Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Paul Sumi on November 13, 2008, 03:56:07 pm
-
Michael,
I found your article very compelling although at the prices quoted, I agree the game changing (at least in the beginning) will be on the professional level, not on the amateur field most of us play on. At this point, the cost for equivalent (still photography) capability versus traditional DSLRs is much too high for many of us. I share your hope that it scares the heck out of Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc, and makes them more responsive to us consumers.
Just to be clear, your speculation about the under $4000 complete 2/3" Scarlett is for the body with built-in lens, not with interchangeble len capability?
Best,
Paul
-
Seeing all of those "bits and pieces" reminds me of all of the "V" system "bits" that I have laying around. The more things change, etc.....
Steve
-
Well I'm sure they are technological marvels, but I don't see them competing on price with something like the 5D2 for those of use who are primarily stills photographers.
Pretty cool, but not quite playing the same game at the moment unless you have very deep pockets.
-
The geek in me is fascinated by the RED DMSC, but other than that, I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It's more expensive than the competition at every MP point, and much larger and heavier than the competition. Yes, it has movie mode, but by the time they finally deliver the DMSC, all the current big DSLR players will also have pro bodies with video. Maybe not video as good as provided by the RED camera, but certainly good enough for all but the highest end video producer. Really, how many stills photographers need better video than what they can get with the 5DII, or with what's coming in the near future.
Bottom line, the DMSC seems overpriced and overhyped. A niche product.
-
Really, how many stills photographers need better video than what they can get with the 5DII
How many photographers want RAW when JPEGs are available? The footage from the Canon and Nikons are simply moving versions of JPEGs and if you are used to RAW, going back to an inferior workflow will be a serious problem for many.
-
Ok so you have to spend $12,000 to get the FF 24mp model..
Let me know when it's in the same ball park as a 5d II ;-)
-
I love RED's disclaimer:
"Specifications and delivery dates subject to drastic changes"
While I admire their candor, it doesn't necessarily inspire great confidence. But we'll know soon enough what sees the light of day and what is vaporware.
However, even if I never buy a Scarlet Motion/Still camera, I hope that RED scares the bejezus out of Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al. This can only help accelerate the pace of innovation which will benefit us all.
Paul
-
Seeing all of those "bits and pieces" reminds me of all of the "V" system "bits" that I have laying around. The more things change, etc.....
Steve
On a slightly irreverant note, the photo of the Scarlet in Michael's article reminds me of the movie, Transformers. I keep waiting for it to morph into a killer robot
Paul
-
In lieu of the lean times for the competition, this is the last thing Canon, Nikon, and Sony need to see coming down the road. The business side of me says it's neat, but I need to keep shooting with my Mamiya, 1Ds, and 40D. The I want it side of me says that I must have one cause it's just way too cool. Show up at the local event with one of those beasts and you won't have to coax folks into smiling for the camera. The envy of all.
Maybe that's why I pickup up a used Canon FTBn, that relic gets more attention now then I remember when they were new. Folks visiting the studio see it on the table next to my Digitals and they always pick it up and admire it's solid build. My point is that RED cameras, despite the amazing tech inside, are works of art in their own right for a reason.
Some of you may or may not know it, but when Jim first worked on the RED video camera, he created such a ground swell that he was able to sell his first run of a cameras before they were even produced. Many shooters willingly handed him $1000 (towards the cost of purchase) to reserve a spot in line for the first units, and he delivered. The competition could only be envious of the kind of following.
So when Michael says Red will change the market, he's right.
-
Seeing all of those "bits and pieces" reminds me of all of the "V" system "bits" that I have laying around. The more things change, etc.....
That's exactly what I was thinking. Interchangeable lenses, bodies, backs, batteries, etc... everything fits together... kind of like a 21st century Hasselblad V camera system. I wonder if Hasselblad is listening?
Mike.
-
Might have some interest to MF shooters, but for everyone else, this is going to have 0 impact on Canon and Nikon. Plus, it's not very nice looking is it??
EVF only...hmmmm.
Maybe in 5 years red will be a challenge to the industry. I fail to see what is so gripping about it.
-
Barry,
Maybe because the type of photography that you do is not the type that's the target market for this system.
For those that want and need to shoot very high end (commercial movie) quality video as well as commercial stills, for those that need to shoot very high frame-rate hi-res stills in raw, and all the other things that Scarlet and Epic can do, this is a dream system. Sports and wildlife photographers, as but one example, are panting at the thought of 30 FPS raw and dual usability for stock stills as well as video.
As for its looks, well, all I can say is that this is not an amateur tool. It's a pro tool where form follows function. Cosmetics are secondary to functionality. What's the matter? Didn't you play with Transformers when you were a kid, or when your kids had them?
Michael
-
Red cameras have started popping up at some of the music videos I do stills on, seems with the lower budgets that they have at record companies these days that digital is taking over from film on price as much as everything else.
