have used tungsten since the 1ds one.  I've heard, read seen the stuff about the blue channel and all those technical chart comparisons,  but pretty is pretty and I think digital looks a lot less digital with tungsten than any other source, still or motion, but as you say and I've always believed, the camera is not THAT important.  

Yes these forums do seem to repeat themselves and really since the last Photokina, there hasn't been much to talk about that is new and ground breaking, except the economics of our industry (which nobody talks about in public) and probably how the 5d has supplanted 75% of still and motion work as the go to camera, at least if you shoot people.

I think a lot of the gear talk comparison comes from the fact that there are a lot of dealers and a few people connected to dealers that use every thread possible as a segway into selling their product.   I think if Michael could charge just $10 for every posted signature that offers 10% off some software or mentions some special/seminar/sales presentation,  he probably could buy another new place in Mexico.

If I wrote that last line on one of the Leica, Phase, Nikon threads there would be two dozen reprisals, but up here in this part of the section the dealers and dealer's friends seem to stay away.  I guess there is nothing to sell in the pro business discussion.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

BC



Quote from: TMARK
BC,

M sensor.  We were in line for M-X, then we lost our place, now back on the horse.  This was our fault.  By "our" I mean my partner who has physical custody.

I'm comfy with 800, better at 640 or 500.  I like to over expose by a stop.  I thought the M-X we tested was really nice up to 1250/1600.  The MX really is much better than the M.

Funny you should ask about frame pulls being printed, as I was just bitching about this yesterday:  No, nothing printed on a web press.  Lots of web stills, but the reality is for print, clients choose the stills shot with stills cameras, be it 4x5, M8, 1ds3 or D3x.  

As to skin tones, its still a digital camera, so lighting and grading is really important.  The Red M sensor likes unfiltered tungsten sources best, at least our Red does.  Skin has a film like sharpness to it, sharp but not PHASE 3.7 sharp. The files are just pretty.

I like the skin tones from the Sony ex3 the best, as long as the scene is lit.  Really amazing stuff. Looks like A900 files after being retouched.

As an aside, I'm starting to really, really like the 7D and 5D2.  We block scenes and shoot it with the Red or on Kodak and then we do a number of takes where I shoot it with the the 5D or 7D. Just a different response from the actors, they are both more and less conscious of the camera, it takes them out of their comfort zone, as they are being filmed from different angles than from rehearsal and you can get rather close.  Its really great, even if only to get a better performance out  the actors.

I've been absent from the web for a while, its been really nice.  When I checked in here recently I found the same measurbating BS and personality disorder windbags that made me pack my bags.  I realized the less I looked at this forum the less I care about gear.  Its liberating.

T
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 24, 2010, 04:44:44 AM
Quote from: TMARK
I've been absent from the web for a while, its been really nice.  When I checked in here recently I found the same measurbating BS and personality disorder windbags that made me pack my bags.  I realized the less I looked at this forum the less I care about gear.  Its liberating.

T



Well, I hope you do not abandon the ship. It isn't really sinking yet - more that it's sailing through a difficult time because of the many changes in photographic technology both with cameras and ways of getting to the end result which isn't even always a photograph anymore, in the commonly understood meaning of photo as print!

I suppose this will continue until the time when the major players have either fallen or become rulers, much as when in the days of film we had a similar struggle and brand shake-out amongst makers but without the nonsensical claims being made by fans on a world-wide platform. Of course, without the internet these claims could never be aired even today, outwith the camera clubs which we could all avoid now and mainly did then.

For myself, the attraction of LuLa is twofold: it gives me access and communication with other minds that fascinate me; it allows pretty instant access to generous help when it is needed. For example, I would still be struggling away on my own fighting the monitor's colours and a website of my own would have remained a dream.

Underscoring all of that, valuable as it is, lie the posts from today's pros that really do make me keep alive my interest in the pro world, even though it has probably gone for good from my life. At the same time, I have discovered sites belonging to others here who are in no way professionals but still produce beautiful work and have a huge enthusiasm for the medium. All of that helps the individual retain his perspective and love for the craft.

Frankly, there is nowhere else that I've found that brings so much to me so easily. But, it all depends on the quality of the posts or topics into which I dip the tentative toe. Some I have to respond to at once whilst others never get a second reading.

Regrets? Sure, it would be nice to see and read even more from the top guns, but that's asking for a lot, mainly of what they have least: their time!

