Rhe RED Med format

[Graeme Nattress]

I think the key thing to look at where RED is going is that stills and video quality are the same, that you can get movies that look as good as a bunch of stills stringed together, and that megapixels per second matters - so high resolutions at high fps. To me, that opens up a vast array of possibilities.

Graeme

[bcooter]

i think red is showing in many ways good ideas and future pointing strategies. it looks to mee as some markets ( fashion ) could become hard markets in the near future for the mf companies.
getting more and more pressure from the lo-end ( canon sony and so on ) and starting to become pressure from the hi-end the remaining market space will decrease even more than it already did.
although it doesnt look as the  new red offers will be "the" mf killer, but maybe they are on the way to become it soon time later in the overnext generation.
the system together with the clear product and selling politics looks by far more modern and logic than most mf offers.
at the same time a good ( and last ? ) chance to learn the lesson for the existing "established" companies, maybe they realise whats going on, maybe not.
in any case i am not sure if its so clever to publish the road map two years in advantage, although the red guys seem to do a great job they will not have such different problems than all the software/ computer industry suffers from ... this means at first promises, than delay, finally less than promised features, than bugs.
i dont believe in any promises from any manufactor till i havent finished my first production with the promised tool.

about 9 years ago we use to cast all our talent on video.  on one project, working with the principle of california's largest design and marketing studio, he ran through the video casting and from time to time would freeze frame and say how great it would be if still photography could be continuous and during selection we could freeze the frame for that one perfect moment.

at the time I almost felt insulted and replied it takes a special talent to direct, anticipate and freeze that one special moment, but deep in the back of my mind, I really did agree with him.

obviously at that time the technology didn't permit this, but now we are close to a solution that does.

ok, before the purists start the scream that  anybody can point a camera and sprayand pray or who wants to shoot continuous stills, be honest with yourself.   go back to some of your own work and look through the edits and remember how many of those special moments you missed waiting for the film to cycle into the next frame or waiting for a buffer to clear.

now, will the RED be a mf killer?   who knows until you use it in a real nail biting production, but is the concept sound, god I think the concept is pure genuis.  

I love the fact of a digital camera, still or moving that gets totally away from the legacy of old form and function, reworked, repurposed film to digital cameras.

I love the idea of shooting 12 second bursts of two people interacting, or even a portait where the slightest smile, or move of an eye can make the difference of a decent photograph to a great photograph.

I love the idea of buying direct, talking to the actual developers, having a modular system that doesn't require you to toss everything just to move into a different format or style of work.

I also love the thought of a highly detailed elv that lets you see accurate focus and depth of field.   ever use a canon 85 1.2 wide open.   in the optical viewfinder it looks like you pull focus from nose to down the street but in reality the capture file shows very little dof.  ever gone through your still digital files shooting close to wide open and on those shots you were positive were eyelash tight in focus, for some reason weren't?

hopefully the RED will be the solution to this.

REd is a wakeup call to not only manufacturers of digital cameras and backs but to also image makers.   it's time to drop the past and step into the future and if the RED lives only to 2/3's of their promise, then it will be revolutionary.

the purists will yell, the brand loyalists will diss it, the camera makers semi sponsered still photographers will look for every tiny excuse as to why nothing about the RED is of value, but talk to someone who has already purcahsed a RED system and ask them their take on the RED products and you will hear very little negative, a whole lot of positive and they know that their investment is taking their art and their commerce to a higher level.

would I buy a new medium format back today.  no, simply because nothing that has been announced offers me a promise or even a slight suggestion to really change the way I work.

would I buy the new RED?  if it lives to it's promises yes I would.

yes, we are in a worldwide recession and yes, the thought of changing the way we work, including our post workflow is daunting, but if in the end it offers me and my client more then the RED cannot be ignored.

[E_Edwards]

I realise that this is perhaps a subject for another thread, but I just want to be enthusiastic about Red or similar technologies and I want to hear from people with a vision, not a long term futuristic vision, but a vision that takes place now, at our present moment.

