Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Rhe RED Med format  (Read 78072 times)

Tim Lüdin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.timage.ch
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #160 on: November 18, 2008, 06:32:36 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
It's nothing like digital and film. Maybe you just don't get it, or maybe your needs just happen to coincide with what Red offers. As I keep saying, Red looks great for video but not as a still camera.

- I want an optical viewfinder. Anything else is a joke.
- I want a smaller lighter camera, not MUCH bigger and heavier like Red
- I want less time spent on workflow and archiving, not more
- I need a camera which can work with flash (apparently Red needs continuous light)
- Red is more expensive than even today's MF digital cameras, never mind what we will have in 2 years
- the ISO range, image quality, and range of shutter speeds are as yet unknown

What's hard to understand about that?

RED just stands for the starting point of it.
Things will get hybrid. Faster than you think.
You wouldn't bother about viewfinder and such, it's just details. The whole picture is going to change very fast.
Ah and by the way, have you ever looked through a RED viewfinder? The new one will be twice as sharp. Optical was what again?

Dont get me wrong here. I dont want to start I fight or such. I can understand you very good.
I had the same mindset 1 year ago, till I got my first RED. Now my whole world of picture taking changed.
The new stuff will not only change mine.

Also the coming recession will push things in that way. Only one cam and one photographer/dp on the set.
Everything will look like out of one box. One style and one look.
Morgan had a great idea with the moving model from the still on the website.
That's exactly where this will be going.

Tim



Logged
Cinematographer & Photographer
[url=http

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #161 on: November 18, 2008, 06:37:02 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
A soon as one fashion house website puts a dress picture in thier online catalogue where you mouse over and the model spins or continues down the catwalk everyone will want it - my guess

same with products

S

The internet is going to have to go through an upgrade cycle or three before I want to see something like that on webpages I visit. The codecs aren't good enough to get a fluid experience for that kind of quality. Either you will have crap quality, like youtube, or you will have tiny resolutions (not compelling), or you will have a playback that stutters as it struggles to download the next frames, or a long buffering time. For niche markets, perhaps, but for general stuff, the internet is not ready, and won't be for a few years. Therefore, the real threat of the Red is likely at the earliest in 3-5 years. Until then, photography will continue to rule, with the occasional mini-movie, just like today.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #162 on: November 18, 2008, 06:40:18 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
Seems like serious overkill for web use. You can already take a still from 1080p and you have all you need for a webpage. ....   All true, so why are some people here getting so excited about these Red models killing off medium format digital? Just crazy.

1080 Indeed you can - im experimenting on that right now !

The people getting exited now are those who were excited by digital cameras in 1999

I bought my kodak proback when the largest DSLR was 6mp I think - it was a revlolution because I broke into a market that was slide only- and made me money !

And as for digital as a newspaper man in those days I can say that digital was a wonder - have you ever processed a film in your car boot at a sports match, scanned it with a coolpix and sent it on a 1440 BPS nokia 2110 - thats what I used to do - my innovation was cooking the film chemicals in a microwave running off the car batteries to save time - even the coolpix was a wonder compered to the $120000 hasselblad* analogue transmitter that nearly broke my employer at the time

The death of MF cameras is more a threat from the mainstream cameras like the Sony and Canon - unless they jump ahead again - we all know they have been jumping the wrong way with MP

Phase or Sinar could be on everyones lips again if they got clean 50,000 ISO or 50FPS or something that CaNikon dont have

Id love a 30FPS sinar back to keep on my H1 and lenses

S

*interesting to note that is was hasselblad with the $120000 early adopter solution that was bounded by the $2000 nikon solution
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 06:46:08 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #163 on: November 18, 2008, 06:43:07 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
The internet is going to have to go through an upgrade cycle or three before I want to see something like that on webpages I visit. The codecs aren't good enough to get a fluid experience for that kind of quality. Either you will have crap quality, like youtube, or you will have tiny resolutions (not compelling), or you will have a playback that stutters as it struggles to download the next frames, or a long buffering time. For niche markets, perhaps, but for general stuff, the internet is not ready, and won't be for a few years. Therefore, the real threat of the Red is likely at the earliest in 3-5 years. Until then, photography will continue to rule, with the occasional mini-movie, just like today.

www.volvo.co.uk rolls movie fine, vimeo works well - I dont think its that far off

S
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #164 on: November 18, 2008, 06:43:34 pm »

Quote from: Tim Lüdin
Things will get hybrid. Faster than you think.