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: jjj on July 24, 2010, 05:43:09 AM
Quote from: TMARK
Funny you should ask about frame pulls being printed, as I was just bitching about this yesterday:  No, nothing printed on a web press.  Lots of web stills, but the reality is for print, clients choose the stills shot with stills cameras, be it 4x5, M8, 1ds3 or D3x.
No matter how good the moving capture, you still need a stills camera for two reason.  High quality motion capture is rarely high quality when viewed as a single frame, as it will often look crap due to low shutter speeds combined with movement of subject/camera. Secondly setups that are shot to edit together into a scene, when seen individually may not be that interesting as a still, so to capture a scene as a still image you may need to conflate the elements to a coherent whole.

The [sort of] converse also applies, as being able to create a good still image does not mean you can tell a story through moving images. Nearly all 'films' I see made by photographers look like a slideshow of nice shots that happen to be moving. There is no sense of story.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: fredjeang on July 24, 2010, 06:32:25 AM
Quote from: KLaban
Photography forums...I'm afraid I'm running out of energy, enthusiasm and above all patience.

My passion for image making thankfully remains undiminished.
Yep.

What we need are more profund and fascinating threads. Many Lu-La members are able to bring that new air, unfortunatly when such topics show-up from time to time
they are not popular and almost interest nobody.

But just check the most visited and active topics, a part from the interesting pro works, you notice that what really run the forums are the "zero noise methods, who has the best DR, the fastest shutter-speed, the sensor size, the DxO reports and the cheapest bargains".  
Ironically as pointed BC, there is not really nothing ground-breaking or new in terms of gear for many times, despite of that fact, gear is the number one favorite topic. Not even gear sets in real world that could be interesting but gear for gear, for talking like men talk about sex all the time.
This forum has all the ingredients to recover the level it should be and I hope it will be so.

As I've learned enough so far that the human being never apreciate something free but only when he pays for it, and more the price is high more it is respected, maybe the BCooter's idea about making a toll for the vendors, or even asking every member a 10 euros/years to access the forum would probably be a good idea.

Then, Michael will buy an hotel in Mexico and Chris will finally drive his Sunseeker yacht in the Bahamas (and invite us for a nude shooting on the boat's roof of course  Frank D brings the models)

2 ice cubes in my Martini, thanks.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 24, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
Quote from: fredjeang
Yep.

probably be a good idea.

Then, Michael will buy an hotel in Mexico and Chris will finally drive his Sunseeker yacht in the Bahamas (and invite us for a nude shooting on the boat's roof of course  Frank D brings the models)

2 ice cubes in my Martini, thanks.



And for whom are the ice cubes, Fred?

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 24, 2010, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: KLaban
Photography forums...I'm afraid I'm running out of energy, enthusiasm and above all patience.

My passion for image making thankfully remains undiminished.




The thing about forums is that they all depend on what you bring to them - they are but the sum of the disparate parts. I suppose we all carry a responsibility to make them rock. Looked at like that, on the basis of "not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", I am sure they could be made to sing... I can't be made to sing, of course, not even a friggin' note, not once, not ever. My best songs are silently in my head, unless I forget. Or in the shower - the acoustics remind me of what I imagine Sun Studios were like in '54...

Or a Greek tragedy.

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: fredjeang on July 25, 2010, 05:11:25 AM
Quote from: Rob C
And for whom are the ice cubes, Fred?

Rob C
That is probably the best question someone asked me recently.

The cubes are from inside each one of us.

Cheers.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on July 25, 2010, 05:41:08 AM
Ok, here is what you can do when you can't stand the fashion crowd anymore: set up your kitchen table as a bee landing strip.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...hotography.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296515/Frozen-time-Incredibly-detailed-images-animals-captured-using-high-speed-photography.html)

Edmund



Quote from: fredjeang
Yep.

What we need are more profund and fascinating threads. Many Lu-La members are able to bring that new air, unfortunatly when such topics show-up from time to time
they are not popular and almost interest nobody.

But just check the most visited and active topics, a part from the interesting pro works, you notice that what really run the forums are the "zero noise methods, who has the best DR, the fastest shutter-speed, the sensor size, the DxO reports and the cheapest bargains".  
Ironically as pointed BC, there is not really nothing ground-breaking or new in terms of gear for many times, despite of that fact, gear is the number one favorite topic. Not even gear sets in real world that could be interesting but gear for gear, for talking like men talk about sex all the time.
This forum has all the ingredients to recover the level it should be and I hope it will be so.

