Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on March 30, 2008, 01:15:44 am
-
Hi folks
There has been some mention of RED on the MF board.
I know nothing about video and have only used various a cameras for one hour
(the main thing I noticed was a severe wide restriction until you stump up some big cash)
I am thinking of buying a video camera to use around the stills shoots I am doing and maybe shoot some scenic stock - fishing boats bobbing in harbours waves crashing against the coast etc
Also maybe a still life service ie pans and zooms of stil life sets
As a total video newb going in at the red level seems mad until one realises it takes nikon glass
which I have from 10.5 and FF 14 till 600
and CF cards which I have a stock of
Can any one comment on this and what bit one needs to buy
Seems like the cheapest is the camera, nikon mount an the Viewing screen
$19000 ??
Might do more for my business than a couple of new D3s etc
Questions
Is it horrible with nikon lenses (wrong focus throw?)
What other bits does one need
Is the software stupid expensive
I assume it is manual focus only
Is APS sensor or smaller
Is there a market for moving stock?
Should I be taking my business in this direction?
I am currently construction a photo studio and will be bring the rental of my Hassy and lights into my business model - this seems rentable too....
etc
SMM
-
I'll have an article on the RED camera up within a few days.
Check their web site and Wikipedia for more info. It's all there.
A properly equipped camera is going to cost at least $50,000.
There is a new hand-held version called Scarlet to be shown at the NAB show in a few weeks that will likely come in at about the price of a high end DSLR.
Producing video is a serious business. There is a steep learning curve and buying a camera is only a small part of the process. Final Cut Pro makes Photoshop look like a simple program.
Michael
-
I'll have an article on the RED camera up within a few days.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for that.
I dont know if it that 'serious'
My interest would initially to to shoot stock clips (10s?) - waves crashing - girls walking on the beach etc
The cutting would be someone else
My property developer clients already buy library stills of images of this nature to jazz up the coastal restort complexes they are building
My moving stock could be integrated into the CGI whalkthroughs they do
Also studio still lives I would build a little dolly and move round the product etc
Also my observation of much moving footage is that zooming etc messes it up - the classic shots (sergeo leone) are pretty simple and very photographic
I see pretty much putting on a tripod and shooting 'moving landscapes - cant see that I would nt need the camera, LCD viewer and some nikkors that i already have
S
-
Actually Final Cut isn't that hard, as long as a teacher or book explains it at a decent level.
It's dirt cheap; a bit more than 1200 dollars. And with that you get motion, soundtrack and color.
With cf-media it gets even easier, since you don't have to load media from a tape. Just put the files from your cards in your media bin, and boom, you're in bussiness.
I do agree on Michael's "buying the cam is only the start"- remark. Sound for instance is of great importance and has it's own learning-curve.
There's a reason why movies have long credits...you can't do everyting by yourself, not like with photography.
-
I have been working in film and video since 1980. If you want to get your feet wet in video start with something like a Sony HDV-Z1U. It is a hi def camera that records on Mini-DV tape. Through a menu selection you can choose to record 16x9 hi def, 16x9 standard def or 4x3 standard def. You could import your footage via firewire from the camera. Most entry-level non linear editors, like final cut, will be able to control the camera just like a tape transport. If you like what you are able to acomplish and see a market for it in your business, you can always upgrade. You will want a fluid head. Gitzo makes a very nice package; carbon legs and lightweight fluid head that can last you through some camera upgrades. Beware of handling noise when recording nat sound. I edit with the Avid Media Composer and much prefer it to Final Cut, but others feel jus the other way around. In some respects video can be easier than still photography. A scene that would be of marginal value as a still can be a much higher value shot due to the interest of the action. Even so, there is a learning curve.
-
Sound for instance is of great importance and has it's own learning-curve.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My initial market wouldnt rely on sound - it is of course important
Am I right in thinking that the RED has no sound on the basic package?
S
-
Red One records up to four channels of audio I believe
-
(I work for RED)
There are a number of people, early adopters of RED, who are using it for stock footage. Some of the shot's I've seen look amazing. Due to the very high resolution recordable, up to 4096x2304 onto a CF card (got to be a very, very fast one) and drive, it's suits almost any final use of the images. Also, at lower resolutions, 2048x1152, you can shoot up to 120fps for slow motion work.
The camera works great with Nikon or Canon adapters, and these would be very suitable for stock footage. The sensor is Super-35 sized, 16:9, which is close to a crop sensor DSLR frame size (stills 35mm film is oriented horizontally, and hence you get a larger image from it than from movie 35mm film).
Software for working with the RAW images comes free with the camera, and you can download it now if you want to play with some of the RAW movie files that have been posted. I'd certainly recommend a companion app like FCP to go with it though, as there's a Quicktime based workflow that's great for quickly working with your footage.
Yes manual focus. Movie cameras don't have auto-focus.
Price is $17,500 for base camera. Minimum config beyond that is CF card module, battery pack and charger, LCD and or EVF, maybe some grip handles.
For more info, reduser.net is a great user forum where all the key people who work at RED also post on, and we're all happy to offer advice. And I'm happy to answer questions here too.
And as Michael says, keep an eye on Scarlet, which is getting properly announced at NAB in just over a week's time....
Graeme
-
(I work for RED)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is becoming more philosophical for me
I think I need to be convinced that shooting 'still' stock or running a stills only studio is just 'the past'
ie to shoot stills is to throw my time away
I knew that shooting stock on a 2.4mp D1 was basically throwing my time away because the results would have no long term value, the same was true with a 6mp JpgOnly D100
That is what convinced me to spend stupid money on an H1 and a 22mp three years ago
Convince me that stills are now 'commercially dead'...
-
I don't see RED replacing still photography, but in some situations, certainly advantageous - I can see many individual frames from Chris' antartica videography being superlative images in their own right, a system such as RED makes this possible. Imagine the possibilities for wedding / events ?
-John
-
I don't see RED replacing still photography, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No it wont replace stills - I still own a 22mp MFDB and a D3 rigs that I am not that bothered about upgrading
I see shooting much more parrallel - ie both
I just wonder if shooting still stock is a dead end Vs video stock for example
As the screen becomes THE way to view stuff and user interactivity takes off I think that the market for architectral 360 pans for example may start to be more marketable than my current service being 'completion images' ie stills
Same with stock - whiy shoot a sunset when one could do a timlapes of the sun setting (ok you could do this with a still camera no doubt)
Maybe I need to experiment splicing and speeding up with the 9FPS that my D3 offers
'stop motion' is it called ?
SMM
-
This is becoming more philosophical for me
I think I need to be convinced that shooting 'still' stock or running a stills only studio is just 'the past'
ie to shoot stills is to throw my time away
I knew that shooting stock on a 2.4mp D1 was basically throwing my time away because the results would have no long term value, the same was true with a 6mp JpgOnly D100
That is what convinced me to spend stupid money on an H1 and a 22mp three years ago
Convince me that stills are now 'commercially dead'...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no way stills are dead. I started in film - moved to stills- and now going back to film as an addition to my still work (I have a RED on order).
It's a completely different set of skills and a different type of story telling. Most of my work lends itself to shooting in both stills and motion, but the shots are very different. Cinematography is also truly a different mind set.
It is possible that a few art directors may start to pull frames from motion picture shoots and use them in ads. Cameras like the RED, Arri 20D, Panavision Genesis etc. may produce very high quality still frames compared with their older film counterparts. But I think their usefulness will be limited in the near future.
There are exciting times... and I love change too.
-
There is no way stills are dead. I started in film - moved to stills- and now going back to film as an addition to my still work (I have a RED on order).
It's a completely different set of skills and a different type of story telling. Most of my work lends itself to shooting in both stills and motion, but the shots are very different. Cinematography is also truly a different mind set.
It is possible that a few art directors may start to pull frames from motion picture shoots and use them in ads. Cameras like the RED, Arri 20D, Panavision Genesis etc. may produce very high quality still frames compared with their older film counterparts. But I think their usefulness will be limited in the near future.
There are exciting times... and I love change too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder what the market for still stock versus moving stock now - probably 90% stills, 10% moving
and in five years ?
(not to mention the going rate for stills stock ! )
SMM
-
My article in RED is now online.
Michael
-
Nice article and very "outside of the box". In response to it and some of the comments in this thread, here is my recent experience:
For a number of years (never mind how many) I've been shooting a few weddings on a pro basis. Actually I've had more customers for baby portraits and have leaned my business more toward that. Oh, I'm still very part time, but it keeps me in touch and having fun.
My style with baby portraits is to do them in their home; they are much more relaxed and open in their own space. I drag along some backgrounds and strobes, but it really isn't a whole lot of gear. I'm not much of a poser with babies. That's mostly because you can't get babies to pose. So I put them in situations where they are happy and act pretty normally. Then I capture enough shots of them looking cute and happy to make parents happy.
There are certain equipment issues with this setup that I've been trying to get around, but haven't found the right still photo equipment. One of them is strobe lights. Babies don't much like strobes or any bright light. A bright light they can get used to, but most never get very comfortable with strobes, some just start crying under strobes.
Another is Live View. I've shot most of my my baby portraits with a Konica Minolta A2 camera because it has a nice Live View. Sticking my face behind a camera to look into a viewfinder doesn't work with babies. When my face is hidden, they almost immediately disconnect from me and turn their attention elsewhere. When my head pops back up, we have to start the human interaction all over again. This on and off method is not fun for me or the babies. So, Live View has turned out to be very important to the way I shoot babies.
The other is reaction time of the photographer/camera. OK, the A2 doesn't have the fastest shutter reaction, but it is pretty fast with AF turn off. Mostly the problem is that babies move very quickly and suddenly. They also don't hold poses very long - at all. So, I'm always seeing poses that I'm missing. That's a bit frustrating. I could get a camera with very fast reaction time, but it isn't going to speed up the photographer any.
I've been waiting for the nice fast DSLR cameras to get a useful Live View, but that doesn't seem to be happening very fast or very well. Besides they don't really solve all the above problems. So, slowly and reluctantly I have forced myself to think outside the box and look at an HD video camera as the solution. I bought a Canon HV-20 to try it out and have been very pleased so far. Let me explain:
I HAVE to use a bright light that isn't a strobe. So I got a big florescent setup that gives a bundle of bright light, but is soft enough for babies. The florescent setup keeps the room from getting too hot. Babies get used to it pretty quickly - in their own home.
The HV-20, as do most video cameras, does "Live View" very well. It couldn't work without excellent Live View. In fact the "viewfinder" isn't very good. That's alright, I don't use anything but the screen. It's big and bright enough that I can see it from several feet around the camera. It also turns around so that I can be in front of the camera and see it. You can't find better Live View on a still camera.
Reaction time of the photographer becomes a non-issue. I turn it on and it takes 24 pictures every second. There is nothing a baby can do to beat that. Well, they have been known to crawl away on occasion. In short, I get everything they do in front of the camera. Yes, shooting at 1/24th of a second does leave a few frames that have motion blur. Interestingly, that usually helps video. For pulling out stills, it really isn't a problem either because there tends to be a frame very close that has the best pose and isn't blurry.
I know you are wondering about all those big prints from 1920x1080 pixels. That's hasn't been a problem either. For years I gave my customers a CD or DVD with all the still photos in a wide variety of file formats. I wanted them to be able to print these pictures from just about any software. Of course, I've had the ability and option to print large, pretty prints for them too. With a little surveying of my customers, I learned that not a single one of them had every printed a single picture! Nope, not a one - zero. I found out that they were looking at the JPEGs on their computers and e-mailing them to friends and family. Mostly they were looking at the smaller sized JPEGs too and not even the full sized ones.
Hey, these are busy parents of babies and small children. They don't have time to sleep. Time to print and display photos is way down on their list of priorities. So, they wanted all the pictures digitally, but they want them in a format where they can quickly and easily view and distribute them.
Therefore, the 2 MP of HD video will print nice 4x6" pictures. It will be more than big enough for e-mail distribution. It will display very nicely on even the high resolution computer monitors used today. It will give stunning pictures on the 1080i/p TVs that are the best you can buy today and for many years in the future. That means that HD video resolution is more than enough resolution for this market.
I still give them the shoot on CD / DVD. I also create a little slide show for them and a little video that shows clips of their cherub in action with the pulled still from that clip embedded in the video. (I'm using Sony Vegas Pro 8.) So, they get both still and video from the same sitting. The key thing is that this is quick and easy viewing whether they want to watch on their computer or TV.
Yes, a RED camera would be great to have, but a fully loaded one would scare some babies and toddlers. It really isn't needed for this market. Once still photographers start thinking outside their current still camera boxes, they will find a lot more uses for the RED. I hope my little story will help other still photographers think outside the box and see if video might improve their visual storytelling.
Thanks,
Clyde
------------------------------------------
My article in RED is now online.
Michael
-
A very interesting article Michael.
About five years ago, when I was still fairly new to digital photography, I thought how great it would be to have a camera that could shoot short clips of very high quality video from which you could take stills. I shoot a lot of weddings, and the ability to pick the best frame from a sequence of pictures would be very useful at times. I am thinking of moments like the throwing of the confetti, or when the couple are coming down the aisle. By getting in the right place and anticipating the action one can work wonders, but having pictures taken a split second apart would be great!