So imagine, just imagine that this new monstrous Red project is out today, lucky me, I've got one, the full works. But I am a still life photographer, not a video man. What could I do with it?

Lets's see...I could learn to shoot moving still-lifes, mini product commercials and the like. I'm already doing this to some extent anyway. It would be great fun to learn and become competitive. Who would buy the outcome? Currently a few of my clients could be tempted to have some motion with their products on the Internet. Not much money in that, considering the time it takes to do it properly, and look at the premiun car manufacturers with plenty of budgets to burn and you see the limitations, currently thwarted by retrograde bandwidth, the need for faster computer video cards that are not installed in the majority of people's machines or the undiscovered magic compression that suddenly makes things fly at top full screen quality.

In fact, I've already been asked, clients are interested to some extent in moving images, creations using maybe a combination of video, cgi and flash. though the budgets are pathetic, they have no idea, they think it's like videoing a wedding (with respect to wedding videographers). Internet equals cheap; we've given it away. Also some shops are beginning to have point of sale LCD screens, like you see at some airports. But I can't possibly compete against a proper commercial video production company, unless I became one. This is big bucks territory and therefore more niche, for which there are plenty of companies already competing to supply this service.

I can see it being great for moving subjects such as fashion, portraiture, sports and the like, though all these fields are mega-saturated beyond belief already. Plenty of fashion photographers struggling to pay the rent, let alone buy an expensive camera!

Not trying to be pessimistic, as I would love to have a Red camera too and I would surely find some good use for it, but more and more I am coming to the realisation that we already have fantastic quality (certainly in the still life environment) and that we are dedicating far too many hours to pursue and ask for little improvements that, quite frankly, are not that important once we learn to live without them.

Please feel free to disagree.

Edward

[Tim Lüdin]

Tim,

Could a RED still file be used,without significant massaging, in a typical full or single page
magazine ad?

What are the dimensions of a RED file after Raw conversion?


Mark

Hi Mark

The Resolution is 2520 x 2304. You are shooting RAW.
Just do your usual post work and you are done.
This frame will give you a good A3 Page. We have done the test. The print looked realy good.
Imagin there will be an epic 24MP and an epic 65MP cam.
On the 65MP epic you will be able to use your midformat lenses and also shoot motion pictures.
As a cinematographer and photographer this is like the paradise for me.
Great concept.
Now Graeme has to tweek the codec a bit and we are there.

Tim

[gwhitf]

I still never got an answer about using strobe vs. HMI. I read something that suggested HMI or Tungsten only, and when I hear HMI, I see dollar signs, and weight, and cables, and the inability to fly with my own stuff, (unless it's Joker 400 or something small). I also wonder how much HMI it would really take to shoot outside in the sunlight, or to add fill thru a silk. My gut feeling tells me it would take a LOT. Thousands of dollars per day in rentals, and a slow moving crew, with big-ass stands.

Maybe this Red really will be The Next Big Thing, but all I hear is a lot of hype and not a lot of details, and I read "Winter 2009", (if that). A lot of things can change by the winter of 2009, in the economy, and in Canon/Nikon world. I'm not a Renter; I want to own my own gear, and the thought of main, and a backup Red, is just not in the cards for me.

But I absolutely *do* applaud them for getting outside the box. Here we are, dicking around with Mamiya 645s that look like AMC Gremlins, right outta 1965, or the Contax that's solid, but still, it's very very dated. And Yair comes on here, bragging about the Red guy owning a Leaf and RZ, and when I read that, I think, "Hell, right there's the reason that he designed this new camera -- the Red guy looked down, and said, "This is the most dumbass solution I've ever seen -- you've got a great 6x7 camera, but a back on it that's not even using half of what the RZ is capable of. There's got to be a better way".

Even Canon, how much has it really changed in basic approach since the EOS 1 film camera? So when Red comes in here with the Ahhhnold RoboCam, looking all bad-ass and futuristic, I'm sure that will send some Canon designers into emergency meetings. That can ONLY be good for commercial photographers, in the end.