As I've learned enough so far that the human being never apreciate something free but only when he pays for it, and more the price is high more it is respected, maybe the BCooter's idea about making a toll for the vendors, or even asking every member a 10 euros/years to access the forum would probably be a good idea.

Then, Michael will buy an hotel in Mexico and Chris will finally drive his Sunseeker yacht in the Bahamas (and invite us for a nude shooting on the boat's roof of course  Frank D brings the models)

2 ice cubes in my Martini, thanks.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Dansk on August 05, 2010, 05:01:27 PM

 I havent been around the boards much but I was following the RED pretty close for a while and as for what do i think now? Its more like a Leatherman tool vs a tool box full of proper tools. Although the Leatherman tool does a lot of things but it doesnt mean its the best at all of them. I think the RED is best suited as a movie system and not really ideal for stills for a multitude of reasons most of them simple practicality vs cost.

All said and done the cold hard fact is no one and I mean NO ONE can accurately predict the future or the trends that will come along with it.

So as far as i see "the (real) impact of RED cameras?"

Minimal at this point.

Also I only read a page or two as I just dont have the time to spare but I did catch Michaels comment about how he now feels an all in one camera is NOT the way to go. Just because a camera "can" do both does not mean its the best product to do either. I personally dont think the convergence of technologies makes a photographer a videographer or vice versa and I for one could care less if my DSLR shoots video just as Im sure most pro motion guys could care less if their rigs also shoot great stills. A neat nick nack but not altogether a "must have" or necessarily a feature that would make one camera system better than another pro camera be it still or motion.

Besides the one big thing I cant believe no one really talks about is cost???

Since when did James Cameron care if the cameras used on his shoots cost $3000 or $3,000,000??? When it comes to the pro market either which way video or stills the budgets are there to provide the necessary equipment for the job and no one really cares about the next Leatherman all in one tool. Most are quite comfortable with a tool box full of a selection of pliers and screwdrivers and knives etc etc. If someones on a budget and wants a decent all in one Im sure the G10/11 or similar offers plenty for them.

For me I'll still be buying Canon bodies for the foreseeable future


Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on August 05, 2010, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: Dansk
Since when did James Cameron care if the cameras used on his shoots cost $3000 or $3,000,000??? When it comes to the pro market either which way video or stills the budgets are there to provide the necessary equipment for the job and no one really cares about the next Leatherman all in one tool. Most are quite comfortable with a tool box full of a selection of pliers and screwdrivers and knives etc etc. If someones on a budget and wants a decent all in one Im sure the G10/11 or similar offers plenty for them.

Not sure how the man with #1 and #2 top grossing films of all time is at all relevant to the discussion. To put this into perspective, some of the most revered photographers shot with gear that would be considered sub-par by most amateurs these days.

There are a lot of wannabe pros who have been held back by the high barrier to entry due to the six or seven figure investment required in gear alone. Red levels the playing field to a certain extent.

I also find it fascinating how some pros on this board talk like money is not a problem and budgets are essentially unlimited. Perhaps some photographers really do make real money even in this economy...
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Dansk on August 05, 2010, 05:43:56 PM
Simply trying to make the point absurd in that given the choice by the pro market they tend to use whatever the best tools are for the job period. Cost or versatility are not the elements that swing the decisions concerning gear. Whatever the best tools for the job concerning budget may be, thats whats used. So there will certainly be a time and place where even someone as big as Cameron will LOVE the features of Red for motion and stills but its highly unlikely that this will be the required norm for him or many others.

In the end its about creativity and the ability to see your vision come to life whether its stills or motion this constant does not waver and no one cares how this is achieved as long as its at a quality level that meets expectation
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on August 06, 2010, 03:01:28 AM
In any case the biggest impact is not given by any of the equipment that we mentioned on all the posts of this thread.
They have little influence on the demand of motion images being more and more requested to us.
What have had the major impact is the lower cost of the millions of flat LCD and LED panels that are floating around the world and
the possibility of putting content trough an ever growing number of channels.
If you travel in Asia, they are practically everywhere and replacing printed display, posters and bill boards.
It also helps that in Asia the cost of running stuff of people who produce content (not only shooting, but creativity, editing and promoting the content) is much lower than any other place.
The other two continents are not there yet, but soon they will be.