Of course one can use continuous shooting on a DSLR, but it is very noisy!
-
Clyde:
Shooting babies and small children is easy--just think of them as a kind of wildlife! Trying to pose them is generally not very effective, so I generally don't bother. And trying to interact with them to get them to smile is often a mistake, especially if you're getting into their personal space with a camera. They have no idea who you are, or what you're pointing at them, and getting in their face to try to get them to smile is probably going to have the opposite effect. And the you are focusing on trying to get them to smile, then to th Have a parent or family member try to get them to smile; it's far more likely to work if they do that while you fade into the background and be the photographer instead of the baby wrangler. Shoot them with a short telephoto (70-200 is great for this) from across the room while they are interacting with parents/siblings/other family member (which can also give you great opportunities for interaction shots), or playing with their favorite toy or watching their favorite Disney movie on TV. If you shoot with a DSLR and fast glass, you may not even need to use supplemental lighting, or you can light a whole room with a strobe aimed at the ceiling (unless the ceiling is orange or purple or some other weird color) without necessarily freaking out the subject.
-
Everyone seems to be flagging video as a way to stop 'missing' still images ie to grab the best moment
Seems a little backwards looking
S
-
Please elaborate.
If it works, why not? It's just using the right technology to solve a visual capture problem.
Of course, there is a lot more you can get out of video.
Clyde
--------------------------------------------
Everyone seems to be flagging video as a way to stop 'missing' still images ie to grab the best moment
Seems a little backwards looking
S
-
If it works, why not? It's just using the right technology to solve a visual capture problem.
No it isn't, because video frame grabs are only suitable for web/screen display and very small prints. If the client wants anything bigger than a 4x6" print, the best you can offer will be distinctly inferior to what a DSLR shooter can offer, even if your camera does 1080p HD. 2MP frame grab JPEGs are not going to hold up well against 8+MP RAWS in any kind of a comparison. You're simply trying to justify the increased frame rate of a video camera (a crutch to compensate for your lack of shooting skill) as an acceptable tradeoff for a major compromise in the quality of the final image. There are tens of thousands of photographers out there who successfully photograph babies and small children with DSLRs every day. If you can't join them, you need to look in the mirror to find the cause.
-
I edit with the Avid Media Composer and much prefer it to Final Cut, but others feel jus the other way around.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been working on a Media Composer for the past 11-12 years. We're getting ready to upgrade to HD and had been debating between staying with Avid or moving over to Final Cut. Are you guys shooting HD and, if so, what cameras are you using?
-
I've been working on the Avid Media Composer since giving up pre-read editing on D-2 and D-3, probably about 1994 or so. When I went into business for myself in 2004 I needed to hit the ground running and stayed with AVID. I knew several other people who changed to Final Cut Pro and it has worked out for them. I shoot mostly in SD up to now and use a Sony DSR-130 which is the D-30 camera head docked to a DSR-1 DVCam back. I have a Sony HDV-Z1U that I use for a couple of clients and have rented both Sony 900's and Panasonic Varicams. I will buy a full size HD camera package sometime in the next year. A friend of mine has said that if Sony made a car, he'd buy it and I kind of feel the same way. I own some Panasonic gear and used a Panasonic DVC-Pro 25 camera for a few years. I actually prefer the tape handling in the DVC-Pro equipment over the DVCam. I am intrested in Red and signed up for their email alerts, but have never received one. I havn't been to NAB for a few years and hate going to Las Vegas. I suppose I should go and catch up.
-
If you do get to NAB, David, ask for me at the RED tent and say hello. I'd be pleased to tell you about the camera in person.
Tape is what we're all used to, but when I sit at my edit suite and look at the compact flash reader sitting there, that must have cost me all of $30, I have to laugh at the cost of a HDCAM SR deck....
Graeme
-
Graeme,
Thank you very much for the kind offer. I won't be able to make NAB this year. I am booked through June, but I would love to be able to get the Cliff Notes version of Red. I am always looking for a competetive advantage and Red certainly qualifies as that. Many of the projects I work on require hours and hours of master footage and that has favored tape up to now.
I seem to have more and more battery systems to keep up with as well. Can Red be powered by Anton Bauer Dionic batteries? That would be one less thing to worry about. My still photography system is Nikon, so being able to use Nikon lenses would also be an advantage.
If you are able to, please PM me anything you can share about Scarlett.
Best regards,
David
-
Please elaborate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is backward because people are going 'I will miss less shots' not going
'hey cool' think of the new stuff I could do 'pan arounds' '3D' or whatever other ways of showing ones idea there are in the screen environment which I would argue is going to be a prevalent (not exclusive) manner of viewing stuff soon
SMM
-
I can't speak about Scarlet until the announcement. I'm not up on which batteries work, but http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...t=anton+battery (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11214&highlight=anton+battery) had 140s working well.
Nikon lenses will work, through an adapter. There's a manual adapter from RED and I think Birger are making electronic mounts. SLR glass is great, image wise, but not often the best ergonomics for movie making.
Graeme
-
With a little surveying of my customers, I learned that not a single one of them had every printed a single picture! Nope, not a one - zero. I found out that they were looking at the JPEGs on their computers and e-mailing them to friends and family. Mostly they were looking at the smaller sized JPEGs too and not even the full sized ones.
If you actually believe that none of your customers have ever made prints from your discs, you are deluding yourself. My experience, and the experience of most photographers, is that people commonly print JPEGS, even web-sized prominently watermarked JPEGs from online galleries. Whether they will actually admit that they do so is quite another matter. Did you just ask them over the phone, or did you actually go to their houses and look around?
-
I can't speak about Scarlet until the announcement. I'm not up on which batteries work, but http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...t=anton+battery (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11214&highlight=anton+battery) had 140s working well.
Nikon lenses will work, through an adapter. There's a manual adapter from RED and I think Birger are making electronic mounts. SLR glass is great, image wise, but not often the best ergonomics for movie making.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean nikon glass will work with scarlet ?
This sounds most attactive to me
Unless I am wrong most regular video cams that have interchangable lenses seem to be about $5k and those wide lenses about $4k
At that point scarlett and my nikkors will I imagine be comparible in price considering I already own the nikors including all the old legends like 85/2 and 50 1.2
Looking forward to your announcement
Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video !
S
-
I'll have an article on the RED camera up within a few days.
Check their web site and Wikipedia for more info. It's all there.
A properly equipped camera is going to cost at least $50,000.
There is a new hand-held version called Scarlet to be shown at the NAB show in a few weeks that will likely come in at about the price of a high end DSLR.
Producing video is a serious business. There is a steep learning curve and buying a camera is only a small part of the process. Final Cut Pro makes Photoshop look like a simple program.
Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=185363\")
Michael,
Your right the learning curve from shooting stills to moving imagery, (film or video) and the time and learning investment to edit, color time and grade, is obviously there, but not near as far a leap as it was 5 and especially 10 years ago.
Prior to FCP, the latest avids and the newer SD and HD cameras, shooting anything that was interesting and professional grade could easily take an investment of a hundred thousand dollars and the project had to be an absolute dedicated video or film shoot.
Final Cut Pro really did change all of this. Now for the cost of an I-mac, a few hard drives and a thousand dollars software suite, you can cut anything and if your learned in photoshop, lightroom, etc. the learning curve is not years, even months . . . it can be weeks.
This was the first still with video project we shot a few years agok, using a standard def XL1 and the first version (or close to first) of FCP.
[a href=\"http://ishotit.com/first.mov]http://ishotit.com/first.mov[/url]
It's not Ridley Scott, but it also only impacted the cost of production by about 10% and don't think it didn't add to client satisfaction by much more than 10%.
The next step is cameras such as the Red and Scarlet. I'm amazed that your article on the LL site didn't start 500 threads about cinema vs. or including still photograpy, because convergence is here and the two genres are much more related than most photographers realize.
If the Red works and it works seamlessly into the non linear editors, the idea of having a full frame (in cinema terms) camera for under $50,000 opens up possiblities for art and commerce that really excites me and though 50 grand seems steep, compare that to the price of a new medium format back, a camera and lenses and it's very comparable in costs.
(it's not the 4k part that juices me, it's the fact that you can pull focus and give a real film look without loading film, processing, telecine and the rest of issues film brings up.
Convergence is here and has been for a long time, but it takes an open mind and the willingness to learn new ways of working.
I'm telling you nothing you don't know as LL is actually where I believe publishing is going.
This is a rough cut from a work in progress from a few weeks ago. It was primarily a still shoot with the video component and produced in studio AND on location in one day and the costs and style of production is not as different as most people would think.
What 5 years ago would have only been a still session to produce this;
(http://ishotit.com/sanya_april.jpg)
has now moved to this.
http://ishotit.com/inprogress_4_04_08.mov (http://ishotit.com/inprogress_4_04_08.mov)
Personally I don't like the term video because it makes me think of the 10 pm ambulance news or some blue gelled infomercial and hopefully cameras like the red will change all of that.
Just like film to digital capture, digital video can have the look and the properties of film capture with a lot more useability at a lot lower costs.
I'm sure right now on some forum the Red has started the same scream from purists that digital will never replace film and there is nothing like looking at a film image on a 400 ft. wide movie screen. On some of this I agree, except our common carrier is not 400 ft. wide screens, it's lcd's and the content comes from the cable company, apple TV or a computer.
The Red or any digital capture device changes nothing in the way of thought and creativity but it does offer opportunity for expanded art and commerce.
JR
-
I was talking about RED ONE, not Scarlet. I can't say anything at all about Scarlet other than "Pocket Professional" until we officially announce at NAB.
Yea, it's tricky to follow focus on a stills lens, but the image quality is usually great.
Graeme
You mean nikon glass will work with scarlet ?
This sounds most attactive to me
Unless I am wrong most regular video cams that have interchangable lenses seem to be about $5k and those wide lenses about $4k
At that point scarlett and my nikkors will I imagine be comparible in price considering I already own the nikors including all the old legends like 85/2 and 50 1.2
Looking forward to your announcement
Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video !
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I was talking about RED ONE, not Scarlet. I can't say anything at all about Scarlet other than "Pocket Professional" until we officially announce at NAB.
Yea, it's tricky to follow focus on a stills lens, but the image quality is usually great.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham
I thought so - I reckon hard to follow focus on any lens but the PL lenses have stoppers and bigger gearing dont they ?
Fingers crossed on Scarlett and nikkors - a big plus for existing stills guys
James
As ever you are right on it
That 'little film' (what phrase do you want?) is exactly the sort of thing I think I could almost pull off
It would seem to be a big 'USP' over a straight stills guy
I notice the sound is pretty much lashed on afterwards
Interesting to see the integration of the stills
lovely - thanks for posting
SMM
-
Graham
I thought so - I reckon hard to follow focus on any lens but the PL lenses have stoppers and bigger gearing dont they ?
Fingers crossed on Scarlett and nikkors - a big plus for existing stills guys
James
As ever you are right on it
That 'little film' (what phrase do you want?) is exactly the sort of thing I think I could almost pull off
It would seem to be a big 'USP' over a straight stills guy
I notice the sound is pretty much lashed on afterwards
Interesting to see the integration of the stills
lovely - thanks for posting
SMM
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=187450\")
Having never held a red, my thoughts and hopes for what this camera will do are only what's being said, but if this camera lives up to 1/2 of it's potential, then I seriously would conisder my role as "film" maker over my day job as photographer and I don't say this lightly as photography has always been my calling.
I just completely believe that moving imagery is not just the future of electronic publishing, it will be the standard.
8 of our last 9 "still" projects our studio has shot and produced have had a moving imagery component and in 1/2 of those instances, the moving imagery had equal importance to the stills.
Last year we shot an ad campaign for a new lingerie line and in parallel produced a video to be used by the manufacturer to sell the product into the store chains. The video wasn't really an afterthought, but it was secondary in realtionship to the print campaign, the signage and packaging.
the interesting thing was not only did the video sell the line into the stores, it's viewership on you-tube was many times larger than the viewership of the print campaign. Whehter that was actual buyers or not I don't know, but this tells us something about the power of the internet.
Maybe i'm overstating this but every day I see more interest in the fact that we shoot moving imagery.
Right now we work with two Canon HDV cameras, one as a dedicated video camera and the second has the red rock adapter, and nikon lenses to give a "film" like look.
The Red Rock adapter works (don't confuse it with the RED), though it's cumbersom, somewhat sensitive and requires more work in post as shooting to a spinning ground glass give a softer, more pastel look to the already "cooked" hdv codec files.
[a href=\"http://www.redrockmicro.com/]http://www.redrockmicro.com/[/url]
Even still, once put through a Da Vinci and colored, these little prosumer cameras produce an amazing film like file and this from just 2k.
http://216.79.18.60/2kplus.htm (http://216.79.18.60/2kplus.htm)
The importance of the Red, to me is not just that it's a real dedicated system that shoots a raw file, but I am sure it will open up a whole new level of competition from Canon, Sony, Pansason, JVC, etc, who for a long time have pretty much had the video market to themselves.
They either produce a smaller easy to use prosumer camera, or larger ENG cameras, but none have actually hit the film quality level . . . yet and I'll bet they're are some sweaty palms in Japan thinking about how to protect their high end market, though still compete with the Red.