That doesn't mean that they will displace existing cameras. Example: mobile phone cameras have not made P&S cameras obsolete. The internet did not kill off books. They both have their place.

Quote from: Tim Lüdin
Ah and by the way, have you ever looked through a RED viewfinder? The new one will be twice as sharp. Optical was what again?

Yes, unusable for critical focus at high resolution.

Quote from: Tim Lüdin
Also the coming recession will push things in that way.

I thought it was already here

Quote from: Tim Lüdin
Only one cam and one photographer/dp on the set.

Only 5% of my advertising projects have a corresponding video made anyway, and as people keep mentioning there is more to a photo than taking a still from a video. You need to communicate everything in one image. This changes the composition among other things. Technology doesn't change the fundamentals.
Logged

Tim Lüdin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.timage.ch
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #165 on: November 18, 2008, 06:44:04 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
The internet is going to have to go through an upgrade cycle or three before I want to see something like that on webpages I visit. The codecs aren't good enough to get a fluid experience for that kind of quality. Either you will have crap quality, like youtube, or you will have tiny resolutions (not compelling), or you will have a playback that stutters as it struggles to download the next frames, or a long buffering time. For niche markets, perhaps, but for general stuff, the internet is not ready, and won't be for a few years. Therefore, the real threat of the Red is likely at the earliest in 3-5 years. Until then, photography will continue to rule, with the occasional mini-movie, just like today.

Hey carsten, where do you live?
The internet in switzerland is very fast. We have no problem with movies etc.

The RED stuff isnt about the max resolution on the web. It's about the filmlook, the 35mm depth of field etc.
That's something I can even see on youtube.
The internet will become very fast worldwide in the next years. Finaly the internet will end up in our living rooms plugged into
our TVsets. It's gonna be full hd and from then on every one will see the real quality behind film or foto content.
The quality will go up not down.
That's why the new REDs will be so killer. You start out with a great picture and from there you can go where ever you like.
Web, print, movies etc.
That's what the ad agencys whant, totaly flexebility.

Cheers
Tim

Logged
Cinematographer & Photographer
[url=http

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #166 on: November 18, 2008, 06:48:25 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
phone camerras didnt kill point and shoot .

I cant remember a model who had a P+S camer (models are the only 20 year olds I know!) - they all use thier phones

Quote from: foto-z
Only 5% of my advertising projects have a corresponding video made .

In 1999 only 5% of your clients would have accepted or been able to handle digital : )
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 06:53:09 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #167 on: November 18, 2008, 06:51:17 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
www.volvo.co.uk rolls movie fine, vimeo works well - I dont think its that far off

That was very low quality.

Advertisers are reluctant to make sites which rely on high speed broadband, excluding many potential customers, and things have been very slow to get better. 5 years ago I thought that by now the whole world would be on 10+ Mbit connections. Back then, I had a 20 Mbit connection at my home in Sweden. I haven't seen anything much faster than that advertised even 5 years later. And plenty of people are still on really basic 128 or 256 kbit. Technology isn't racing quite as fast as some seem to say. In fact it is frustratingly slow.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #168 on: November 18, 2008, 06:56:39 pm »

Quote from: Tim Lüdin
The internet will become very fast worldwide in the next years. Finaly the internet will end up in our living rooms plugged into
our TVsets. It's gonna be full hd and from then on every one will see the real quality behind film or foto content.

This is a good example of how SLOW technology can be. HD video was first demonstrated in the 1980s, then reinvented as DVB in the 1990s and STILL has a very low market penetration. It might be another 5-10 years before the majority of homes are HD equipped, and current HD is still far from high resolution.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 06:57:51 pm by foto-z »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #169 on: November 18, 2008, 06:59:05 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
That was very low quality.