The DOP's I've asked about the Reds seem to love working with them as well, all of them have a dig that soon they wont need me..
Being one of the people that thought phones in cameras would never take off I try to keep any doubts I have about video and still cameras merging at bay..
-
I was under the impression that this Red, would challenge the high end Canon or Nikon's. I was obviously wrong on that one. I based that on the huge buzz about the 5d Mk II. I didn't expect a budget DSLR from them! Obviously ;-)
True, it's not aimed at me, but then it's not aimed at 98% of the rest of the photography market either. So it's appeal will be very limited to specialist shooters, not your average working photographer. Hence, I would suggest, for most, it's a bit of a let down really.
-
I think these things will revolutionize news photography, and probably wedding photography. Sports photographers are also an obvious target. Video seems to be playing a larger role these days, and this system appears to provide the best of both worlds. 4.9 MP at 120 fps or 13.8 MP at 30 fps would seem (as Michael so eloquently put it) a photographers wet dream. Last fall I switched from Canon to the D3 because of the AF tracking improvement I saw with the Nikon. If the RED AF system works well, I can’t imagine not buying one of these. I think they are fascinating.
-
Modern Pro dSLR's are much more than a sensor. I find it hard to believe that a new company (however well funded) can suddenly challenge manufacturers who have invested years of R&D for the refinement of things like AF, light metering, responsiveness, ergonomics etc.
So given this and the current pricing targets I can't see RED being in a position to chalenge the dSLRl camera companies in 99% of photographic niches. Not yet. However it will surely have them think hard about where they're going. The same cannot be said for the mid to high end Video equipment manufacturers and, most importantly for this forum, MF still back and camera manufacturers. RED must have them sweating by now.
-
...Not yet. However it will surely have them think hard about where they're going. The same cannot be said for the mid to high end Video equipment manufacturers and, most importantly for this forum, MF still back and camera manufacturers. RED must have them sweating by now.
That's the real issue. They won't force me to drop my current gear (not yet), but they will obviously change how we perceive gear in the future. Being both a videographer and photographer, it's only natural that the two disciplines should mix. We already use HD frame grabs for web based and small print images. I have often thought of when will video resolution be enough to match the quality I get from my DSLRs. RED is heading that direction, modularity is key, and trust me, I and many other multi-disciplinary shooters will welcome the day when all our gear will fit into the trunk of a car, and not bulging out the back of a van.
-
Modern Pro dSLR's are much more than a sensor. I find it hard to believe that a new company (however well funded) can suddenly challenge manufacturers who have invested years of R&D for the refinement of things like AF, light metering, responsiveness, ergonomics etc.
So given this and the current pricing targets I can't see RED being in a position to chalenge the dSLRl camera companies in 99% of photographic niches. Not yet. However it will surely have them think hard about where they're going. The same cannot be said for the mid to high end Video equipment manufacturers and, most importantly for this forum, MF still back and camera manufacturers. RED must have them sweating by now.
Red has created a modular system. They, unlike DSLR manufactuers have given their customers an ongoing product upgrade path without making their whole rig obsolete. That is clever.
-
My son works in the movie industry (rigging, lighting, some camera work) and has had the opportunity to work with and around some RED cameras. One thing he's mentioned a couple of times is the size of the files and the amount of processing power required to get the most of what RED can offer. FWIW...
Mike.
-
I wouldn't doubt that it's a good camera, but that's not really enough. The big question is market, and that would seem to me to be a real problem. If they can make it sexy enough to attract a lot of professionals, quickly, then they may be okay -- and the design IS pretty sexy. It's like using a Leica when you know in your heart that a Nikon would do. On the other hand, I'm not sure how a custom-made camera will compete in a world where, sooner or later, and probably sooner, Sony will come in, will be able to apply a lot of money and heavy duty marketing techniques (like loss-leaders) and where economics may become more and more important, even for the professionals.
As for the person who thinks the Red will take over journalism...ah, I think not. Not unless Google dies and classified advertising comes back, and local TV starts getting back all those national ads that just left. Even when I was working for newspaper, the mantra was, "Good enough will do fine." If you had a choice between two good-enoughs, then the cheaper would always win. To tell you the truth, if I owned a newspaper, the guys would be going out with G10s. PJ stuff gets trashed...
And two weeks ago, in Pasadena, I was catching a hotel elevator and a wedding photographer hurried to get on. He was carrying two 5Ds, and when I asked (I'm a Nikon guy) he said the 5Ds had changed his life, and he couldn't think of a better camera for a wedding pro. A full frame camera set-up that, for its price, is virtually a disposable for professionals, and, on top of all that, it's light: wedding pros MUST have two of everything...
So: the markets. We shall see.