JR
-
I just completely believe that moving imagery is not just the future of electronic publishing, it will be the standard. JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brave words that I am sold on
ps the red does exist - you could hold one now - its the cheaper scarlett that doesnt
SMM
-
Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm not attacking your DSLRs or other ways of shooting babies. I've used SLRs of one type or another for about 35 years and have captured many excellent baby portraits. Despite your summary judgment against my skills (without knowing anything about them), I'm a damn fine baby photographer. Of course, I'm always looking for a way to be a better one.
All I'm saying is that I've found a way that helps ME be a better one for MY style of baby portraits. If that helps you, fine. If not, please ignore me. Part of MY style and market for baby portraits the size limitation really isn't an issue. I've asked my customers if they've printed any of the pictures and they've told me that they haven't. They haven't even done 4x6" prints.
One of the revelations of moving from amateur to pro is that you no longer have the luxury of shooting for all possible outcomes. You absolutely have to narrow your focus to fit the market you are selling to. If you don't narrow the focus, you won't be able to compete in that market. Narrowing the focus means that you don't have the time or resources to be all things to all markets.
Therefore, I'm not selling to a market that is looking for 16x20" prints of their baby. There is no reason to saddle myself with the technology to just maybe someday needing to do 16x20" prints. It costs me money that either jacks up my price or hurts my profit.
Clyde
No it isn't, because video frame grabs are only suitable for web/screen display and very small prints. If the client wants anything bigger than a 4x6" print, the best you can offer will be distinctly inferior to what a DSLR shooter can offer, even if your camera does 1080p HD. 2MP frame grab JPEGs are not going to hold up well against 8+MP RAWS in any kind of a comparison. You're simply trying to justify the increased frame rate of a video camera (a crutch to compensate for your lack of shooting skill) as an acceptable tradeoff for a major compromise in the quality of the final image. There are tens of thousands of photographers out there who successfully photograph babies and small children with DSLRs every day. If you can't join them, you need to look in the mirror to find the cause.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I've asked them and they told me that they haven't printed any. Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them? That would be an odd trust relationship with my customers. I did ask them by e-mail, phone, and in person. Yes, I have been to some of their house. Remember that I shoot baby portraits in the baby's home. I do get repeat business and have looked in there homes.
Clyde
If you actually believe that none of your customers have ever made prints from your discs, you are deluding yourself. My experience, and the experience of most photographers, is that people commonly print JPEGS, even web-sized prominently watermarked JPEGs from online galleries. Whether they will actually admit that they do so is quite another matter. Did you just ask them over the phone, or did you actually go to their houses and look around?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes, video does open up more ways of shooting. However, it doesn't necessarily shut off the old ways of shooting. I'm sure that much more viewing is done on electronic media than paper media right now - today.
Clyde
It is backward because people are going 'I will miss less shots' not going
'hey cool' think of the new stuff I could do 'pan arounds' '3D' or whatever other ways of showing ones idea there are in the screen environment which I would argue is going to be a prevalent (not exclusive) manner of viewing stuff soon
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes, video does open up more ways of shooting. However, it doesn't necessarily shut off the old ways of shooting. I'm sure that much more viewing is done on electronic media than paper media right now - today.
Clyde
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This isn't black and white, either or, good or bad.
Video doesn't stop still photograpy, still photography doesn't have to have a video component, the web can carry video and stills side by side.
In fact I've gone through a video dialog session shot on 2k and tried to find if it would actually make decent stills. Uh, yes you can do it in technique, but not necessarily in art as the direction, the framing and the overall look are much different in a still than a moving image.
Just a 16x9 frame offers a different way to tell a story than a 4:3 ratio. (and much different set).
Regardless, we do have a form of convergence. I you understand lightroom you will understand DaVinci, if you can work photoshop you can work Final Cut Pro and i've shot about every camera ever made and to me a camera is a camera each with thier own limitations and features.
What any other photographer or film maker does is none of my business, but a good eye, good taste and talent can be applied to any medium and I think some of the walls that seperate the two are already coming down.
I was suprised the first time I shot moving imagery how the possbilities were opened up to tell a story in more than one frame. I was also suprised at the different mind set it took to allow myself not to try to grab it all in one frame.
JR
-
Video doesn't stop still photograpy, still photography doesn't have to have a video component, the web can carry video and stills side by side.
True...they can exist together, but it takes a very strong photo essay of stills to draw more interest than even the most ordinary video for most subjects.
I you understand lightroom you will understand DaVinci, if you can work photoshop you can work Final Cut Pro [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure about that one. For some reason, the concept of key frames seems to throw a lot of people. I've always thought it was a lot like understanding hyper focal distance. Sometimes it takes a while to grasp it, but once a person does, they say, "Oh...that wasn't so hard."
-
One of the revelations of moving from amateur to pro is that you no longer have the luxury of shooting for all possible outcomes.
Actually, being a pro means that you get calls from clients who hired you to shoot some photos for their web site, and now want to make posters from the images. Being able to accommodate such requests with high-quality, high-resolution images will go far to set you apart from Aunt Mary and her digicam.
You absolutely have to narrow your focus to fit the market you are selling to. If you don't narrow the focus, you won't be able to compete in that market. Narrowing the focus means that you don't have the time or resources to be all things to all markets.
As a professional photographer, narrowing your focus to the point where you ignore one of the most lucrative segments of photography income (print sales) is ludicrous from a business perspective. I made about 40% of my income as a professional photographer from print sales, and additional 20% or so for the PS work and usage rights for high-resolution images that the client intended to print themselves (book covers, product packaging, etc. as well as DIY prints), and the remaining 40% or so from shooting fees. If you're not getting something in that neighborhood from prints of your baby images then you're missing out on a lot of money in lost print sales. If you go to a Wal-Mart or Picture People or similar studio, the ratio of income is even higher because their shooting fees are much lower. If you operate in a way that precludes print sales and limit your images to web/monitor display, you're cheating yourself out of a LOT of money.
-
Actually, being a pro means that you get calls from clients who hired you to shoot some photos for their web site, and now want to make posters from the images. Being able to accommodate such requests with high-quality, high-resolution images will go far to set you apart from Aunt Mary and her digicam.
And the relevence to a specialist in baby photography? Who uses video for one particular problem. Maybe he has a 10x8 for doing advertising?
As a professional photographer, narrowing your focus to the point where you ignore one of the most lucrative segments of photography income (print sales) is ludicrous from a business perspective. I made about 40% of my income as a professional photographer from print sales, and additional 20% or so for the PS work and usage rights for high-resolution images that the client intended to print themselves (book covers, product packaging, etc. as well as DIY prints), and the remaining 40% or so from shooting fees. If you're not getting something in that neighborhood from prints of your baby images then you're missing out on a lot of money in lost print sales. If you go to a Wal-Mart or Picture People or similar studio, the ratio of income is even higher because their shooting fees are much lower. If you operate in a way that precludes print sales and limit your images to web/monitor display, you're cheating yourself out of a LOT of money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know very succesful wedding photographers who do not bother with prints other than the album. They give the couple a DVD and charge as much as if they had done lots of prints and cut down the work they need to do. Times are changing and some people will find different business models.
-
The Red Rock adapter works (don't confuse it with the RED), though it's cumbersom, somewhat sensitive and requires more work in post as shooting to a spinning ground glass give a softer, more pastel look to the already "cooked" hdv codec files.
http://www.redrockmicro.com/ (http://www.redrockmicro.com/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael in your article on the RED camera, you mentioned the filmic look and how RAW woulfd help achieve it. In film the 'filmic' look that is so often talked about is actually down to size of capture, small chip vs 35mm film. The gadget mentioned above transforms a DV camera into one that produces images that [with care] look like they were made on a 35mm movie camera. I first came across this when working with a BBC Director/cameraman and I saw a short he made using this device on DV and 35mm lenses. It looked fantastic. Simply due to the different optical characteristics.
Not that the RAW files produced by the RED camera aren't a wonderful thing in themselves.
There was a site, that escapes me at the moment that had footage showing glasses in a bar shot with and without the adaptor. A banal setting, but one looked professional [filmic] and one looked video[cheap], with no difference other than the effective sensor size.
This is exactly the same argument with as with MF/35MM/Crop Sensor/P+S sensor that people have debated on this forum endlesly. But with the size difference between a video camera and a 35mm camera being so big, it's blindingly obvious there is in fact a huge difference.
-
Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video ![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And why the RED camera is very, very much the wrong choice for you. It's a brilliant camera but is really aimed at film makers with a crew. Including someone whose only job is to focus the lens. A very skilled job it is too.
Wanting a camera that is like someone who has never done photography before and wanting a 10x8" monorail camera to learn on.
Buy the cheapest HDV camera with good manual features and play with that for a while. You'll also be able to edit the footage in Final Cut/Vegas/Premiere on any decent modern computer [with lots of HD space] as you learn. And there's lots to learn.
I've been following the development of the camera ever since it was announced and I was very impressed that the camera was priced so reasonably. Most manufacturers would have price pointed it at least 500% more. Sony for instance make some good kit, but they really price point cameras. They are always artificially crippled in some area, so you then have to jump from say a good £2,500 camera to a slightly better £20,000 camera and then £90,00 for the noticably better camera.
The RED camera has almost made it possible for anyone to shoot as high quality as a major studio. I've worked on films with £90,000 HDs which are pretty good, but are not a patch on this camera. The main problem is that the computer kit to handle the enormous volume of data will not be cheap.
BTW, most people rent fim making gear. Rarely does anyone actually buy anything.
And deal are always to be had when renting fim kit. I've worked on a £10,000 budget shoot with £130,000 worth of kit. And unlike stills kit hire, you don't have to leave a full deposit [which is the norm in UK].
-
It all depends on what you're shooting. Jim, RED camera founder, often shoots alone with RED zoom or prime lenses, producing some very nice wildlife shots and some great "funny car" stuff too. It's certainly doable. Say you are shooting stock footage, rather than narrative drama, then focusing is no worse than manual focus on your DSLR.
Graeme
-
It all depends on what you're shooting. Jim, RED camera founder, often shoots alone with RED zoom or prime lenses, producing some very nice wildlife shots and some great "funny car" stuff too. It's certainly doable. Say you are shooting stock footage, rather than narrative drama, then focusing is no worse than manual focus on your DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, I was thinking of follow focus shooting, as that's what is usually the tricky stuff. But even with stock, you may be shooting moving objects.
But I have to say manual focusing on DSLR autofocus lenses is not always easy. Mainly as the screens and lenses aren't designed for it anymore.
-
Michael in your article on the RED camera, you mentioned the filmic look and how RAW woulfd help achieve it. In film the 'filmic' look that is so often talked about is actually down to size of capture, small chip vs 35mm film. The gadget mentioned above transforms a DV camera into one that produces images that [with care] look like they were made on a 35mm movie camera. I first came across this when working with a BBC Director/cameraman and I saw a short he made using this device on DV and 35mm lenses. It looked fantastic. Simply due to the different optical characteristics.
Not that the RAW files produced by the RED camera aren't a wonderful thing in themselves.
There was a site, that escapes me at the moment that had footage showing glasses in a bar shot with and without the adaptor. A banal setting, but one looked professional [filmic] and one looked video[cheap], with no difference other than the effective sensor size.
This is exactly the same argument with as with MF/35MM/Crop Sensor/P+S sensor that people have debated on this forum endlesly. But with the size difference between a video camera and a 35mm camera being so big, it's blindingly obvious there is in fact a huge difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Red Rock adapter (as well as the P+S Technique) works. Red Rock gives you an upside down image, P+S Technique a right side up image, both knock off a stop of light and both add grain, though maybe film like grain, still moving grain.
I've tried most of them, even working focus in post (a lot of post) and they are a temporary fix at best.
Add the Red Rock to a Canon or a Panasonic HDV and for 5 grand you've got yourself an almost film camera, add the P+S technique and you into another 12k or so.
On a web video they look good, even up to 12" monitor size, but large up to a wide screen 20 something inch you see the errors and loose that special something that 35mm film offers, that pretty pop of the eyelashes and that direct fall off in the background.
These band aid adapters work if your shooting Love in Paris, on a small indie budget, but they should no way be confused with 35mm film quality or RED quality.
Even though we live in a rent as you go world, the RED at the price point gives any serious or semi serious film maker a way to own, experiment, learn and shoot at a price that is just completley unheard of in the film world.
__________________________________________________________________________
Now Gramme, a few questions if you don't mind.
What is the effective clean iso of the Red?
Were there be dealers for demo or does one have to rent to try?
JR
-
And why the RED camera is very, very much the wrong choice for you. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This may be true or not
-In my limited experience with video I have become aware that wide is apparently seriously restricted in cameras without interchangeable lenses
-that interchangeable lens cameras and wide lenses cost almost as much as a Red body
-I would only need the body, I have a heap of compatable lenses
In terms of the computing - well I have a rig for 22mp stills
I can see that there is a purity of the Red system that IMO would make it easier to learn - like shooting RAW - you nail the colour later - things I am used to
I have had problems focussing DV cams - becuse there is too much DOF (I also cant focus my d80 manually but have a good rate with my H1)
Red solves that too I guess?