Advertisers are reluctant to make sites which rely on high speed broadband, excluding many potential customers, and things have been very slow to get better. 5 years ago I thought that by now the whole world would be on 10+ Mbit connections. Back then, I had a 20 Mbit connection at my home in Sweden. I haven't seen anything much faster than that advertised even 5 years later. And plenty of people are still on really basic 128 or 256 kbit. Technology isn't racing quite as fast as some seem to say. In fact it is frustratingly slow.

Every point you make is true right now

P+S cameras still sell
MF cameras still sell (I think)
Movies on the web are clunky
The red camera is probably over priced, over sized and crap at stills - (no face detection AF - unlike phones!)

To me what is interesting is seeing a career direction swing - away from the 2d stillshot shooters to - I dont know what "DP - director of photography" might be the phrase - "Imager" - "digital capture artist" - who knows  - Im young - you look young - we need to embrace this future not talk about now - now is boring

Its like some of the architecture guys moaning about digital rendering - they should have seen it and moved thier businesses to lead that field


S
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 07:03:12 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Tim Lüdin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.timage.ch
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #170 on: November 18, 2008, 07:00:28 pm »

Quote from: foto-z
That was very low quality.

Advertisers are reluctant to make sites which rely on high speed broadband, excluding many potential customers, and things have been very slow to get better. 5 years ago I thought that by now the whole world would be on 10+ Mbit connections. Back then, I had a 20 Mbit connection at my home in Sweden. I haven't seen anything much faster than that advertised even 5 years later. And plenty of people are still on really basic 128 or 256 kbit. Technology isn't racing quite as fast as some seem to say. In fact it is frustratingly slow.

You are right, not every country is so blessed with fast internet like sweden and switzerland.  
Logged
Cinematographer & Photographer
[url=http

stevephoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #171 on: November 18, 2008, 07:01:23 pm »

there is nothing new going on here - you could been shooting for decades at high speed with a 35mm movie camera, telecine to digital and away you go - stills and moving images - you could have been working on print quality digital manipulation 20 years ago

anyone who has sat though movie rushes is going to know its - time time time - editing those rushes - time time time - sorting out the sound - time time time - a still shoot budget is not going to give the budget to throw in a 30 or even 10 second commercial and the budget for a commercial is looking for a whole different vibe than a print ad

sure you might get to do a commercial off the budget for a stills shoot from a cheap skate client and make a piece of crap going out on channel blah blah when no one is watching - but you are not going to want to put your name to it - sure some stills shoots have big budgets - but those budgets are going on the elements of the stills shoots - there is a lot more to commercial live action productions than the technology advances to do with a camera

if you want to shoot live action commercials etc, just get yourself a showreel together now, get a producer and become a commercials director, don't rely on a camera manufactures fantasy about coming up with  a camera in the distant future

Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #172 on: November 18, 2008, 07:08:52 pm »

Quote from: stevephoto
there is nothing new going on here - you could been shooting for decades at high speed with a 35mm movie camera, telecine to digital and away you go - stills and moving images - you could have been working on print quality digital manipulation 20 years ago

anyone who has sat though movie rushes is going to know its - time time time - editing those rushes - time time time - sorting out the sound - time time time - a still shoot budget is not going to give the budget to throw in a 30 or even 10 second commercial and the budget for a commercial is looking for a whole different vibe than a print ad

sure you might get to do a commercial off the budget for a stills shoot from a cheap skate client and make a piece of crap going out on channel blah blah when no one is watching - but you are not going to want to put your name to it - sure some stills shoots have big budgets - but those budgets are going on the elements of the stills shoots - there is a lot more to commercial live action productions than the technology advances to do with a camera

if you want to shoot live action commercials etc, just get yourself a showreel together now, get a producer and become a commercials director, don't rely on a camera manufactures fantasy about coming up with  a camera in the distant future

20 years ago I couldnt afford a panavision or three feet of kodachrome every second


20 years ago my clients couldnt afford $100000 for a 30s advert on one of the two TV chanels that broadcast advertising in the UK

Last time I investigated going into serious video a camera was $100000

Something is new television/movies are can now by by rather than for the masses

Indeed nothing has changed my cheapskate clients pay for crap still images - they dont hire Kate Moss and Patrick  Demarchelier - so my pictures must be crap and my clients cheapskate right ? or wrong ?