JC
-
If you had a choice between two good-enoughs, then the cheaper would always win. To tell you the truth, if I owned a newspaper, the guys would be going out with G10s. PJ stuff gets trashed...
Off-topic, but I read on sportsshooter.com (primarily a PJ site) that some papers were giving their reporters G9s for assignments not requiring a dedicated photographer. The photo and video capabilities were sufficient for newsprint and Internet use.
OTOH, I could see an organization like Getty having a few RED Scarlets for special projects...
Paul
-
My son works in the movie industry (rigging, lighting, some camera work) and has had the opportunity to work with and around some RED cameras. One thing he's mentioned a couple of times is the size of the files and the amount of processing power required to get the most of what RED can offer. FWIW...
Mike.
I see this as a big problem. As to the massive amount of data generated:
(1) Where are you going to store it?
(2) How much time will it take to transfer it?
(3) But, most importantly, it is easy to say "frame-grabs." But how does any pro photographer other than a large-staff commercial studio sift through thousands or tens of thousands of frames, even if you manage to store--transfer--store that massive amount of data?
Example: (5 minutes of video) x (60 seconds/minute) x (30 fps) = 9,000 frames.
I can appreciate how it is handy to be able to shoot stills and video with a single camera, such as the 5DII. However, with all due respect to Michael, I am not sure that I buy into the idea of merging these two worlds vis a vis the "frame-grab" part of the convergence concept. In other words, I catch the vision of hardware convergence but not of shooting or processing convergence.
Bruce
-
Red has created a modular system. They, unlike DSLR manufactuers have given their customers an ongoing product upgrade path without making their whole rig obsolete. That is clever.
Guess I'm missing something ... I'm sure the "body" is the major expense ... it's not like you can swap out the sensor. I can't see this upgrade path is any more beneficial than buying a new dSLR body. It appears the main difference is the viewfinder isn't part of the body.
To me what has rewritten the rules here is the amazing RAW capture frame rates. While not for everybody, it is amazing technology, and I can see some real world applications even in still photography.
-
Red has created a modular system. They, unlike DSLR manufactuers have given their customers an ongoing product upgrade path without making their whole rig obsolete. That is clever.
Modularity is in principle a good thing. However, if the cost of replacing a non-modular system with a new one is comparable to upgrading a module of the modular system then modularity looses much of its attraction. So, everything is related to cost.
Another thing. We ask the dSLR manufacturers to produce weather / dust / moisture sealed bodies and systems. How does a modular system like RED's fair with regards to this requirement?
-
I was under the impression that this Red, would challenge the high end Canon or Nikon's. I was obviously wrong on that one. I based that on the huge buzz about the 5d Mk II. I didn't expect a budget DSLR from them! Obviously ;-)
True, it's not aimed at me, but then it's not aimed at 98% of the rest of the photography market either. So it's appeal will be very limited to specialist shooters, not your average working photographer. Hence, I would suggest, for most, it's a bit of a let down really.
In truth, a lot of the gear discussed in these forums is not aimed at 98% of the photography market either. Red is pushing the technology
forward in a way that a lot of us do not yet see the need for. But think back to the introduction of auto-exposure and auto-focus. Many
photographers claimed these features were unnecessary at the time.
I see the point about Red is not that tens of thousands of people will rush out to buy one, but that it shows that shooting in raw at a high frame
rate is quite feasible. When I bought my 1DS last year, I joked to my wife that my next high-end camera will shoot short clips of video and
we will extract the stills from that. 60% of our work is weddings and very short clips would be all that is needed. This would get around the
problem of storage capacity somewhat. Personally I want to get four years out of my current camera, and then we will see what is about!
-
The geek in me is fascinated by the RED DMSC, but other than that, I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It's more expensive than the competition at every MP point, and much larger and heavier than the competition. Yes, it has movie mode, but by the time they finally deliver the DMSC, all the current big DSLR players will also have pro bodies with video. Maybe not video as good as provided by the RED camera, but certainly good enough for all but the highest end video producer. Really, how many stills photographers need better video than what they can get with the 5DII, or with what's coming in the near future.
Bottom line, the DMSC seems overpriced and overhyped. A niche product.
I look at the Red cameras as moving picture cameras more than still picture cameras. It's a different market really than still cameras.
One can't really shoot stills and movies at the same time as stills really require a shorter shutter speed than movies, though it's possible to pull a still from a movie if one gets lucky finding a good pose when nothing is moving.
Of more concern to me, as a cinematographer, is the RAW workflow. One advantage of digital capture over film capture for motion pictures is the ability to preview the image live on the set. Sure, those used to shooting film are used to pre-visualizing and color correcting in post ("the film RAW workflow"), but I, for one, find it exciting to see a good facsimile of the image on a properly calibrated monitor, ideally corrected through a LUT to resemble the final image. A RAW workflow that requires post production RAW development kind of negates this advantage. And there's always the fear that producers will save money by using a quicky HD downconversion used for editing as the final product. I'd sure feel more comfortable knowing that editorial will be using a version that somewhat resembles the intent of the cinematographer. When this happens it's good for the cinematographer as producers and studios will be proud of the look of the movie and the work of the cinematographer. It's also very confidence building for the movie director to see an exciting looking image on the monitor live as we shoot.