If Red could be seen as the FM2 of cameras its lack of silly features would make it the perfect learning tool IMO
In terms of the cost - well that is my decision - I think that it would do a lot more for my business than upgrading from a 22mp to a 39mp or upgrading from pair of D3's to a pair of D3x's in time which are my current other options for wasting about the same amount of money - and wasting money is always better than giving it to the taxman to waste
S
james I saw 320 listed as the base ISO somewhere
-
Well said.
You hit on the biggest difference in moving to video - storytelling. I always thought I was telling stories in my still photography, but honestly it now seems like I was stringing a bunch of nouns and adjectives together. The movies just doesn't work unless you have a story to tell and plan your production to tell it. You have to have the verbs to give it action and that action has to move somewhere. You are right that it takes a very different mindset.
I think that mindset can help us in our still photography too. The 16:9 format opens up possibilities and changes the vision of the world a bit. Let's be open to any improvements we can use from anywhere.
I also agree that the power of personal computers and the ease of the software pulls video and still photography much closer together. The market also pulls them together. More and more people are getting their information mostly from a screen rather than paper. It's a reality that pro photographers stuck in the model of selling prints have to wake up to. We have to find another way to make this business pay or we will be left behind and out of business. Yes, there will always be photo prints, just as there are platinum printers today. However, most of us will have to market to a majority market rather than a niche one to survive.
Clyde
PS - Why is 1920x1080 stunning, high res, and state-of-the-art on a large screen TV, but considered crap on paper?
This isn't black and white, either or, good or bad.
Video doesn't stop still photograpy, still photography doesn't have to have a video component, the web can carry video and stills side by side.
In fact I've gone through a video dialog session shot on 2k and tried to find if it would actually make decent stills. Uh, yes you can do it in technique, but not necessarily in art as the direction, the framing and the overall look are much different in a still than a moving image.
Just a 16x9 frame offers a different way to tell a story than a 4:3 ratio. (and much different set).
Regardless, we do have a form of convergence. I you understand lightroom you will understand DaVinci, if you can work photoshop you can work Final Cut Pro and i've shot about every camera ever made and to me a camera is a camera each with thier own limitations and features.
What any other photographer or film maker does is none of my business, but a good eye, good taste and talent can be applied to any medium and I think some of the walls that seperate the two are already coming down.
I was suprised the first time I shot moving imagery how the possbilities were opened up to tell a story in more than one frame. I was also suprised at the different mind set it took to allow myself not to try to grab it all in one frame.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Movement adds a greater perception to resolution than a still image does, and usually monitor viewing distances are such that they don't get the same scrutiny as paper does.
That said, HD is now today's SD....
Graeme
-
I don't have an 8x10, but do have other cameras. I think a lot of this comes down to how you market your services. If you market your prints, you'll get customers who want prints. If you market in a way that lets everyone know that you don't do prints, then you'll get customers who just want the pictures digitally. That's what I've found as I've moved to a strictly digital delivery.
I do wedding on occasion and have attracted brides who are more interested in the digital delivery than the printed one. I don't know if the market is there yet for a full time wedding photographer to aim at that market, but it is there and growing.
Clyde
And the relevence to a specialist in baby photography? Who uses video for one particular problem. Maybe he has a 10x8 for doing advertising?
I know very succesful wedding photographers who do not bother with prints other than the album. They give the couple a DVD and charge as much as if they had done lots of prints and cut down the work they need to do. Times are changing and some people will find different business models.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think a lot of this comes down to how you market your services. If you market your prints, you'll get customers who want prints. If you market in a way that lets everyone know that you don't do prints, then you'll get customers who just want the pictures digitally.
And you're turning away all the customers who might want some prints--they aren't even going to call you, so you may not realize how much business you're losing. I give my clients the choice of prints or digital images, or any combination thereof. Most purchased some prints, even if they wanted primarily digital delivery. Print sales may go down over time as electronic display technology improves, but I doubt they are going to die any time soon.
-
-In my limited experience with video I have become aware that wide is apparently seriously restricted in cameras without interchangeable lenses
Canon XL2?
A wideangle adaptor can also work very well, though always test it on camera you intend to use, to check for barrel distortion as quality varies.
In terms of the computing - well I have a rig for 22mp stills
Video rig places different demands on system. Fast storage is very important. Not that relevant to stills. But don't forget 24x12Mp per second even with compression is way more stressful on a computer than a mere 22MP still.
I have had problems focussing DV cams - becuse there is too much DOF (I also cant focus my d80 manually but have a good rate with my H1)
Red solves that too I guess?
Focusing will be pretty similar to D80, I'd have thought.
If Red could be seen as the FM2 of cameras its lack of silly features would make it the perfect learning tool IMO
More like a Hasselblad body as you can add lots of things to it.
In terms of the cost - well that is my decision - I think that it would do a lot more for my business than upgrading from a 22mp to a 39mp or upgrading from pair of D3's to a pair of D3x's in time which are my current other options for wasting about the same amount of money - and wasting money is always better than giving it to the taxman to waste
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd do exactly the same from the tax point of view. The new rules in the UK regarding capital expenditure are particularly good for that sort of thing.
What do you need that quality of image for though? Will it ever be shown on cinema sized screens? 1080p is probably the best quality anyone will see it at otherwise.
-
On a web video they look good, even up to 12" monitor size, but large up to a wide screen 20 something inch you see the errors and loose that special something that 35mm film offers, that pretty pop of the eyelashes and that direct fall off in the background.
I thought I wrote something about that, as although optically, they look much better, on the big screen the quality is obviously somewhat short of 35mm.
Even though we live in a rent as you go world, the RED at the price point gives any serious or semi serious film maker a way to own, experiment, learn and shoot at a price that is just completley unheard of in the film world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absoutely and I'm hoping RED will cause some serious red faces at Panasonic and Sony, who prefer to trickle a minor tweak or two into cameras every couple of years and at articial price points. I have a huge amount of respect for Jim Jannard for what he is trying to do. And I'm certainly looking forward to finding out more about Scarlett.
I'm just hoping that the UK doesn't end up paying the normal, same price in pounds as you guys pay in dollars, as then RED is not so affordable.
-
No dealers, you buy direct, that means you do the $ to £ conversion and pay duty and VAT on your import. RED doesn't jack up the price any extra just because you're not in the USA. To demo, I'd find a local user, or rent one. Quite a lot of rental places have them. Or come to NAB next week, and if you do, say hello and tell me you're from the LL forums.
Focusing, in terms of DOF is the same as about a 1.6x crop factor DSLR. But you do have a live view, and focus assists to help you.
The normal ISO rating is 320. All ISO in camera is totally in the metadata. It does not (unlike with a DSLR) effect the RAW image at all, just what you see on the viewfinder or LCD.
Graeme
-
Canon XL2?
A wideangle adaptor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JJJ
This rig seems to be about £3-£4k which is a good proportion of red money
One wonders about the deprecaition of such compared to Red
(I know I have been hit for depreciation on DSLRs - dya wanna buy my two D1 nikons ?)
thanks for advice - sound like you actually know something about video
ps how does on translate '20X zoom' to '200mm on 35mm' ?
Graham
On a sinar my main stills camera the ISO is fixed like Red - even easier
S
-
JJJ
This rig seems to be about £3-£4k which is a good proportion of red money
One wonders about the deprecaition of such compared to Red
(I know I have been hit for depreciation on DSLRs - dya wanna buy my two D1 nikons ?)
thanks for advice - sound like you actually know something about video
ps how does on translate '20X zoom' to '200mm on 35mm' ?
Graham
On a sinar my main stills camera the ISO is fixed like Red - even easier
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is nothing wrong with SD on an XL2. You get 24 fps and a good file, though one that is somewhat challenged for wide screen viewing, especially if you convert to the mpg2 dvd format.
Also cropping other than small 3% amounts begins to show.
In comparison, HDV cameras are not that expensive, a canon xha1 is under 4 thousand, and even though you need adpapter lens to go wide, the quality doesn't suffer noticeably or at all.
It really depends on what you shoot and the look you want. If you want a real film look, especially in dof, any prosumer camera has such a small chip throwing focus is almost impossible within anything other than football field length.
For larger frame sizes the larger engs get very expensive require manual focus and still have a video type look.
The Red seems to be the next thing and though 4k files are still not standard even in Hollywood production that does all the intermediate steps in digital, 4k probably will become the standard, if only to have for archive footage even if you originally downsample to 2k.
Just like still cameras, the red, a super 16, a 35mm panaflex, a small handicam will not take the place of talent, taste, modern color timing, and intelligent shooting and editing.
Beautiful content is still the domain of talent and not just equipment and there have been a lot of amazing productions shot on very challenged low equipment.
It's not what a camera (any camera) does that is that important, it's what it keeps you from doing that makes a difference.
JR
-
There is nothing wrong with SD on an XL2. You get 24 fps and a good file, though one that is somewhat challenged for wide screen viewing, especially if you convert to the mpg2 dvd format.
Also cropping other than small 3% amounts begins to show.
In comparison, HDV cameras are not that expensive, a canon xha1 is under 4 thousand, and even though you need adpapter lens to go wide, the quality doesn't suffer noticeably or at all.
It really depends on what you shoot and the look you want. If you want a real film look, especially in dof, any prosumer camera has such a small chip throwing focus is almost impossible within anything other than football field length.
For larger frame sizes the larger engs get very expensive require manual focus and still have a video type look.
The Red seems to be the next thing and though 4k files are still not standard even in Hollywood production that does all the intermediate steps in digital, 4k probably will become the standard, if only to have for archive footage even if you originally downsample to 2k.
Just like still cameras, the red, a super 16, a 35mm panaflex, a small handicam will not take the place of talent, taste, modern color timing, and intelligent shooting and editing.
Beautiful content is still the domain of talent and not just equipment and there have been a lot of amazing productions shot on very challenged low equipment.
It's not what a camera (any camera) does that is that important, it's what it keeps you from doing that makes a difference.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
james
I am not quite sure what you are saying !
Red=Good or Red=Bad ?
My big lesson with gear was buying a 16mp square MFDB that I traded and lost on - I should have just gone for the 22mp/H1 that is my workhorse
I have also hit big losses on DSLRs from the D1 onwards - I had no choice on that front becuase they were the best at the time
My lesson with gear is 'just go in at the top' - (if that is where you are going to eventually end up anyway)
I am formulating an economic argument for Red being
no lenses to purchase
it wont be redundant and 'valueless' in two years
and therefore could be cheaper than buying OK kit in the long run
aditionally having RAW archive footage in may library (and my library is a significant part of my income) will also mean no 'lost footage'
A large part of that argument revolves around my 'phlosophical' question which is
Will commercial shooters offering a moving and still package be the norm in the next three years?
Because if the answer is YES then I HAVE to buy some sort of video kit to stay afloat and therefore why not just pile in at the top end
I think that if scarlett takes nikon and costs 1/2 of Red then the answer is yes - but something makes me think that wont be the case....
SMM
-
james
I am not quite sure what you are saying !
Red=Good or Red=Bad ?
My big lesson with gear was buying a 16mp square MFDB that I traded and lost on - I should have just gone for the 22mp/H1 that is my workhorse
I have also hit big losses on DSLRs from the D1 onwards - I had no choice on that front becuase they were the best at the time
My lesson with gear is 'just go in at the top' - (if that is where you are going to eventually end up anyway)
I am formulating an economic argument for Red being
no lenses to purchase
it wont be redundant and 'valueless' in two years
and therefore could be cheaper than buying OK kit in the long run
aditionally having RAW archive footage in may library (and my library is a significant part of my income) will also mean no 'lost footage'
A large part of that argument revolves around my 'phlosophical' question which is
Will commercial shooters offering a moving and still package be the norm in the next three years?
Because if the answer is YES then I HAVE to buy some sort of video kit to stay afloat and therefore why not just pile in at the top end
I think that if scarlett takes nikon and costs 1/2 of Red then the answer is yes - but something makes me think that wont be the case....
SMM
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=188251\")
Who knows what the future brings and everyone has a different business model.
Most still photographers on any level do not want to mess with moving imagery, most videographers, film makers do not shoot high end stills, so this has not converged as much as it probably could/would/should.
The leap is not that drastic in learning curve, art and even monetary investment, but that doesn't mean much in the real world.
Is the Red a good camera, I don't know though it looks fascinating to me.
Is it an easy video cam, no not really but that's not what it's designed for, though beautiful cinema usually comes from the perceived flicker of 24 frames, a file robust enough to move in post and a physcial frame size large enough to throw focus.
Once again everybody has a different business model, though knowledge is power and the more you offer usually the more you work.
There is nothing unique about that in any business.
Then again buying a $1,000 handican and jiggling it around while someone shoots stills isn't going to say much and for this type of work moving to a $35,000 Red isn't going to change the look of production.
This is about producing beautiful imagery whether still or moving and if the camera doesn't stop you or something you don't have to think about then that's the camera.
The thing I am most interested about with the Red is the higher iso.
In this clip, found online, at 500 iso the blacks look very clean and ususally with highdef any black image underexposed gets very noisey.