S
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 07:20:58 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

stevephoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #173 on: November 18, 2008, 07:21:04 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
20 years ago I couldnt afford a panavision or three feet of kodachrome every second


20 years ago my clients couldnt afford $100000 for a 30s advert on one of the two TV chanels that broadcast advertising in the UK

Last time I investigated going into serious video a camera was $100000


Something is new at both ends...

S

you rent the panavision for the shoot

the 3 feet of kodachrome gave you 3 ft of images

the cost of the advert has nothing to do with the cost of broadcasting the advert, and a video camera is not going to reduce the cost of the shoot

sorry, not sure about the 'serious video a camera for $100,000' or the other bits!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 07:23:29 pm by stevephoto »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #174 on: November 18, 2008, 07:29:36 pm »

Quote from: stevephoto
you rent the panavision for the shoot

the 3 feet of kodachrome gave you 3 ft of images

the cost of the advert has nothing to do with the cost of broadcasting the advert, and a video camera is not going to reduce the cost of the shoot

not sure about the 'serious video a camera for $100,000'?

Clients who could not afford TV advertising didnt have an output for moving images - maybe a VCR in thier foyer - now they have the web - so there is/will be an output stream for footage

of course the quality will vary from great shoots for the high budget corporates (like GM ?) to shoddy material for the local pizza joint

$100,000 camera was the going rate for a broadcast BETA camera in the mid nineties - and the edit suites cost a bit more than FCP

And with the net there are no rules on what channel to watch - the success stories do not all have corporate backing

S
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 07:30:42 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

stevephoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #175 on: November 18, 2008, 07:48:55 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
Clients who could not afford TV advertising didnt have an output for moving images - maybe a VCR in thier foyer - now they have the web - so there is/will be an output stream for footage

of course the quality will vary from great shoots for the high budget corporates (like GM ?) to shoddy material for the local pizza joint

$100,000 camera was the going rate for a broadcast BETA camera in the mid nineties - and the edit suites cost a bit more than FCP

And with the net there are no rules on what channel to watch - the success stories do not all have corporate backing

S

its not about cost for a client, its about ROI, sure if a client can put their footage on their own site and 10 million people watch it, its going to be a cheap outlet for the client, but any other outlet is going to charge a cost relative to the exposure for the client

a broadcast camera in the nineties was not for producing commercials etc(film quality), it was for live tv,tv programmes or industrial videos - the quality was rubbish - it could actually be way cheaper to shoot on film if you had the right contacts and if it wasn't a 2 hour movie about hanging wallpaper

you rented the edit suite, it would not cost much as you rented by the hour for a few hours to put the final program together having done all the real time consuming work offline for peanuts

you would have to define success stories - most clients want certaintity - they will pay x and want y exposure - not a crap shoot - and y exposure costs relative to what you get
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 07:52:00 pm by stevephoto »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #176 on: November 18, 2008, 07:49:10 pm »

Quote from: stevephoto
there is nothing new going on here - you could been shooting for decades at high speed with a 35mm movie camera, telecine to digital and away you go - stills and moving images - you could have been working on print quality digital manipulation 20 years ago
No it is very different as otherwise stills photographers would not exist on film sets. Also you cannot take high quality stills with a 35mm movie camera and it's actually a smaller cpture area than 35mm stills film. Then there's the expense. Now an individual photographer can actually afford to buy the best kit. Film people always rented before, due to the cost, now they buy RED kit.