Not mentioning ipad and alike devices, plus the broad band internet.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Rob C on August 06, 2010, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: ziocan
If you travel in Asia, they are practically everywhere and replacing printed display, posters and bill boards.
It also helps that in Asia the cost of running stuff of people who produce content (not only shooting, but creativity, editing and promoting the content) is much lower than any other place.
The other two continents are not there yet, but soon they will be.



If your thoughts are accurate, which they may well be, now seems a pretty good time to take up something else - at least, if you are under twenty-five or so.

Rob C
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Dansk on August 06, 2010, 03:15:19 PM
Quote
It also helps that in Asia the cost of running stuff of people who produce content (not only shooting, but creativity, editing and promoting the content) is much lower than any other place.

Maybe so but again that doesnt change the reality of the golden rule. Typically you get what you pay for and when it comes to photography or film making there has never been a more proven constant its not just about price.

There will always be those that want something better than the rest and be willing to pay for it... and pay HUGE.

Last time I checked film budgets were going UP not down and bringing in more profit not less.



Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on August 06, 2010, 11:43:22 PM
Quote from: Rob C
If your thoughts are accurate, which they may well be, now seems a pretty good time to take up something else - at least, if you are under twenty-five or so.

Rob C
Yes and not.
Unfortunately I was 25 long time ago, I do not know if I would take something else if a could though.
Maybe I would become a financial advisor or a fund manager. Never mind as I would perform, I will be still regarded as a master while ripping all my customer off.  ;-)

On my previous post, I did not phrase myself well. I was referring more at the low cost and the spreading of flat displays panels that will reach also in the west.

As for the costs of labor, it is changing a bit also in the western world where workers have to give up some of their older benefits on order to keep working and helping the companies being competitive against the Asian and South American ones, but it is also changing in the asian world, where workers have started to strike and demand better conditions a bit every where in Asia.

But there are some very bad habits in Asia: if we exclude Japan, in Asia the majority of companies do not value creativity as we do in the west.
In most of asian countries, intellectual property is an abstract concept and they tend to rip off most of the work made by western companies and artists.



Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: ziocan on August 07, 2010, 12:12:05 AM
Quote from: Dansk
Maybe so but again that doesnt change the reality of the golden rule. Typically you get what you pay for and when it comes to photography or film making there has never been a more proven constant its not just about price.

There will always be those that want something better than the rest and be willing to pay for it... and pay HUGE.

Last time I checked film budgets were going UP not down and bringing in more profit not less.

Maybe I did not explain myself properly or the fact that you took one phrase and put it out of context, made you think something different that what I meant.
my point was that if we are smart, we will be able to work more than we ever did, because  there is more demand for content.
all these new changes, are actually providing more demand for content and are generating more request for visual artists work.

I was mostly referring at the cost of post producing, editing and distributing content, which in Asia can be lower.
Samsung and LG and similars, also own the companies (or partially own) who distribute content on the LCD displays on many countries.
since costs are lower, it became possible to appeal clients to produce more.
More of this..... LCD panels allow to put much more content than printed space, where you could put one advertisement, now you can put 6 or 7 or more looping on a LCD display.
clients will pay less for that space, but there will be more demand for content to fill the space on those displays.
Then if the clients are ready to pay a lot more or a lot less, for the creator of the content, it is a different story that will vary depending on the persons involved.
there will always be clients ready to pay more for who they rate high. I'm not denying that. It was not even the point of my previous post.

It is true that you almost always get what you pay for, but it is also true that many task of the process of preparing the content for the viewer and distributing, have become much easier to be done and do not require geniuses.
As for quality, "unfortunately" in Asia they can deliver very good stuff in term of graphic design and quality. Those guys are ready to put more hours and are most of the time more meticulous than we are in the west.
Title: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Bonobo on August 10, 2010, 08:42:55 AM
Just saw this on Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5608522/camera-porn-red...ots-an-epic-s35 (http://gizmodo.com/5608522/camera-porn-red-scarlet-23-shoots-an-epic-s35)
Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Graham Mitchell on August 28, 2010, 09:58:35 AM
It would be fun to go back a few years and see who was predicting a complete Red revolution in the still photography market within 1-2 years (I won't name any names). Some were even planning to sell their existing cameras because they were so convinced that the Messiah was around the corner. Remember those days? Luckily that hasn't happened. If anything I am hearing less buzz about Red now than I did a year or two ago. The impact is still zero, from my point of view, though I expect it will change things to a limited extent within 5 years.
Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: michael on August 28, 2010, 10:51:24 AM
Don't confuse RED the company with RED the camera, and either with the Scarlet.