But for me, I'm sick of AnnouncaKina, and now, the "Winter of 2009" business approach. Because, in the real world, you never buy version 1.0 of anything, so that means Winter of 2010, and at that point, I just hit the Close button and get back to my life.

[rainer_v]

So imagine, just imagine that this new monstrous Red project is out today, lucky me, I've got one, the full works. But I am a still life photographer, not a video man. What could I do with it?

Not trying to be pessimistic, as I would love to have a Red camera too and I would surely find some good use for it, but more and more I am coming to the realisation that we already have fantastic quality (certainly in the still life environment) and that we are dedicating far too many hours to pursue and ask for little improvements that, quite frankly, are not that important once we learn to live without them.

Please feel free to disagree.

Edward

i am a "still" liver too with my kind of subjects and i cant see how to use motion pictures for my way of making images.  but first time in my life i start to think in an opened way about motion pictures and its possibilities. although it wasnt the red which awaked this thoughts in me, it was the canon 5dmk2. doesnt matter.   where will be the mf manufactors in 2 years and how they will and can answer this "attacks" from two sides ?.
the red seems to come from the motion-picture front and the canon from the stand-picture-front both merging functions of two very seperated markets which seems to join soon.
i am not so enthusiastic about technical progression as others here but for sure it  looks very interesting how the things will go on.

[pss]

ok now that the dust has settled we can actually look at the facts:
RIGHT NOW we can have a base red one camera with a 13x24 12bit sensor for 17000$(which can easily double with some essentials)....that might be cheap for movie people but does not compete with any existing DSLR for stills....this cash can be applied to future upgrades...
in about 3 weeks we will have a 5dmkII available for 2500$ which blows the red one out of the water for stills and delivers frighteningly nice video for an as of now unheard price (even compared to the red one) at much cleaner, higher iso.....

this is very important because cleaner, higher iso means less, cheaper and easier production....still delivering quality that is good enough for web, lcd display or even probably HD TV use....

all other announcements from red are nothing short of amazing....so is the leica S2 in my book....for totally different and personal reasons....

we have promises up to 2010 with the announcement that the only constant is change to these announcements....so we really don't know what might come, but it might be even better....

we have NO CLUE about high iso performance of any of these....

workflow? well i guess it is great to just work this like a movie camera......has anyone seen a movie set lately? it is great and very promising that stills can be used from video for print....but who will pay for the production? i don't see anyone using this thing with just one or two assistants! i don't really want to edit raw video footage for still shots.....

i mean maybe this is the future....it probably is.....but i am not sure where this leaves photographers.....i am not a huge bresson fan but there is something to be said about the decisive moment.....and knowing how to anticipate and capture it.....

but the philosophic ramblings are pointless anyway....lets look into the cristal ball....canon does not build cameras and push them out the door hot from the assembly line....they are working on the 2012 models right now and i am pretty sure they have the 2010 model almost ready (the final tweaking always takes the longest anyway...) and they are just waiting to put something out when they have to....at a price that makes them competitive enough......

will the next canon flagship have a larger sensor, will it shoot at 16bit up to 25000iso, will it shoot larger than HD video, will it be just barely cheaper then the competition or definitely priced competitively? probably yes on all.....

as far as this section of the forum still running under MF....i guess we might as well keep it at that.....and use it for what it is (like michael said) the pro section.....because  the way i see it.....MF the way we know it as a marginal niche market just got considerably smaller yet again....i can make predictions for canon and nikon (and the others), red makes their own predictions for their stuff.....i just don't see how the others can compete....

for me the only way i would buy a DMF system again, it would have to be priced competitively compared to canon/nikon....the only advantage would be very slight advantage in file quality which will even out all its shortcomings...in short if it was the same price as a dsIII, it would be a nice backup/alternative......

if i was longing to go into the wilderness on my mule and shoot the beauty that a sunrise brings that huge red would be the perfect companion for that kind of thing.....i don't have a mule yet and my subjects are still alive and move faster and less predictable then any MF system i have ever shot with can handle.....and i don't shoot video yet....so for now the dsIII is godsent....the 5dII will be the cheapest backup i have ever owned (without worrying about a lesser file)....and hell maybe i will get into video after all with the help of this rig

[EgillBjarki]

I celebrate more competition on the marked and camera makers who are speeding up the development like Red will probably be doing.

