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]
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;
has now moved to this.
http://ishotit.com/inprogress_4_04_08.movPersonally 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