[a href=\"http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov]http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov[/url]
JR
-
Most still photographers on any level do not want to mess with moving imagery, most videographers, film makers do not shoot high end stills, so this has not converged as much as it probably could/would/should.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that it may not be 'would' 'could' or 'should' but 'will' and 'when'
If it is 'will' then my agrument is not to p*ss about with the mide range but just pile in high
I dont think it $35k either not with a 28 1.4 nikkor only
S
-
All I can say, is "wait and see". I think Monday is going to be a very interesting day....
Graeme
-
All I can say, is "wait and see". I think Monday is going to be a very interesting day....
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme,
I know you can't/won't comment on the scarlet, but on the red.
What is the highest useable iso, i.e. clean shadows.
What is the delivery time for a full kit, weeks, days, months?
_________________________
Today we began production of a "film" using hdv canons and the red rock.
It's was interesting as this is the first time I've used the Red Rock for all the footage.
The upside is it throws focus very well, even the precooked hdv files are nice and once into post work will look very good.
The downside is it's a very sensitive and large setup, even with Nikon Lenses. By the time you mount a Marshall high def monitor upside down to see the image, a matte box and the required tubes, it's a very big camera and takes a lot of adjustment everytime you use it.
Also at anything past 6db you see a lot of moving noise in the shadows. Nothing that can't be somewhat fixed, but shooting all day at 6db and around f 1.7 to f2, we were still very low on light
_________________________
Once again, I am somewhat surprised that this topic has so little play. I would think the introduction of a 4k digital video camera wouild really shake the world of motion and still imagery.
4k is a 30megabyte file and when you think of how close that is to still camera quality it's amazing to think it can be used at such a fast frame rate.
JR
-
It's so hard to answer the ISO question, as it's all about a personal tolerance to noise. I've heard of superb results in low light shooting, but that's just anecdotal. I've seen some night time available light shots that looked great, but don't know the full shooting details to comment further.
Again, delivery is not the part of the RED project that I'm involved with. I wish I had the knowledge to talk about that stuff, but I'm in so deep with the image processing and workflow, I rarely peep up to see what else is happening. There's just too much to know!
Graeme
-
In this clip, the one James linked to, the noise looks great, but when the women first exhales the smoke it looks very pixelated on my screen.
I'm assuming that's easily cleaned up or is just my video card that doing the effect?
http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov (http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov)
-
Just looks like a bit too much compression for the web, to me.
Graeme
-
<slaps forehead>
Of course!
-
<slaps forehead>
Of course!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
compressing digital video is an art and science in it's own right and the combinations would take a year to learn.
When we send out an on-line approval clip, it is never easy as a client with a mac can see h264, another one only mp4 and some pc clients, or mac challenged clients can only see a Sorenson 3 which compared to the new h264 codecs is night and day.
If you knew what the Hollywood studios spend to manually compress a dvd for consumer play the costs would knock you over as they will work each segment in a different bit rate, with many variable passes.
Actually there was a period of web only broadcasts where a dp knew not to move the camera during a take as the only imagery that had to be rewritten was the subject. If you want to see web footage fall apart, do a slow crawl, zoom, or track into a subject and eventually some pixelization will finally just break up the image. Same with cross transitions.
The thing about the red footage I've noticed is how smooth it looks in comparision to the standard hdv I've shot. Probably due to a lot of things, chip size, compression, lenses, etc.
Even in the web clip, which obviously was not shot for artistic merits, I think the footage at 500 iso was stunning.
JR
-
Good Morning Folks
We have the RED camera inhouse at present--I'll report findings.
Des
-
RED news at NAB:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04...ed.at.nab.2008/ (http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/14/red.at.nab.2008/)
-
Another Story and Image:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=180 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=180)
-
How does the 3K, 4K & 5K equate to megapixels?
-
It's the number of pixels on the wide dimension.
Michael
-
It's the number of pixels on the wide dimension.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Michael, I had great hopes for Red until this last annoucement.
I guess they've been reading the LL medium format forum and decided a $17,500 just wasn't what the market could bear, so wa-la, now we're at an "upgrade" to $30,000, with a statement that "all specs, delivery dates could change, count on it."
Welcome to Medium Format Digital land.
I was set to buy the Red actually called but nobody answered, but now, I don't know, because I don't know the whole story.
Does the 4k Red end now, waiting for the 5k, and the litle Scarlet, well, I don't have much use for a 2/3" chip so that wasn't the plan to throw focus.
JR
-
Red One at 4k continues on, and there will be a RED One upgrade path, as well as the total upgrade of getting the 100% credit towards a Epic.
Graeme
-
Red One at 4k continues on, and there will be a RED One upgrade path, as well as the total upgrade of getting the 100% credit towards a Epic.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme,
In a way I was somewhat joking, well maybe not 100%.
Still, if you've spent any time in the still digital world, especially medium format the words upgrade path, specifications and delivery subject to change wrapped around a 30K price tag pretty much sends a chill up your spine.
A few weeks ago I was really impressed with the scope and transparency of the Red web site and though I am considering the purchase, I must admit I've gone down this early adopter road before and when a manufacturer announces new product, just briefly after the original product is just shipping it makes me pause and think maybe this is one I'll wait out until it really gets the kinks worked out (if there are any kinks).
JR
-
Of course, putting things in perspective, top end DSLRs are less than $10,000 and Medium format camera systems less and $40,000. That's very different to the moving imaging world, where it wasn't long back that $40,000 would get you a betacam, and $100,000 was where the HDCAM was, or thereabouts, and now top end HD cameras could be somewhere around $250,000.
New products are always interesting to announce. We certainly announce ahead of time to elicit feedback. To me, that just makes sense. I fully understand about how it can seem when a new product looks to replace the existing one so soon, but again, it's not that we're dropping the old, but working on a product for another segment of the market, those that have features ahead of price, so to speak, and certainly the $17,500 to ~$40,000 price is not as significant when the "alternatives" are rental only or in the 1/4 million range, and the glass you'll be using with it is a significant cost of the shooting package.
And from my point of view, it's more fun and interesting to be open and have a dialogue, than just to announce a product when it's done and say "take it or leave it".
If you're unsure at all about buying a RED, I'd be much happier that you wait. I don't see the harm in that at all, and if you want to check out the image aesthetic and product philosophy, I think Scarlet would make a fine and affordable introduction.
The "subject to change" stuff is really just brutal honesty, and part of the feedback programme. And change does mean change, not just "remove", but "add" too.
What's nice about RED, is that we're real people, we all shoot (film or digital stills or movies), we all use the gear, we love good glass, we aspire to make fantastic images. I'm very proud of the images our cameras make. I'm passionate about images, moving or still, and I really do think that shows through.
Graeme
-
graham.
so this scarlett..
costs how much?
takes nikon lenses ?
how big is the chip? - try and talk camera sizes if you know them
how wide would my 14mm nikkor be
is the chip smaller or the pixels per inch lower
SMM
-
Cost, around $3000. It's a fixed zoom lens, 2/3" sensor, 3k resolution.
Graeme
-
Cost, around $3000. It's a fixed zoom lens, 2/3" sensor, 3k resolution.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
so in stills language that is a physically small chip (for a still camera and large for a video)
Ie DOF will be good but not great
The zoom lens will be equivelent to what in 35mm terms 28-70 or what ?
Sorry to be a dummy
S
-
For some stills pros the real alternative to DSLRs and MFDBs will be the Red Epic announced at the same time as the Scarlet.
It weighs 6lbs, has a 5 K chip (about 20MP) and can shoot raw stills and video at 100 FPS, and with interchangeable lenses. Priced like a medium format back though.
Michael
-
Of course, putting things in perspective, top end DSLRs are less than $10,000 and Medium format camera systems less and $40,000. That's very different to the moving imaging world, where it wasn't long back that $40,000 would get you a betacam, and $100,000 was where the HDCAM was, or thereabouts, and now top end HD cameras could be somewhere around $250,000.
New products are always interesting to announce. We certainly announce ahead of time to elicit feedback. To me, that just makes sense. I fully understand about how it can seem when a new product looks to replace the existing one so soon, but again, it's not that we're dropping the old, but working on a product for another segment of the market, those that have features ahead of price, so to speak, and certainly the $17,500 to ~$40,000 price is not as significant when the "alternatives" are rental only or in the 1/4 million range, and the glass you'll be using with it is a significant cost of the shooting package.
And from my point of view, it's more fun and interesting to be open and have a dialogue, than just to announce a product when it's done and say "take it or leave it".
If you're unsure at all about buying a RED, I'd be much happier that you wait. I don't see the harm in that at all, and if you want to check out the image aesthetic and product philosophy, I think Scarlet would make a fine and affordable introduction.
The "subject to change" stuff is really just brutal honesty, and part of the feedback programme. And change does mean change, not just "remove", but "add" too.
What's nice about RED, is that we're real people, we all shoot (film or digital stills or movies), we all use the gear, we love good glass, we aspire to make fantastic images. I'm very proud of the images our cameras make. I'm passionate about images, moving or still, and I really do think that shows through.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Graeme,
We are looking for an Underwater Housing for our RED --any pointers or prospective interest?
Des W
-
For some stills pros the real alternative to DSLRs and MFDBs will be the Red Epic announced at the same time as the Scarlet.
It weighs 6lbs, has a 5 K chip (about 20MP) and can shoot raw stills and video at 100 FPS, and with interchangeable lenses. Priced like a medium format back though.
Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189997\")
We are now within inches of where moving digital capture (anything but the term video) is not going to be a afterthought or added on to a still shoot, it will be the standard procedure of a still shoot.
Now before everyone starts grabbing their Sinars, Hasselblads and Nikons and throw them at my door screaming about the purity of still images, regardless tradition, the industry is moving in the direction of convergence.
Still sets resemble mini movie sets, with gaffers, monitors, multiple lighting solutions and instant review of what was shot.
Talk to clients (usually direct not ad agencies), or publishers and mention the word "video" and they listen very intently.
We hear about democratization that the internet has given publishing, (see this site for example), television view, journalism and movies, but it's not democratization that the internet is providing, it's a common carrier and network (free or not) where moving imagery carries as much if not more weight than stills.
We are still in the early stages of how this works in advertising, but remember it's much more effort to scrub past an advertisement embedded in a video than it is to set your browser to block pop ups.
Now how the Red works into this, especially at 5k is something that should give us all some pause.
If the same image you shoot in "video" will run on a double page spread then there is something to be said for the one camera system.
The reason I said talk to clients and publishers instead of ad agencies is a lot of agencies still seem to be in the traditional mindset where a still photographer only shoots stills and a film director only directs film and never the two shall meet, at least in harmony.
I recently shot a large project where there were two sets and two productions, one 35mm film the other my still set.
I'm not complaining about my role or what I was asked to do, because it was a very rewarding project, but working next to the "film" set it was obvious that both could be integrated with no more than a change in camera and a few different lighting placements.
If the projects had been combined, the savings would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the interesting part was on the film set the client was relegated to viewing the image on a flickering video tap, where on our still set we had color corrected imagery coming into the computer every click of the shutter.
Where the Red plays into this I don't know because I guess no mortal has shot with a 5k red, at least in this type of mixed media production, but it seems that is logical that it could/would/probably should go this way and not with compromise.
My studio shoots and produces a lot of parallel productions and working in this form of harmony, even taking into account sound, different framing ratios, different lighting requirements, the convergence gets closer every day.
[a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/directorscutmed.mov]http://russellrutherford.com/directorscutmed.mov[/url]
JR
-
3000? God, you gotta love those boys in your marketing department. :-)
I would've expected 5000-10000.
Cost, around $3000. It's a fixed zoom lens, 2/3" sensor, 3k resolution.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
We are now within inches of where moving digital capture (anything but the term video) is not going to be a afterthought or added on to a still shoot, it will be the standard procedure of a still shoot.
Still sets resemble mini movie sets, with gaffers, monitors, multiple lighting solutions and instant review of what was shot.
The reason I said talk to clients and publishers instead of ad agencies is a lot of agencies still seem to be in the traditional mindset where a still photographer only shoots stills and a film director only directs film and never the two shall meet, at least in harmony.
On film sets, you will always find a stills photographer, even if shot with the best qaulity film or video capture. Why? Moving images do not produce images sharp enough for still work and even with 35mm film, the capture area is smaller than 35mm stills as the film is moving vertically. The movement disguises the lack of sharpness, plus we tolerate a less sharp moving image.
I recently shot a large project where there were two sets and two productions, one 35mm film the other my still set.
I'm not complaining about my role or what I was asked to do, because it was a very rewarding project, but working next to the "film" set it was obvious that both could be integrated with no more than a change in camera and a few different lighting placements.
If the projects had been combined, the savings would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the interesting part was on the film set the client was relegated to viewing the image on a flickering video tap, where on our still set we had color corrected imagery coming into the computer every click of the shutter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily as stills photographers have minutes, sometimes seconds to get a shot, between set ups and the lighting requirements for each medium are very different. One uses flash and one uses constant lighting, neither much use for the other. So as time is money, doing both on separate stages may be cheaper than combining sets and constantly getting in each other's way.
Also colour correct viewing on set is not so important/easy as with stills, plus the colour is always tweaked when graded afterwards. The DoP is probably much more aware of lighting colour issues than stills photographers, as they have always had more problems with colour temp matching than we do with our daylight flash heads. The video monitor is more for viewing performance and technical issues, boom in shot, focus pulls etc. Though a monitor that does show colour correctly is better than one that doesn't. Bear in mind the movie kit will have been hired for the day/job and the camera and monitor may never even have been used together before that morning, so precise calibaration is tricky.