I think very little has changed since the Canon 1Ds came along other than the luxury of higher ISO and more resolution to crop from. When do we really use all these MP? Do people really notice it in magazines and on billboards?

The most important thing (to me at least) is to have a reliable camera that you trust and can use without having to concentrate to much on they way you make the image rather the image it self. I think this all comes down to work flow, if you feel more confident selecting a still from a video you made with a RED system, or from a contact sheet from your 35mm DSLR camera, then RED will be the way to go for you. But can you afford it or more importantly is your client base willing to pay for your new expensive workflow compared to the old one? It just comes down to one thing, as photographers its the image used in the end.

It will be much more expensive to produce photographs with RED compared to traditional cameras, think of the more computer power, storage and lighting you'll need on a photo shoot using RED. Everything has its up sides and down sides, I just cant see how this would benefit most photographers, this how ever will merge film makers and photographers into one.

[TMARK]

As a stills guy who now does video primarily, and who works with a Red One, I'd like to say a few things.  I see people concerned with the portability of the Epic.  A Leica M its not, but I've shot the Red One on the M23 and B61 buses in New York and Brooklyn without attracting much attention, after stripping away most of the non-essential accessories.  The Epic appears to be smaller than the Red One. Not that I would use an Epic as an ENG camera or like a Leica M, but I bet it can be done.  

Low light performance of the Red One after Build 16 is very, very good.

I think the Epic is a threat to beauty and fashion photographers.  With an Epic, someone, such as my production company, can offer Revlon an HD commercial and also do the beauty shoot for in store and POS display, same shoot, same look, same camera, same day.  The client saves money, I make more money.  In that way I've just taken food out of the mouth of some poor sap who refused to see the change wrought by Red, who is dutifully polishing his Rollei and Sinarback and quoting Nietzche, wondering why the phone hasn't rung in a while.

What I find so impressive about Red is that when they have a weakness or a problem they admit it and tell you how they are working on the issue.  No cloak and dagger Rumsfeldian double talk.

I'm not wild about shooting video, but I like sending my kid to private school and stuffing my mattress with cash.  I also like the different expectations the client's have:  they are used to paying more for all stages of production.  

That being said, the Red cams won't totally replace a 1ds type camera or a Leica M.

[AndreNapier]

I am just wondering with continues burst of Red what do you guys plan to use for lighting . Obviously strobes are out. To lit a studio using HMI's with a plan burst of 50 shots a second you will really have to set a shutter to 1/1000 so at ISO 50 or 100 using softboxes you will need at least a couple 12K HMI to shoot at f11.  With Tungsten light multiply it times 3. Any small to medium size studio would feel like sauna in few minutes and your headache is more than guaranteed. Anybody who shot HMI's would know what I am talking about.
For those that never did just imagine that at ISO 100 using Elinchrom Octabank at full body distance 1200W HMI produces only enough light to set the aparture to f2.8-4.0  at 1/125.
Http://AndreNapier.com

[TMARK]

I am just wondering with continues burst of Red what do you guys plan to use for lighting . Obviously strobes are out. To lit a studio using HMI's with a plan burst of 50 shots a second you will really have to set a shutter to 1/1000 so at ISO 50 or 100 using softboxes you will need at least a couple 12K HMI to shoot at f11.  With Tungsten light multiply it times 3. Any small to medium size studio would feel like sauna in few minutes and your headache is more than guaranteed. Anybody who shot HMI's would know what I am talking about.
For those that never did just imagine that at ISO 100 using Elinchrom Octabank at full body distance 1200W HMI produces only enough light to set the aparture to f2.8-4.0  at 1/125.
Http://AndreNapier.com

Andre,

I suppose you would light it and shoot it as if for motion, like a commercial.   DV cams don't think in terms of ISO, its in terms of gain.  When we shoot with teh Red we light with HMI's, a couple of 1200's, not 12k, 4' 4 bank Kinos, 125 HMI pocket pars from ARRI, 300, 650, 1k, 2k and 4k tungsten, if we need the power.  Its no different than lighting for a music video.