For other types of cinematography, such as nature documentaries, there is a certain appeal to the RAW workflow and a single camera that can shoot stills as well as movies. And maybe even for photojournalists as well.
So, I think there really is a market for these cameras, it just may not be the tool for the typical landscape photographer.
And lastly, I sure hope that RED can overcome the "rolling shutter" in the CMOS Red One camera with these new models. It's usually not visible, but when it is, it's a little bothersome. Or maybe we'll all just get used to this "effect" as the look of movies.
-
I see this as a big problem. As to the massive amount of data generated:
(1) Where are you going to store it?
You store it in a storage system.
If you're a large movie studio, you can probably afford to throw a million dollars at a heavy duty storage system, and another million dollars at a backup system.
(2) How much time will it take to transfer it?
Yep, that's probably a bother, but it might still be easier than digitizing chemical film footage.
(3) But, most importantly, it is easy to say "frame-grabs." But how does any pro photographer other than a large-staff commercial studio sift through thousands or tens of thousands of frames, even if you manage to store--transfer--store that massive amount of data?
We're talking movies here.
You watch the movie, you select a few time sequences where you think you might find the relevant stills to extract, and then you narrow it down from there.
Spin the wheel forward and backward to see which frame to grab, and save the one or two that does it for you.
Basically, you - and many others in this forum - are viewing this from the wrong side; from the still photographer's closed universe.
Turn it around, and consider it from a movie production point of view:
You get a fully digital workflow, from recording to the movie theatre.
George Lucas took advantage of this for "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith", as the first major movie director in history.
And yes, Sony, Panasonic et al probably feel the pressure.
-
And yes, Sony, Panasonic et al probably feel the pressure.
At least, card reader manufactuers won't feel it: an $500 card reader leaves room for competition...
http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/ (http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/)
-
At least, card reader manufactuers won't feel it: an $500 card reader leaves room for competition...
http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/ (http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/)
Well, now you're assuming that the RED system will be an open specification, ready for third party implementations.
Given the price, I suspect it won't be.
Given the prices for their memory cards, I suspect that even the CF/CF+ cards won't be using a standard format, either.
Vendor lock-in is such a sweet game, and remember: this is the creator of Oakley glasses we're talking about here. He knows that an exclusive feeling does sell.
-
The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is. The CF Module is not a card reader for your computer. For that, you just use any you want. I think the one I use cost me $30. The CF Module is for the RED One camera to allow it to record to CF card, and again it's designed for speed over and above the ordinary.
As for the storage, we're currently recording about just over 4 minutes of 4k 24fps onto an 8GB card. That's about 6500 frames. That does take a bit of hard drive space to store, but it's not that hard by any means.
Graeme
-
The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is. The CF Module is not a card reader for your computer. For that, you just use any you want. I think the one I use cost me $30. The CF Module is for the RED One camera to allow it to record to CF card, and again it's designed for speed over and above the ordinary.
As for the storage, we're currently recording about just over 4 minutes of 4k 24fps onto an 8GB card. That's about 6500 frames. That does take a bit of hard drive space to store, but it's not that hard by any means.
Graeme
Filling an 8GB card in just over 4 minutes, let's say 250-255 seconds, amounts to an effective transfer rate around 32MB/sec. I agree that given the state of the technology, this isn't too hard to achieve. Delkin and Lexar, for example, claim an effective transfer rate of 45MB/sec in their UDMA cards and $80-$90 cars readers.
http://www.delkin.com/products/connect/readers/reader39.html (http://www.delkin.com/products/connect/readers/reader39.html)
http://store.lexar.com/?category=22&su...uctid=RW034-001 (http://store.lexar.com/?category=22&subcategory=47&productid=RW034-001)
One cand understand that a bit of glue logic, some buffering to be on the safe side, proprietary gold plated interconnect and a dose of good karma could, maybe, double the price. But $500? Any detailed tech specs available?
-
The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is.
Just out of curiosity, have you e.g. tested the Lexar 300x cards?
-
According to this http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_mu...p?cid=6007-9255 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9255) the D3 achieves almost 30MB/sec on the fastest of UDMA cards. I hope for Nikon's sake that the CF writing module in the D3 costs them much much less than $500
-
Manufacturers claim specs on CF cards. So we test them all. Our cards work at the speeds they need to, others do not. (or else we'd not have had to get our own 16GB cards made to our specs).
Graeme
-
BTW, we just dropped the price on the 8GB cards...
Graeme