-
On film sets, you will always find a stills photographer, even if shot with the best qaulity film or video capture. Why? Moving images do not produce images sharp enough for still work and even with 35mm film, the capture area is smaller than 35mm stills as the film is moving vertically. The movement disguises the lack of sharpness, plus we tolerate a less sharp moving image.
Not necessarily as stills photographers have minutes, sometimes seconds to get a shot, between set ups and the lighting requirements for each medium are very different. One uses flash and one uses constant lighting, neither much use for the other. So as time is money, doing both on separate stages may be cheaper than combining sets and constantly getting in each other's way.
Also colour correct viewing on set is not so important/easy as with stills, plus the colour is always tweaked when graded afterwards. The DoP is probably much more aware of lighting colour issues than stills photographers, as they have always had more problems with colour temp matching than we do with our daylight flash heads. The video monitor is more for viewing performance and technical issues, boom in shot, focus pulls etc. Though a monitor that does show colour correctly is better than one that doesn't. Bear in mind the movie kit will have been hired for the day/job and the camera and monitor may never even have been used together before that morning, so precise calibaration is tricky.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, ok, this I know because we do a lot of moving production, except all of this is old think.
To begin with if you have even experience prosumer 2k in the very compressed hdv codec you can eaasily find still imagery that is pretty amazing and will natively fill edge to edge a 24" monitor.
We colortime all of our final footage, even the hdv or standard def on a DiVinci 2k and shooting digitally verses shooting film still gives a lot better monitor view than a blinking pink and monotone lcd.
Since none of the imagery I mentioned will ever see theatrical big screen use, (it's all Television and smaller web play), even if the film had been digitatized in 4k (which it wasn't) it still offered very little benfit over shooting any form of digital video.
You did touch on a few points though and This is where the Red comes in, because up until now, there was no affordable to own, digital video camera that shot a 35mm cinema frame size (remember I said affordable).
Whether it's 4k, 3k to 2k, it's more in the compression, the bit depth and of course how well the Red or any digital capture works in higher isos.
Now I don't think that most moving imagery, regardless of quality will just exactly purpose over to stills for all the artistic reasons you mentioned. Rarely does a cinema session tell the story in one frame because moving to still are really different artistic mindsets.
That doesn't mean that the productions can't be dual purposed.
Tehnically,the process is converging and I know because I do this weekly, sometimes with just small add on crew for the moving imagery and sometimes with two full blown crews each sharing time.
The video I presented earlier was shot still and video, in studio AND on location, with dialog and MOS, and the stills are a international campaign the video will be purposed in multiple mediums AND it was shot in one day.
Once again, it's changing and we are converging and anyone that doesn't think so, hasn't tried it.
What you talking about is that traditional think that film crews believe a still photographer is either some guy that just shoots over their shoulder with a blimp, or does a "special" session that only needs a few dozen frames. Historically this has been the case, but if you do work in both mediums you can easily take the good aspects from both and apply them to both mediums.
What I am saying is both moving and stills can be accomplished professionally and with artistic merit on the same day, with a lot of the same crew and equipment.
There is a difference in the style and pace of the two mediums.
Film crews move like the army, slow and methodical and still crews even large ones move much faster and digital capture has only increased the speed in how we work.
The same will eventually hold for moving imagery and everyone working as an "image creator" should take the blinders off and at least be aware of what is possible.
Now I don't think that for a moment, every Hollywood production is going to stop shooting film with 475 people crews, or that every still photographer is going to throw a Red in the case and shoot everything on moving imagery and stills, but both could and probably should happen.
I am sure acceptence to the Red will be met by a lot of the same traditional old think, thought process that still capture went through with digital. Early on I shot digital and early on I heard all of the misinformation of "it doesn't look like film, blows the highlights, is too slow, too fast, too hard and too cumbersome and all that is just absoltuely not true, especially today where the medium format and 35mm digital still cameras I use far surpass anything that I previously shot in those formats with film.
Don't think the Red is not the beginning of this process and don't think that Canon, Panasonic and Sony aren't looking at that camera with some plans to compete. Also don't think that Kodak's film stock production is going to start shrinking and if cinema moves at the pace of still capture it will happen a lot faster than anyone plans.
Most importantly don't think a client's won't pick up on the fact that digital caputre in any genre produces faster and more production in a day than film.
Personally it makes not one bit of difference to me if a still photogrpaher shoots only stills or Peter Jackson never does anything but direct, but for a lot of clients it does matter a great deal.
It's going to change and like the original Canon 1ds completely changed still capture, the Red or any full frame 35mm affordable camera is poised to do that with moving film and the days of taking 2 hours to set up a camera will come to a close.
JR
-
I'm not sure quite what point you are arguing as your post seemed a bit scattershot. Are you trying to say that we'll all be using a RED, whether we are still or movie people. And that both will come from one camera?
Also, how is the RED any different from the days of 35mm film in both still and movie cameras? You needed a stills photographer then to get the sharp images. Film is shot at 1/50th sec remember. And when I do stills work, I will do my own set ups to encapsulate the story of a scene or entire film in a single shot. Something that be several shots in the film. Doing that is a completely separate job from the film making process.
BTW I'm talking about film/movie sets, not combined advertising shoots, where the priorities are very, very different. And for years you've had cheapskate producers trying to do frame grabs to save on hiring a stills photographer and only too late they realise, they've made a mistake.
As for the convergence, there are photographers who can transition to moving images quite easily and most who will have no idea. Just like most photographers have limited graphic design skills and even less web production ability.
Stills photographers have become directors since movie making existed, nothing new there. And many have directed the TV adverts a well as producing the posters The more logical move for many photographers would be to lighting/DoP work as that is closer to many photographer's skill sets.
I do agree that RED will change some aspects of filmaking, but the camera has very little to do with 95% of what is going on on rest of set.
Film crews work more slowly as it's a far more complex process, again nothing to do with the camera. Working out focus pulls for complex tracking shots or the structure and choreography of a steadicam shoot can be very time consuming. Stills don't have to worry about boon in shot, wait for a plane to go past or the natural day lighting to change back to how it was in previous set up of the same scene. We did a series of setups in typically British overcast Autumnal light and then for the last couple we had to wait a verrry long time for a cloud to appear in the suddenly completely blue sky.
You mention traditional thinking, as in stuck in the mud thinking. A while back I heard about a studio head who decided to get some time and motion people in to try and reduce the no. of people on set and to get things going a bit faster. The study revealed, that everyone was in fact necessary, there was no dead wood and the reality was - different departments have to take turns in working and sadly, there were no magic short cuts. With digital some jobs will disappear [loader] and be replaced by other new jobs [hard drive handler!], I doubt much else will change.
And for years, all the film shoots I've worked on have had full colour video playback, through decent monitors, even if shooting on film. So digital will make very little difference, to the work process in that area, unlike with stills where the workflow was revolutionised by instant access to the shoot.
As an aside there's a Shane Meadows' film called 'Dead Man's Shoes', where the crew was built around the no. of people who could fit in a mini bus, and by eliminating additional lighting and setting the film over a very short period of time, wardrobe and makeup were dispensed with and people doubled up on several jobs. This was only possible because of the particular story. Plus the story was in fact written with some of these strictures in mind. An interesting approach, but with very limited application.
As for the resistance to digital, I don't think there is one in a lot of filmmaking like there was in stills photography. The big difference the RED will make is in affordability. Many features/tv shows have been shot on video/digitally for quite some time and video looked as good as film 3-4 years ago using cameras that were more than 10 times the price of the RED.
-
We were showing some nice "landscape" shots on the RED on our demo reel. They were, if you'd taken a still frame out, very much like you'd shoot with a still camera, but with some inherent movement, clouds, weather, a person skiing by etc. To me, that's a nice still / movie hybrid where the stock footage could work for either media.
Yes, if you're shooting moving images, you may not get shots suitable for print, but if they are suitable, they're much superior coming from a RED than a video camera. Motion blur that works great on movement may not be right at all for the still. Although you're not restricted to typical 1/48th shutter speed, as a full range is available.
Graeme
-
I'm not sure quite what point you are arguing as your post seemed a bit scattershot. Are you trying to say that we'll all be using a RED, whether we are still or movie people. And that both will come from one camera?
Also, how is the RED any different from the days of 35mm film in both still and movie cameras? You needed a stills photographer then to get the sharp images. Film is shot at 1/50th sec remember. And when I do stills work, I will do my own set ups to encapsulate the story of a scene or entire film in a single shot. Something that be several shots in the film. Doing that is a completely separate job from the film making process.
BTW I'm talking about film/movie sets, not combined advertising shoots, where the priorities are very, very different. And for years you've had cheapskate producers trying to do frame grabs to save on hiring a stills photographer and only too late they realise, they've made a mistake.
As for the convergence, there are photographers who can transition to moving images quite easily and most who will have no idea. Just like most photographers have limited graphic design skills and even less web production ability.
Stills photographers have become directors since movie making existed, nothing new there. And many have directed the TV adverts a well as producing the posters The more logical move for many photographers would be to lighting/DoP work as that is closer to many photographer's skill sets.
I do agree that RED will change some aspects of filmaking, but the camera has very little to do with 95% of what is going on on rest of set.
Film crews work more slowly as it's a far more complex process, again nothing to do with the camera. Working out focus pulls for complex tracking shots or the structure and choreography of a steadicam shoot can be very time consuming. Stills don't have to worry about boon in shot, wait for a plane to go past or the natural day lighting to change back to how it was in previous set up of the same scene. We did a series of setups in typically British overcast Autumnal light and then for the last couple we had to wait a verrry long time for a cloud to appear in the suddenly completely blue sky.
You mention traditional thinking, as in stuck in the mud thinking. A while back I heard about a studio head who decided to get some time and motion people in to try and reduce the no. of people on set and to get things going a bit faster. The study revealed, that everyone was in fact necessary, there was no dead wood and the reality was - different departments have to take turns in working and sadly, there were no magic short cuts. With digital some jobs will disappear [loader] and be replaced by other new jobs [hard drive handler!], I doubt much else will change.
And for years, all the film shoots I've worked on have had full colour video playback, through decent monitors, even if shooting on film. So digital will make very little difference, to the work process in that area, unlike with stills where the workflow was revolutionised by instant access to the shoot.
As an aside there's a Shane Meadows' film called 'Dead Man's Shoes', where the crew was built around the no. of people who could fit in a mini bus, and by eliminating additional lighting and setting the film over a very short period of time, wardrobe and makeup were dispensed with and people doubled up on several jobs. This was only possible because of the particular story. Plus the story was in fact written with some of these strictures in mind. An interesting approach, but with very limited application.
As for the resistance to digital, I don't think there is one in a lot of filmmaking like there was in stills photography. The big difference the RED will make is in affordability. Many features/tv shows have been shot on video/digitally for quite some time and video looked as good as film 3-4 years ago using cameras that were more than 10 times the price of the RED.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a lot of territory to cover here and if I go off track, it's because I write this stuff at light speed then get back to work.
In a way we are talking about the same thing in the fact it will always take talent, technique and skilled professionals to produce compelling work, regardless of the capture device.
And yes your right and we all know that a lot of eposodic televsion is shot video. Regardless most people that work in the high end of cinema have been to date reluctant to move to digitial video for features.
My point, or rather my expertise isn't in theatrical production, but advertising where the longest run time is a few minutes or less and the crews and technique of high end still capture have grown and moved to closely resemble a small film crew.
Yes, I know that still photogrpahers have directed advertising commercials and cinema directors have shot still advertising campaings, after all talent is talent so that is not really ground breaking.
Regardless of that, what digital video offers is a shorter learning curve from still digital capture that didn't cross over as easily in the film days and up to now with a camera like the red, not as easily affordable.
Though in regards to your comments about the executive cutting costs, I am in total agreement with his overall thought, though maybe not the exact methodology. Fitting everything into a mini bus and hoping for high end production is obviously going to make a project suffer so there is also nothing new about that, but cutting out a dozen teamsters and grips that huddle around the kraft services table probably won't make anything change other than the catering bill.
What I see with digital video is the affordability and empowerment to learn and do much of this yourself or at least learn it to a level where direction is precise and determined.
If higher iso becomes a reality, then you will see crews get smaller and production go faster just because the lights, generators and cable all get reduced in size and scope.
As far as the speed in which film crews work vs. still crews, I've shot and produced at least 20 parallel projects in multiple cities and countries and have never seen a film crew (reagardless of the thoughtful complexity of the process) move as fast, work as hard, multi task and multi purpose like a great still crew.
Don't take that statement as a lack of respect for film technicians and artists because the good ones are truly amazing and bring more worth to a project than can be explained.
JR
-
deleted
-
Can someone explain red shutter speed ?
Ie can you up it to say 1/250
That means take 50 1/250 frames in a second
Does one have light control beyond the aperture/iris and the latitude in the RAW file
maybe there is an dialable electronic ND filter ?
getting my head arond the whole thing
ps James I am in total agreement that there is merging-ness this is becuase advertising used to either a film (an advert) or a still in a magazine with the web that is no longer true - I can see stills that run when you mouse over them etc
S
-
Can someone explain red shutter speed ?