We'll have to see, of course, when one of these things is out.  I would hope it could be shot like a film camera and synched to fire strobes.

[AndreNapier]

TMARK,
I admit, I have no idea about current video equipment. In my college years I work on the lighting crew of one of Europe best, Oscar winning director where I learned to understand the complexity of light for motion picture and still images. Of course this is 35mm film era and we needed tons of equipment for every cut. Now when it comes to video equipment I would believe that it is still a relation of sensor size and sensitivity. For RED DMF camera to be be competitive to current top DB it has to have similar sensor to produce comparable quality images. Its sensitivity can be measured with gain or ISO but if it is a CCD it would call for tons of light. I shoot with HMI's almost everyday and have in studio Arri's,  K5600 Jokers and Dedo's as well as Kino's and unless there is a huge brake through  from sensors producers in the near future that would allowed usable  ISO up to 3200 on DB I can not see any MF shooter needing much more continuing burst than we already have. When I use strobes I Ping-Pong my packs and still can not recycle fast enough for A75S.  Additionally I have to admit that coming from 8x10 and 12x15 film any camera that shoots faster than my eyes can compose an image is just counter productive for me. Time to time I pull my Nikon D3 and play with the continues burst but with 1000's of images from a session I still can not find keepers the same way as with my Rz pressed at the decisive moment.
Of course different photogs have different styles and I admit that when  I was growing up there was no video games and I can only admire my children in front of the magic stick.
http://AndreNapier.com

[Dustbak]

I realise that this is perhaps a subject for another thread, but I just want to be enthusiastic about Red or similar technologies and I want to hear from people with a vision, not a long term futuristic vision, but a vision that takes place now, at our present moment.

So imagine, just imagine that this new monstrous Red project is out today, lucky me, I've got one, the full works. But I am a still life photographer, not a video man. What could I do with it?

Lets's see...I could learn to shoot moving still-lifes, mini product commercials and the like. I'm already doing this to some extent anyway. It would be great fun to learn and become competitive. Who would buy the outcome? Currently a few of my clients could be tempted to have some motion with their products on the Internet. Not much money in that, considering the time it takes to do it properly, and look at the premiun car manufacturers with plenty of budgets to burn and you see the limitations, currently thwarted by retrograde bandwidth, the need for faster computer video cards that are not installed in the majority of people's machines or the undiscovered magic compression that suddenly makes things fly at top full screen quality.

In fact, I've already been asked, clients are interested to some extent in moving images, creations using maybe a combination of video, cgi and flash. though the budgets are pathetic, they have no idea, they think it's like videoing a wedding (with respect to wedding videographers). Internet equals cheap; we've given it away. Also some shops are beginning to have point of sale LCD screens, like you see at some airports. But I can't possibly compete against a proper commercial video production company, unless I became one. This is big bucks territory and therefore more niche, for which there are plenty of companies already competing to supply this service.

I can see it being great for moving subjects such as fashion, portraiture, sports and the like, though all these fields are mega-saturated beyond belief already. Plenty of fashion photographers struggling to pay the rent, let alone buy an expensive camera!

Not trying to be pessimistic, as I would love to have a Red camera too and I would surely find some good use for it, but more and more I am coming to the realisation that we already have fantastic quality (certainly in the still life environment) and that we are dedicating far too many hours to pursue and ask for little improvements that, quite frankly, are not that important once we learn to live without them.

Please feel free to disagree.