Quote
anyone who has sat though movie rushes is going to know its - time time time - editing those rushes - time time time - sorting out the sound - time time time - a still shoot budget is not going to give the budget to throw in a 30 or even 10 second commercial and the budget for a commercial is looking for a whole different vibe than a print ad
Looking at it the wrong way around, you make the film and do stills at the same time.  It's not adding moving pics to a stills shoot.

Quote
sure you might get to do a commercial off the budget for a stills shoot from a cheap skate client and make a piece of crap going out on channel blah blah when no one is watching - but you are not going to want to put your name to it - sure some stills shoots have big budgets - but those budgets are going on the elements of the stills shoots - there is a lot more to commercial live action productions than the technology advances to do with a camera
Money is rapidly vanishing from advertising at present with large no.s of people in the media being laid off in the UK 2,500+ last week alone I believe. So the cheapskate client is soon going to be everybody.
The no. of clients who see they can save money by having stills and video aspects done together are only going to increase. With the advent of large flat screens everywhere [even in your local shop is playing ads whist you queue], large displays screens in shopping centres and on the London underground escalators print ads are being replaced by TV screens - which are starting to use movement within the ads, as opposed to simply doing a slideshow of the various ads.
The 'movement' has already started.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #177 on: November 18, 2008, 08:00:11 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
$100,000 camera was the going rate for a broadcast BETA camera in the mid nineties - and the edit suites cost a bit more than FCP
I remember looking at edit suites at the Broadcast Show that cost £80,000 and now I can do stuff faster and better quality with my home computer with software than costs a mere £850 and that includes the editing, compositing, grading, sound and outputing software too.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

stevephoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #178 on: November 18, 2008, 08:17:52 pm »

[quote name='jjj' date='Nov 18 2008, 07:49 PM' post='237994']
"No it is very different as otherwise stills photographers would not exist on film sets. Also you cannot take high quality stills with a 35mm movie camera and it's actually a smaller cpture area than 35mm stills film. Then there's the expense. Now an individual photographer can actually afford to buy the best kit. Film people always rented before, due to the cost, now they buy RED kit."

no, film is normally shot at 24/30 frames per second which works for moving images not stills, so if you want to get stills from a live action shoot, you just run the film camera at a fast enough speed

"Looking at it the wrong way around, you make the film and do stills at the same time.  It's not adding moving pics to a stills shoot."

yes of course, you have always been able to do that if you wanted with film, but you really got to think about what the live shoot is for and what the stills would be used for - you can have a stills guy on set and the stills for an ad campaign have a whole different criteria than grabbing the stills off the live action

"Money is rapidly vanishing from advertising at present with large no.s of people in the media being laid off in the UK 2,500+ last week alone I believe. So the cheapskate client is soon going to be everybody.
The no. of clients who see they can save money by having stills and video aspects done together are only going to increase. With the advent of large flat screens everywhere [even in your local shop is playing ads whist you queue], large displays screens in shopping centres and on the London underground escalators print ads are being replaced by TV screens - which are starting to use movement within the ads, as opposed to simply doing a slideshow of the various ads.
The 'movement' has already started."

clients learned to be cheapskates a long time ago, even when advertising companies tell them that the way to get through a recession and be number one at the other end - is to spend spend spend - but clients regardless of recessions always want top quality at bottom dollar price - you better make sure you are providing them with that when you turn up with your live action and your stills or they are not going to pay you and you will be eating the cost of two shoots

pa
Logged

stevephoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Rhe RED Med format
« Reply #179 on: November 18, 2008, 08:25:40 pm »

Quote from: jjj
I remember looking at edit suites at the Broadcast Show that cost £80,000 and now I can do stuff faster and better quality with my home computer with software than costs a mere £850 and that includes the editing, compositing, grading, sound and outputing software too.

a top end video edit suite could easily run to over 750k and that gear was not fitting under your desk, the A/C to cool it was bigger than a room, and a few hundred now gets you more and better - but you did not have to buy the edit suite to produce your programme - you just needed to rent it for a few pounds paid by the budget and the editor put the programme together as you relaxed
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Up