Ie can you up it to say 1/250
That means take 50 1/250 frames in a second
Does one have light control beyond the aperture/iris and the latitude in the RAW file
maybe there is an dialable electronic ND filter ?
getting my head arond the whole thing
ps James I am in total agreement that there is merging-ness this is becuase advertising used to either a film (an advert) or a still in a magazine with the web that is no longer true - I can see stills that run when you mouse over them etc
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only thing that limits all of this merging into one production is we don't have universal fast bandwidth to play full screen moving imagery without a download wait.
It's coming and once everyone can just click and instantly view the world gets much different.
Last night we purposed out imagery for different devices. HDV, SD, Web, Apple TV, I-pod and I-phone.
The HDV footage even shot on prosumer hdv codec cameras and colortimed, is just stunning on a 24" computer and I can't even begin to imagine how much better it would be on a red, 3k, 4k, or 5k camera, even downsampled.
Consequently the SD footage played through different monitors was challenged at best, though 2 years ago nobody would have complained or seen a difference.
We are not far from where the next fashion editorial you see will be a full screen movie of 6 urban youths running down broadway but as you mouse over their shirt it will freeze and say, Bananna Republic, $74.95.
Like it or not, advertising and editorial will move into a mix medium direction.
Right now on the computer next to me is a 30" TV screen that plays apple TV.
Two pushes of a button and any movie, stills of video on my computer will go right into the Apple TV and I can watch, or search the web for just about anything I want to view and watch it, pause it, rewind and play it whenever I feel like and it all can be done through one device or networked to every computer in my studio wirelessly.
It can also be downloaded to my phone or an Ipod and I can show my complete reel and still portfolio anywhere in the world.
The crazy thing is that the same desktop computer that I use for viewing can also cut, colortime, grade and store the project I shot.
Like it or not most of us are driven by commerce. We may have gotten into our chosen art for the creative expression, but as we go down the line we are moved by who hires us.
I've known photographers that screamed they would never shoot digital though that changed when their largest client demanded digital capture.
I'm sure these are the same photographers that will say they will never shoot "video" until the person writing the check demands moving imagery, then there will be a Red, a Sony, or a P2 on set.
It's all changing and some of it for the good. I know of one large fashion retailer that produces a huge catalog and started purposing the catalog imagery to the web. Now the web is 65% of their "catalog" sales and the printed catalog will eventually just phase down to a series of small specialty books, that will probably phase down to a series of small specialty web sites.
This hasn't change the fact that the retailer needs compelling imagery, it's just change the way they show it to the public, but the web is a much different carrier than print in the fact that it moves.
JR
-
The only thing that limits a... than print in the fact that it moves.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We agree completly (from different ends of the industry)
Now the only question for is which 'moving image recorder' to buy
Crazy to jump in at the RED level maybe but considering my nikon advantage and my tendency to end up with the top end kit anyway it might be a proposition
Trying to decide..
$1000 toy to learn on
$6000 commercial but limited smaller chip rig (that I will probably just sell at a loss)
$20000 thing to keep for years and build into a (rentable to third parties) system
probably the first then the third but never the second - too lossy (cashwise)
Thanks James for your input
Those costs are quite small compared to the other investment that I am working on right now...
SMM
---------------
-
We agree completly (from different ends of the industry)
Now the only question for is which 'moving image recorder' to buy
Crazy to jump in at the RED level maybe but considering my nikon advantage and my tendency to end up with the top end kit anyway it might be a proposition
Trying to decide..
$1000 toy to learn on
$6000 commercial but limited smaller chip rig (that I will probably just sell at a loss)
$20000 thing to keep for years and build into a (rentable to third parties) system
probably the first then the third but never the second - too lossy (cashwise)
Thanks James for your input
Those costs are quite small compared to the other investment that I am working on right now...
SMM
---------------
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's the $20,000 option, at least in my experience.
I have two hdv cameras, assorted convertors, lenses, etc. and the price probably totals 10k, 1/2 of a start up red.
They still have thier place, especially for fast autofocus behind the scenes, but for serious production the Red seems to have snuffed them all.
Now if I could buy a Red today I probably would, ( I was e-mailed that the wait is 5 weeks) though whe you look at that little 3k camera I'm sure that will eventually replace the hdv cams.
JR
-
It's the $20,000 option, at least in my experience....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that ends up being best value ??
I wonder how much you have really spent and what the devaulation is
S
-
that ends up being best value ??
I wonder how much you have really spent and what the devaulation is
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The best value is the camera or format that doesn't keep you from shooting what is in your mind (or some cases, the client's mind).
JR
-
The best value is the camera or format that doesn't keep you from shooting what is in your mind (or some cases, the client's mind).
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is such a silly response, I can't believe I wrote it.
Regardless, does a 20, 30, or $40,000 cinema camera makes sense? I doesn't until you compare a full 35mm film cinema camera to the red, then the numbers more than even up.
If you compare it to a Panasonic p2 then the choice is more difficult.
The thing about the prosumer grade digital cameras you will use it even if you own everything, just because it's easy, and fast and it's fairly inconspicuous.
I was speaking to a gaffer last night about the Red and he mentioned a cinematographer that was a really big "film" guy that somewhat like the Red.
I've heard the F word before in still capture so I knew from the moment this conversations started where it was going, which made me think that Red should offer a film option.
They can have an detachable "film" mag full of CF cards and open their own "film" lab for color and grading. You just send red your "film magazine" they process it and send you back a digitized disc.
JR
-
(Snip)
This hasn't change the fact that the retailer needs compelling imagery, it's just change the way they show it to the public, but the web is a much different carrier than print in the fact that it moves.
JR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=190640\")
How about this: [a href=\"http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/info.do?cid=39628]http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/info.do?cid=39628[/url] ?
Darius Khondji too. I wonder how he processed the 'footage' from RED. I wonder about his workflow.
-
I fear you haven't really understood the whole deal with raw unprocessed sensor capture if you fail to see the advantages RAW have over 35mm Stills film, based on what I sense in your posts here, but english is not my native language so I could be wrong about that.
Yes you are wrong about that. I use RAW all the time and fully understand it's strengths, but RAW being the capture medium has no bearing on the different ways the image is physically captured on video/film vs stills. It's the slow shutter speed that is the biggest difference and the inability to use flash to freeze movement, that is the major difference.
I will not claim anything regarding movie raw capture yet as I haven't finished my research on that based on a stills photographers needs. But not having to nail color, contrast and partly exposure 100% prior to shooting is a huge time saver and hence money saver. And when we saw already 5 years ago that we even delivered a lot higher and consistent quality as well by not making decisions prior to the post-work, it was a done deal. So I have a hard time accepting that a lot of moving image capture on film not will be in for a revolution on all aspects - even commercial ones as we have seen in stills capture.
I cannot see DoPs getting sloppy over how they light a set, just because of RAW. They'll simply use it as way of increasing ability to tweak afterwards. Post production in film is very, very expensive/time consuming, so getting it right on set makes more sense.
-
And yes your right and we all know that a lot of eposodic televsion is shot video. Regardless most people that work in the high end of cinema have been to date reluctant to move to digitial video for features.
Less and less. Quite a few have moved across, Robert Roderiguez, Michael Mann, George Lucas are three I can think of straight off.
Regardless of that, what digital video offers is a shorter learning curve from still digital capture that didn't cross over as easily in the film days and up to now with a camera like the red, not as easily affordable.
I'd disagree on that one. Film was less techy to start with and the transition from using a still camera to a film wasn't a big thing. Affordability yes. Video is cheaper than 35mm and the RED camera will impact heavily in some areas, but only to those who could afford to buy £30, 000 video cameras, which is still not most people.
Though in regards to your comments about the executive cutting costs, I am in total agreement with his overall thought, though maybe not the exact methodology. Fitting everything into a mini bus and hoping for high end production is obviously going to make a project suffer so there is also nothing new about that, but cutting out a dozen teamsters and grips that huddle around the kraft services table probably won't make anything change other than the catering bill.
This was a film made by an established director and was partially an artistic decision and the film stayed showing in the cinema, way longer than most major Hollywood films.
What I see with digital video is the affordability and empowerment to learn and do much of this yourself or at least learn it to a level where direction is precise and determined.
That's been going on for years, nothing new there.
If higher iso becomes a reality, then you will see crews get smaller and production go faster just because the lights, generators and cable all get reduced in size and scope.
Lighting is more often an aesthetic choice than simply a practical one.
My point, or rather my expertise isn't in theatrical production, but advertising where the longest run time is a few minutes or less and the crews and technique of high end still capture have grown and moved to closely resemble a small film crew.
But they do not have many of the problems, shooting film has. I'd say there's a huge amount of crossover, but where it's different, it's very different and a lot fiddlier and therefore slower to do.
As far as the speed in which film crews work vs. still crews, I've shot and produced at least 20 parallel projects in multiple cities and countries and have never seen a film crew (regardless of the thoughtful complexity of the process) move as fast, work as hard, multi task and multi purpose like a great still crew.
I've done film shoots where we've done 22 setups in a day. And having worked on film sets I'd say that was a daft statement, people work stupidly hard, can multask brilliantly, but it's a far slower, more complicated process capturing a moving image than a still image regardless of what camera is used. And film crews do so day after day after day. Week after week at times.
Hurry up and wait best describes the film making process as often departments have to take turns to do their job, it's nothing to do with being slack, it's simply how the logistics work out.
-
deleted
-
I apoligize for my wrong assumptions.
But why do we have to use the slow shutter speeds like the motion picture guys are doing? I know I wont do that all the time and I am not doing it today with the HD video cameras. We are not going DI and to the cinema with it, we are making short clips for web, multimedia presentations and effects shots and mostly cranking and ramping up and down all the time. We would like to do that with our HD cams today but we are limited in the range available and I am not happy with the quality. There are other ways of capturing motion than 1:1
I am trying to come up with a new product which is an alternative to stills, not something totally different like an motion film ad - thats for the other guys to do. Imagine shooting a model running towards you at 120fps at 1/2000 will provide me with the possibility of picking a perfectly sharp frame in one take with the perfect look, as I will have hundreds to cherry pick from. Then I do a second take with a 180 degree shutter and have nice footage for motion clips at slow mo or real time, with consistent colors and contrast as both can be graded exactly the same. Today that is an issue even with a Canon 1DsII as it is slow and very different from our HD video gear. And I will never even try that with my MF gear as it is not suited at all for such a shot.
I don't expect todays DoPs getting sloppy - I am taking about doing new stuff in new ways for new small teams of people like a stills crew is today. And I do not consider leaving my options open being sloppy either. Why spend time nailing the perfect white balance when we all know that it will be changed in post - nailing it to the nearest 500K is more than good enough shooting RAW as long as it is consistent in the shot and not having different temperatures form source to source. Exposing for keeping the desired information rather than to obtain a special look is also easier and faster. Post production in film is very expensive - today, thats true. But I am not shooting a film, I am making 3-10 sec. clips which resembles what I shoot on stills. And I am testing it now with RED Cine and the available raw footage as anyone can do and it is not very time consuming at all as long as you are taking clips and not feature films.
I know very little of the work flow of the motion or even short film industry. I don't plan to learn it either because it is not suitable for my work as it seems very inflexible and ridiculously expensive for no other reason than it has always been that way. Personally I believe it is easier for photographers knowing stills RAW shooting for years of commercial work to both measuring light with respect to sensor performance and color correcting a bayer raw file quickly and well than the motion film guys - read the posts on red forum and you will see they complicate simple issues enormously and struggle with the new way of thinking. Just like the stills photo industry did + 7 years back with the first LEAF/Sinar backs with idiotic work flows and people new to digital capture.
And today we already shoot a lot of stills with Arri film light gear of various kinds with great success, both commercial and bridal and portraits outdoors. And simply doing more of that on a Red One or Epic will be easy and affordable as the Arri gear is a lot less expensive than the Bron setups we have.
I see more possibilities and new interesting ways of working than technical challenges so far, but I am not done at all with my testing - so I could easily change my mind in a month or more if some big issue is unsolvable. This is a very exiting time to be working with photography weather stills or motion as there is fundamentally different tools and work flows being invented. New products and uses for this gear is bound to emerge sooner or later.
MHO.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=191047\")
Robin,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for as JJJ is coming from the traditional view and your looking at this as a new medium or way to capture motion in video and stills.
For what it's worth even shooting flash does not gaurantee a complete freeze
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg]http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg[/url]
as this image was shot with acutes on 1/2 power. Maybe bitubes or Broncolor would hold it tighter but this sequence was shot with a Nikon D3 and continuous stadium light and I can promise you it's as sharp if not sharper than the studio image.
http://ishotit.com/running1.mov (http://ishotit.com/running1.mov)
I don't know if the Red or any cinema camera can capture this, but I'm betting we're going to get very close, very soon.