Edward

I think we are working kind of in the same pool. I am following this thread and the RED developments with great interest. I also agree with what many think, still from video will become an alternative.

For myself I am figuring out if I could use it in the current environment and you are right. Even the budgets for photography are often pathetic to the point I am almost timing my workspace so I can make sure to make a decent rate.

Would video make still-life, catalogue work, webshops, etc.. faster or easier?  doubt that. Would it make it cheaper? doubt that too.

Many of the other expertises, you are either a star making lots of money or you are strugling in the margin to make a living. Anyway, It is good to continue to think about what is going on and how it might be of benefit to you.

I currently am looking at CGI, Lighting recording & PS combinations which really looks like something that will have an impact on my type of photography.

[revaaron]

This is EXACTLY what I've wanted... but a little too late.
oh well.

[tom_l]

The RED will not kill MF,
but it will movie stills photography. (and Blimp bodies)
No more photographers to push around on movie set.


Tom

[jeff Liao]

Hi Jeff

No not exactly. The Hassy File has a bit mor DR and has a bigger resolution, but the RED File looked as good as the Hassy stuff on
the laptops on set. You can use a RED still up to A3 maybe A2.
So this made everyone chatter about what could be happening in the near future. As we know now, RED pulled the rabbit out of the hat allready.
Exactly as many were discussing on the set a few weeks ago.
As one of the early RED users and beeing a pro photographer I can only say, that the RED programm is killer in every way.
The RED one is cool but the new stuff will realy change the industry for good.
Just stay open minded and let it coming. Like Obama, the change is here.

Tim

Dear Tim,
I am pretty much very open minded...
on the other hand, I am thinking about Canon 5DII (and later model)
Not sure how 5DII's video file compare to RED.

But if Canon coming out with a camera has video file close to RED and only 1/10 price of Red.
Canon will kill all current video market..
Just my thought..

[GregW]

No cloak and dagger Rumsfeldian double talk.

You may have hit the nail on the head, albeit inadvertently.

We use models based on the 'unknown, unknown' theory to test risk and analyze investment decisions. It's particularly useful when you only have current information to go on and, there is little or no information about the future.

In the words of the former US Defense Secretary.

'There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.'

Applied - crudely - to RED's proposals you might draw the conclusion that there are more known unknowns at this point. Broaden it out to include: the impact of competition from traditional and new imaging companies; consumer device convergence; direct to consumer advertising; falling print media sales, there's more of course, but you get the idea.

Perhaps the biggest known unknown is the technology itself. Current digital imaging technology by any measure is mature. We get bigger, smaller, cheaper, more efficient, versions of the same thing. Exciting for many reasons but there is an end point. Will it take something like an organic sensor from IBM's research labs to effect a new paradigm?

As for the unknown, unknowns, they remain just that.

RED are offering something interesting and exciting. If there is a but, it's that we need to know more about the known unknowns; before a purchasing decision can be made.

[gwhitf]

I think the bigger (and scarier) underlying question here is: Will all this newfound video capability actually affect the income of a traditional Still Photographer?

That's the one that's got me in a quandry. I feel like a radio station in the year 1949 or so, when the first BW televisions were announced. Or, I feel like Eastman Kodak when the Canon D30 was announced. Or, I feel like a manufacturer of Waxers and Illustration Board, when the Mac IIci came out.

Would it really affect my business if filmmakers had the capability to shoot high quality stills? If I'm an advertising photographer, and Ad Agency A is doing a campaign that involves both print, web, and TV, then would the agency just pulls the stills off the Red Camera from the film crew? They might. And that means less days on camera for high priced Talent, and Crew, and the like. Do you think that the Print Depts of these ad agencies will eventually become the Unloved Stepchild department, where all the Old Guy art directors are sent to Print (to retire and die), and they're just given some TIFF files off the Red and ordered to "make an ad out of this; this is all you've got to work from; there will be no original photography"?

Or does this mean that more Still Photographers will try to become DP's? I doubt it. It's just a whole other Skill Set to me.