The RED One camera has been revolutionary in the commercial area. Toronto is a major production center for advertising, commercials and feature production. Whenever I see a location shoot going on I stop to see what they're shooting with, and nine times out of ten it's a RED One.

Visit a rental house and ask what they rent more than anything else, and they'll tell you the RED One. Speaking to some of the leading commercial stills photographers who are now also shooting video, and most will tell you they are using RED Ones.  This is the minimum that clients now accept.

The Scarlet is another matter. It was supposed to be THE convergence leader, but technical delays have lost them market leadership in this segment. Though Jannard is now promising to ship before the end of this year, we've heard that before – twice in fact.

There's no doubt that the Scarlet will ship eventually, maybe even within months, but it won't have the impact that it might have earlier. The major Japanese (and some European) companies now clearly see the video writing on the wall, and are prepared. Two years ago they weren't. The success of the Canon 5DMKII changed all that, and in a little while when the Panasonic AF100 ships the large sensor semi-pro camcorder will be a reality. (The Sony VG10 doesn't count in this league).

As for a single camera to shoot stills and video – well, we already have those, don't we? They do a great job with stills, and a passable job with video – even an excellent job with video in some restricted situations.

To coin a phrase – the future is already here.

Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: eronald on August 28, 2010, 11:56:15 AM
Yeah, what happened was that instead of RED coming in with a pro surprise and then selling to the prosumer crowd, RED has relegated itself to becoming the next 16mm Arriflex - not quite enough for big budget, but a huge seller to low-budget productions.  Which I guess is not bad for a new company.

Edmund
Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: feppe on August 28, 2010, 12:26:24 PM
Yeah, what happened was that instead of RED coming in with a pro surprise and then selling to the prosumer crowd, RED has relegated itself to becoming the next 16mm Arriflex - not quite enough for big budget, but a huge seller to low-budget productions.  Which I guess is not bad for a new company.

Uhh no. If by "big budget" you mean Avatar or Transformers, you're correct at least for now. But there are several movies with 9-figure budgets shot with Red cameras (http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/), and this is only the 1st generation of their cameras. Not sure about the exact budgets, but at least Gamer, Jumper, Green Zone, and Angels and Demons have budgets at around $100m, and have AAA talent attached to them. If that's not a testament to Red's full pro-credentials, nothing is.
Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: Graeme Nattress on August 28, 2010, 12:52:40 PM
Not least to mention Pirates Of the Caribbean 4 (in 3D) being shot on RED Ones at the moment. Gamer was shot fully on RED and was one of the earliest movies to do so, but Jumper, Green Zone, and Angels and Demons only had segments of sfx shots on RED. District 9 is probably one of the biggest movies shot on RED so far. El Secreto de Sus Ojos won the foreign movie Oscar. The Lovely Bones had sfx shots on RED.

Graeme
Title: Re: The (real) Impact of RED cameras
Post by: paul_jones on September 01, 2010, 04:36:10 PM
i was just on a 5 day TVC with two reds shooting stills for separate Advertisments.
looking at the files the red was producing, when the subject was "still" was amazing. i was wondering why they were hiring me. 12mp looks great (at low iso), and is big enough for many uses.
but the problem was that the red shoots motion, and everything thats worth using has motion blur. also, to get anything they used 60th of a second or slower at a grainy 400 iso, and this was with sets using multiple 10k hmi's. a trucks worth of lighting.
i was needing to shoot still with 1ds mk3 at 400-800iso at f1.6 -2.0 to get anything sharp.

so, taking stills of a red isn't really practical on anything that moves.

just on a note about the red, i had heard from crew who use the red, that its very unreliable. that was one of the reasons they had two of them on this ad (also so they can run through two angles at the same time, saving time). every day of shooting, there was a problem with either of the cameras. it would be an "overheat", and the camera would shut down, or one would need a reboot, and there even was a corrupt "sound file" (even though they didnt need this- as it was recorded else where) but this stalled the shoot 20minutes. 50 crew stalled for 20 minutes is a big cost.
but when the could, the opposite camera would take over while they sorted the one with the problem.

i asked the dop about these problems, and he said they were well know, but they compare the down time with film reloading, and weighs up the advantage of all the extra footage they can run (from two cameras ) without the worry of film use. But he said the biggest hassle with the red was that these problems are un-predictable, and always happen when theres some great takes of an actor, or when the sun is going down!

paul