JR
-
gaurantee a complete freeze
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can someone elaborate on how the RED and/or other HD cams do thier shutter speed
Its it always the FPS
120 FPS is the Max of the Red right
So that would create the same freeze as shooting at roughly 125/th of a second
-----
Heres a whacko Idea - Red shoots raw so there is some exposure latitude
One could have it rolling and still 'fire photos' using a PW or suchlike popping the flash at the appropriate moment
Giving sharp stills and moving image too
The actuall fram with the pop could be edidted out of the video cut if required
S
-
My JVC HD cam can do shutter speed of up to 1/4000 even though it only can shoot standard 1080i 30FPS interlaced. I'm sure RED can do the same thing...
-
deleted
-
I apoligize for my wrong assumptions.
But why do we have to use the slow shutter speeds like the motion picture guys are doing?
You don't, but real convergence is when you shoot once, get stills and moving image and that's the problem. Fast shutter speeds on film don't look nice. It is used occasionally for the interesting effect it produces but for general shooting, you would not use it. Otherwise they would have used high shutter speeds years back and got rid of stills photographers on set.
But as acceptable quality thresholds for images seem to be constantly dropping, frame grabs will soon be seen as OK and photojournalists will be told to use video.
For an example of high shutter speeds being used in film. The opening battle scene in Saving Private Ryan was shot with a high shutter speed and that's what causes the slightly strobe like flicker, which adds to the telling of that story, but is not good otherwise. Technique is [or should be] subservient to the telling of the story.
I know very little of the work flow of the motion or even short film industry. I don't plan to learn it either because it is not suitable for my work as it seems very inflexible and ridiculously expensive for no other reason than it has always been that way.
You make a judgement as daft as that, after admitting you know nothing about the subject. It's expensive because telling stories is much, much more complicated/time consuming than stills or wedding videos, plus you need more people and as people cost money. Then you need more time and even more people to prep and do post. Duh!
Don't you think some serious pruning would have gone on if they could make it cheaper? Movie peeps want to make money and if they can cut costs they will, so if money is being spent, there's normally a very good reason. I've worked on low budget shoots and even then there's a lot of people on set and needed there, not all getting paid admittedly.
If you want to read an entertaining story about the ultimate in overspending on film, read Stephen Bach's 'Final Cut". This is how a entire studio was brought down by a single film/director.
Personally I believe it is easier for photographers knowing stills RAW shooting for years of commercial work to both measuring light with respect to sensor performance and color correcting a bayer raw file quickly and well than the motion film guys - read the posts on red forum and you will see they complicate simple issues enormously and struggle with the new way of thinking. Just like the stills photo industry did + 7 years back with the first LEAF/Sinar backs with idiotic work flows and people new to digital capture.
Most of the issues/difficulties with lighting a film set will be altered very little by RAW capture, as it's how you artistically light your subject that is time consuming and it's always much easier/cheaper to do as much as possible in front of camera, rather the lazy relying on post to fix the problem. Also did it not occur to you, that the filmmakers who aren't struggling with RAW are simply shooting and not complaining on forums
-
Robin,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for as JJJ is coming from the traditional view and your looking at this as a new medium or way to capture motion in video and stills.
That's an insulting and very patronising attitude and made worse by the fact, you obviously didn't bother reading the relevants posts properly before saying something so dumb. Besides I'm anything but a traditionalist. Something better comes along and I'll be first in line, well actually second, as I've had too much first generation crap over the years.
Robin was actually apologising for making an incorrect assumption regarding RAW capture.
Try reading posts more carefully before responding. You said this above which may explain thingsThere is a lot of territory to cover here and if I go off track, it's because I write this stuff at light speed then get back to work.
Most of the cretinous nonsense online is there simply because people do not take time to read carefully before responding. Which is sooooo more important with written communication.
My view on hybridisation is all too often it does a good job of several tasks, but very rarely as good a job as a more specialised tool/person/workflow. But if good, is good enough and excellence is not required, then there's no problem.
Hybrid bicylcles are not very good off on on road when compared to more specialised products, but are moderately capable of both. For some people that is the ideal, for others, a watse of time. The RED is a bit different as it's very good at filming.
I've actually tried shooting film and stills, some years back and the main problem is they simply got in the way of each other, mentally and physically. Having a hybrid camera wouldn't make that much difference If however, you have time/opportunity to reset scene and shoot both repeatedly, it's a little more practical.
For what it's worth even shooting flash does not gaurantee a complete freeze
http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg (http://www.russellrutherford.com/html4/image/v3sm_kath.jpg)
And how much more blurred would it be at 1/50th?
And studio flashes on high power are not always short enough in duration to freeze fast movement. Besides that looks like fill in flash as there is both blur and sharper areas, which reduces overall sharpness.
-
Can someone elaborate on how the RED and/or other HD cams do thier shutter speed
Its it always the FPS
120 FPS is the Max of the Red right
So that would create the same freeze as shooting at roughly 125/th of a second
The shutter rotates with an angle of opening that decreases with increased shutter speed, similar to the smaller slit of a horizontal focal plane shutter curtain at higher speeds. FPS are sort of independent as you can change the shutter angle/shutter speed whilst still shooting at 25fps. If you change the FPS, then that either becomes slow motion [higher FPS] or sped up [lower fps]. Over and under cranking to describe this comes from the early days when cameras were hand cranked. Under cranking is a cheap and nasty way of trying to make car chases look more exciting - usually it looks sped up. Stop motion Animation is the ultimate in undercranking.
Heres a whacko Idea - Red shoots raw so there is some exposure latitude
One could have it rolling and still 'fire photos' using a PW or suchlike popping the flash at the appropriate moment
Giving sharp stills and moving image too
The actuall fram with the pop could be edidted out of the video cut if required
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is/was a camcorder which when shooting video you could also do a [higher res] still capture whilst filming. A P+S camcorder is all I remember.
Separate exposures would be the problem with what you suggest, even with RAW as for that one frame/1/25th of a second, you'd have to change apertureand/or shutter speed and then back again. This is as you surely would be shooting the optimum exposure for RAW.
-
deleted
-
deleted
-
I just purchased this for a project this week.
http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com...frontpage_1.jpg (http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com_fpslideshow/images/letus35mini_frontpage_1.jpg)
Obviously it's no Red but with camera and adapter it's only about 2 grand and gives the focus throw of something between super 16 and 35mm cinema.
I've messed around with all the adapters for various projects, PS Technique, RedRock, and the Letus so far is the easiest to use and seems the easiest to set up.
Using the camera lcd as a ground glass, just walking around you can hand hold and manually focus quite easily, even with the lenses set at F 1.4
It's a nice in between system.
JR
-
I think I am done with this thread as I obviously fail to express myself clear enough for you to understand - based on your answers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually you don't appear to be reading the replies fully in context with prior posts or even reading them correctly at all. And then you're taking taking them the wrong way. So no point in responding to your misunderstanding and further incorrect assumptions in detail.
I try and politely explain why 'motion pictures' are made the way they are, as you questioned why they do certain things and also questioned their workflow Then when I explain why things are done a certain way, you have a go at me. I certainly wasn't suggesting that's how you should do it, there is a difference. Quite a big one. Simply put, they do it their way for good reason, you don't certainly don't need to do it like that if doing stills.
I'm really losing patience with people not taking time to read posts more carefully before responding. Which is so important with written communication.
Really? I though I apologized for wrongly asuming something about Your expertise with RAW.
Christ on a bike, talk about splitting hairs on a bald man! It was an incorrect assumption on your part [based on no information] about my knowledge of RAW capture. Which with James then assumming incorrectly about things I do or do not think, makes me suggest that you should both avoid mind reading tricks to make money as you're obviously really crap at it.
And if you don't want to be called up on daft statements, how about this utter nonsense
A 6x6 neg frame is crap at big enlargements
Probably why Hasselbald fim cameras were never used for advertising then.
That's sarcasm BTW, in case I was being too subtle and obscure.
-
I just purchased this for a project this week.
http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com...frontpage_1.jpg (http://www.adapterplace.com/components/com_fpslideshow/images/letus35mini_frontpage_1.jpg)
Obviously it's no Red but with camera and adapter it's only about 2 grand and gives the focus throw of something between super 16 and 35mm cinema.
I've messed around with all the adapters for various projects, PS Technique, RedRock, and the Letus so far is the easiest to use and seems the easiest to set up.
Using the camera lcd as a ground glass, just walking around you can hand hold and manually focus quite easily, even with the lenses set at F 1.4
It's a nice in between system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think things like this [and the RedRock etc] are a great way of improvingt the look of DV/HDV cameras, I've seen some excellent things done with this kind of system.
Though if you are filming a full 35mm image off ground glass, then surely you have the equivalent of stills 35mm, rather than the smaller movie 35mm.
-
I think things like this [and the RedRock etc] are a great way of improvingt the look of DV/HDV cameras, I've seen some excellent things done with this kind of system.
Though if you are filming a full 35mm image off ground glass, then surely you have the equivalent of stills 35mm, rather than the smaller movie 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Letus "frame" size is around 46x30, still 35mm full frame is 36x24 and academy cinema frame is 24mm x 18mm.
this doesn't tell the whole story though as many video cameras, the hv20 included has a shifted sensor that does not line up directly to the adapter, so you end up cropping into the moving ground glass frame of the adapter, normally tighter than 36x24 but larger than academy film frame.
Of course the high def prosumer cameras capture a frame proportion of 16x9 so that even complicates matters.
Overall though the Letus is the best of all the adpaters I have owned or rented, including the P+S technique which is way more expensive.
The look with an hv20 is good. Highlights can be fragile, but focus is very easy, even handheld.
JR
-
The Letus "frame" size is around 46x30,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what lenses project a circle that big? Your normal Canon or Nikon's circle is nowhere near that size. Or is it scaled up though the optics of the device, if so,it's the size of the 'frame' at front of the Letus before it goes through device that is the real frame size.
-
So what lenses project a circle that big? Your normal Canon or Nikon's circle is nowhere near that size. Or is it scaled up though the optics of the device, if so,it's the size of the 'frame' at front of the Letus before it goes through device that is the real frame size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The "real" frame size is whatever the video camera shoots, what goes on in front of the video camera lens, is just stuff in front of the video camera lens.
With the Letus, (and with all the adapters), you just zoom or manually move in until the junk around the frame deisappears and then you lock it down and shoot.
The redrock is not that precise, the letus is very precise and better built.
As far as the look it produces, since I use Nikon lenses, I would say once zoomed in it's somewhere between a ff nikon 35mm camera and a Nikon D2x, which is good. I didn't compare them becuase I saw no point as it is just going to do whatever it's going to do.
Anyway I would guess a 35mm (in still terms) is somewhere a little less than a 40mm, though the framing is different since it's 16x9 capture.
JR
-
The "real" frame size is whatever the video camera shoots, what goes on in front of the video camera lens, is just stuff in front of the video camera lens.
Hmn, skipped science class in school did we? The 'just stuff' you mention tends to be quite important.
Now, as you say this..
As far as the look it produces, since I use Nikon lenses, I would say once zoomed in it's somewhere between a ff nikon 35mm camera and a Nikon D2x, which is good.
that definitely confirms the frame size produced by the imaging lens [the important bit] on front of device is probably slightly smaller than FF35mm and certainly nowhere near 46x30 as that would give a look more like a horizontally cropped H3D.
-
deleted
-
For some stills pros the real alternative to DSLRs and MFDBs will be the Red Epic announced at the same time as the Scarlet.
It weighs 6lbs, has a 5 K chip (about 20MP) and can shoot raw stills and video at 100 FPS, and with interchangeable lenses. Priced like a medium format back though.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lens prices are much, much higher than medium format, though. Pixel definition is worse, as well, and the required software is not really cheap.
-
Do you really talk like that when meeting people face to face? If so I hope I don't meet you in real life. It could be the cultural differences though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why would I query people's reading skills in a conversation? And if someone failed to follow a conversation in real life as badly as you do when communicating online, I would assume they were a complete eedjit or simply didn't bother to listen before responding. Which come to think of it, sadly does happen far more than it should. But not as much as online thankfully.
I have close to zero patience with people who are too lazy to read carefully online before responding. And it is usually laziness, not stupidity in this forum, that leads to conflict.
-
Good morning:
Received a link to the following:
http://download334.mediafire.com/gfmxjjojt.../SDredvs.35.mov (http://download334.mediafire.com/gfmxjjojtngg/cymm9gneepj/SDredvs.35.mov)
from my son this morning - warning, it's a 39MB download. The audio doesn't seem to work, but it's a comparison between the RED camera and 35mm film. More than that I can't tell you. Here's Chris' comment:
"interesting that film has over 5 stops and the red has under three.
also on a 64:1 lens the red has HUGE depth of field, everything is in focus!!"
Mike.
P.S. I wasn't sure whether to post this on this thread or the one on 'Convergence', so I'll add it to both...
-
AFAIK, this is where it comes from: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=30766 (http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=30766)
And I just wasn't that impressed with the roughness of how it was conducted. From my experience, if you're going to do any kind of scientific test on cameras, you have to take immense care and attention to detail. It's just not something simple to throw together and to expect consistent results. I'm forever re-testing to ensure consistency.
Graeme
-
The red site now mentions early 2009 for the release of the scarlet.
It is just me or was it supposed to be released earlier than that?
Regards,
Bernard
-
That's the date it's always been....
Graeme
-
That's the date it's always been....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, my bad then.
Cheers,
Bernard