Lots and lots of questions. And at a time when a lot of us have time on our hands to ponder them.

I think this Red thing will affect filmmakers more that it will affect Still Photographers. The Red is the 5D of the film world -- much cheaper than what they've been using, but damn near just as good. At least for many paying clients.

One question I have: How much longer will Print really hang on? Because for web or cell phone, the Canon is like shooting 8x10 film for a postage stamp size. Massive overkill. But for print, there's still something nice about knowing you've got all kinds of headroom in a P45 file. The 1ds3 is still a tad iffy, when there's a lot of retouch involved. If I was Phase and Hassie, I'd be praying for long lives for the magazine industry.

I look at so much of media on the web and TV now. Very rarely even see a magazine any more. I walked into a Borders Bookstore last week, and saw a shrink wrapped thick magazine, with lush CMYK printing and nice paper, and I thought to myself, "My God, that magazine should cost a hundred dollars to produce, (compared to Web)". I just don't have high hopes for magazines -- too much production and distribution costs, just to read about Britney or Nicole.

I just wonder if the Film industry is going through the same transformation as the Stills industry? Do you think that, right now, on some LL Hollywood version of this type forum, there are a bunch of DP's wondering if Still Photographers are going to steal their business, once the 5DII and this Red thing hit the streets? (I don't. I think the DP film guys are more in the driver's seat than the Stills guys).

[bcooter]

I think the bigger (and scarier) underlying question here is: Will all this newfound video capability actually affect the income of a traditional Still Photographer?

That's the one that's got me in a quandry. I feel like a radio station in the year 1949 or so, when the first BW televisions were announced. Or, I feel like Eastman Kodak when the Canon D30 was announced. Or, I feel like a manufacturer of Waxers and Illustration Board, when the Mac IIci came out.

Would it really affect my business if filmmakers had the capability to shoot high quality stills? If I'm an advertising photographer, and Ad Agency A is doing a campaign that involves both print, web, and TV, then would the agency just pulls the stills off the Red Camera from the film crew? They might. And that means less days on camera for high priced Talent, and Crew, and the like. Do you think that the Print Depts of these ad agencies will eventually become the Unloved Stepchild department, where all the Old Guy art directors are sent to Print (to retire and die), and they're just given some TIFF files off the Red and ordered to "make an ad out of this; this is all you've got to work from; there will be no original photography"?

Or does this mean that more Still Photographers will try to become DP's? I doubt it. It's just a whole other Skill Set to me.

Lots and lots of questions. And at a time when a lot of us have time on our hands to ponder them.

I think this Red thing will affect filmmakers more that it will affect Still Photographers. The Red is the 5D of the film world -- much cheaper than what they've been using, but damn near just as good. At least for many paying clients.

One question I have: How much longer will Print really hang on? Because for web or cell phone, the Canon is like shooting 8x10 film for a postage stamp size. Massive overkill. But for print, there's still something nice about knowing you've got all kinds of headroom in a P45 file. The 1ds3 is still a tad iffy, when there's a lot of retouch involved. If I was Phase and Hassie, I'd be praying for long lives for the magazine industry.

I look at so much of media on the web and TV now. Very rarely even see a magazine any more. I walked into a Borders Bookstore last week, and saw a shrink wrapped thick magazine, with lush CMYK printing and nice paper, and I thought to myself, "My God, that magazine should cost a hundred dollars to produce, (compared to Web)". I just don't have high hopes for magazines -- too much production and distribution costs, just to read about Britney or Nicole.

