I think we'll see a revolution in fashion shooting with people picking frames from hi-rez movies. Tethering as we know it is going to die.
Edmund
Edmund,
Next you'll be dreaming of flying cars and free energy.
I wouldn't hold your breath for a combined still and motion camera that every frame would work in both still and motion content.
Compared to the movie camera industry, still cameras, heck all still equipment is consumer priced.
There is this scream that a $35,000 Phase back is expensive (it is ), but in the cinema world $35,000 is just a semi fast zoom and prime lens.
Sure you can buy a RED for the same price, until you add fans, rails, boxes, basic stands and a decent fluid head and your into $80,000 before you ever strike a lamp, or mount a lens.
A 2k Arri is 80 grand just for a body and capture media for motion can be $20,000 just for a basic shoot.
We have a project in house that's motion and stills and the equipment we put into the room is about $380,000 and that's not a huge project.
In the cinema world, that's just scratching the surface.
So my point . . . If Pentax or phase or Hasselblad came out with a 8k camera that shot stills and motion at the same time I would be surprised, actually shocked, especially at the Pentax price of 10k.
For one the data collection would be overwhelming. Even with compression, 24 fps of a 50mpx compressed to 1/2 and run in a three minute session would be shocking.
Not including how hot a 50mpx camera would get pushing out that volume of data. A RED that runs for an hour is hot, real hot and you know to turn it off when you can, regardless of the fans.
How something like Panasonic's gh4 can push 200mbs out of that small package and not melt is probably a wonder of science and yes we've retouched video files into stills if everything falls right, like your shooting waist up and your willing to put many hours into post work,
but to think you just turn it on, set it at 2,000 iso, shoot all day and have stills and motion just isn't reasonable today.
We should be amazed that C-1 or Lightroom can take 2,000 raw files, debayer them make previews and allow for correction on a simple desktop or laptop computer, with a software suite that costs $300
When I put my first 4k red project into an 8 core desktop the first clip at 1/2 debayer took 6 hours to process out to 2k. Two hours later i bought two RED rockets and at $4,500 each.
Imagine if Phase one required a $4,500 graphic card to run c-1?
The difference between high end motion and high end stills is few client's would care if you shot with a d800, some acute heads a few softboxes and c stands, running to a laptop.
You can do the same with a phase back, Briese lights, Matthews rollers, and up the equipment price 30 fold, but most still clients wouldn't notice the difference as long as they got the look they wanted.
In motion setting up a gh3 (or Canon 1dc) on a small tripod and some 500 watt tungsten lights might produce a great look (if your careful) but for a high end motion project there would be some serious discussion on where the money went.
Then somebody has to view it. I have clients that can't view a 2k prorezz without restarting their I-macs, and that's at 4:2:2. I had one european agency ask for an uncompressed 3 minute video with produced at 2k 4:4:4 and yes we could conform it out but they never could view it.
Sure there are third party graphic cards, breakout boxes, ways to view high end motion, but how many print art directors working on a two year old I mac are going to have that equipment?
There may come a time where one camera does all, but i seriously doubt it. I don't think even one still camera can do it all, but as still photographers we're somewhat spoiled.
So $35,000 for a digital back seems like a lot, $10,000 for the Pentax seems like a bargain, a d800 seems like a miracle.
Now like Stefen, I think the phase $35,000 back is a huge bite into a photographer's budget, regardless of their billing, considering what everything in production costs today.
Also you need to tack on a new computer to run C1 7, so your really at $39,000 plus body and lenses and that is getting into high territory given the fact we all know that the electronic mantra is to up the mpx in 18 months time, especially when Nikon or Canon comes out with 40 mpx for $5,000.
Pentax could find an opening if they built a tethering suite and got more and a little less costly lenses out in the market, but Pentax seems to be a company that dribbles out information at a very slow rate.
I must admit I'm a little surprised that with adding cmos that none of the camera makers has offered a mirrorless solution, but maybe I'm dreaming of flying cars.
IMO
BC
Poll
5 (7.1%)