I just wonder if the Film industry is going through the same transformation as the Stills industry? Do you think that, right now, on some LL Hollywood version of this type forum, there are a bunch of DP's wondering if Still Photographers are going to steal their business, once the 5DII and this Red thing hit the streets? (I don't. I think the DP film guys are more in the driver's seat than the Stills guys).

if you step back away from the emotion and look not at what you want as a photographer, but what clients want, then you get a better idea of where the Red may fit in.

take hotel and resort photography for instance.  a scene of a sexy woman clad in a bath robe in a spa walking through frame is not much different in execution and lighting whether it be a still  image or a piece of motion material.   will this be used for a national advertising campaign, print or broadcast, in resort photography maybe, but to take it another step forward and look at something like high end cosmetics or automobile photography the disciplines of working a still photograph compared to shooting a 30 second spot are much different in style, execution and budget.

right now, since the introduction is probably a year or two away, it doesn't really make that much difference, but if you do have time on your hands, it probably might be a good idea to pick up a 5dII and start learning how to shoot some kind of motion imagery.

personally, I think the real difference in advertising won't come from the capture device as much as how the intended viewer/cusotmer is presented images.  I believe the 30 second spot on a computer is way too long and I also think 20 still images put into a flash presentation is usually too predicable.  somewhere between the two is a happy medium and in the 4 second sound bite world we are now living in a 4 second motion vehicle makes sense to combine it into a still photography production.

past that, it will probably be the same as it has always been.  film directors will direct film, dp's will still shoot cinema cameras (though probably digital) and still photographers will continue to produce still imagery.

regardless of where this goes, on the high end the Red will probably not change any director, dp or commercial/editorial photographers business model, but on the medium to low priced section of both genres, it will probably make a big difference.

at least today.   in two years it might be very different.

edit:

the one thing that might change this is the current economy.  right now advertising agencies around the world are either in the process or have already started massive layoffs, mostly in their creative departments.  same with editorial.

what this means is agencies as well as magazines are going to look for new ways to lower their costs, maximize their production and get more bang for the buck.  

I think Red missed the mark by two years and in a strange way I think canon with their 5dII is in the right place at the right time.

right now I am finishing a large print campaign and today could have shot 5dII type of video to compliment the stills.  I didn't because time (not budget) didn't allow it, but in a few months I would bet that the ad agency would have loved to have medium to high quality motion content of what we have produced.  it would give them content to go back to the client and produce something, whether a broadcast piece or just a series of web spots and they get paid for that as well as they do the print campaign.

so whether your a director, dp or still photographer, the person that can offer both mediums during the same produciton will stand a much better chance of landing the project, especially as projects get fewer.

as in any business, the person or company that offers more will usually gain market share.  

[E_Edwards]

With the advent of the 5DII, I think we will start seeing lots more little internet intros done on a budget, as photographers "have a go". You don't need much quality for the Internet, if anything the problem is how to reduce the enormous movie files to make them playable on everybody's machines instantly at a reasonable quality without stalling. And the creative advantages of the Canon sensor size, interchangeable lenses, manual focus, etc. are just what you need.


However, I think there is something calm and refreshing about a clean still image that makes you ponder. I don't like websites with too much movement. Even the sideways floating thumbnails that so many people use make me irritable. If every single image on a website was a moving little clip, we would switch off. So let's not overestimate the change just yet.

For instance, think of the 3D computer generated images or panos that you can turn to see every single angle, after a while, it becomes very tiresome, certainly for me, and I have a much greater threshold than most from the younger generation where things stop being "cool" pretty soon.

As those in the know have remarked, the procedure to create a single still advertising image is completely different from producing a video clip. I think by and large it will be kept separate. The moving image is very forgiving. Still images require perfection in one frame.  In most cases this kind of perfection is not obtained by "grabbing a frame"

I  don't think there's enough money there to justify the cost of a Red if the only purpose is to shoot for the Internet. But the Canon is a different proposition, it's only the start and prices will come down more and more, video will be standard spec and the pricier cameras like the Red will be used in commercial productions and movie making. Medium format backs, sadly I really don't see them surviving for long. Canon or Nikon just need to make one more little jump upwards and medium format will be instant history.

As for magazines disappearing, yes, the market will probably shrink, which judging by a lot of their content it may be a blessing in disguise! Fewer ads need fewer photographers. Only the ones with the best talent, connections and business acumen will survive. The rest will have a career change.

Edward