Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red as of 2007  (Read 182449 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« on: March 30, 2008, 12:15:44 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 12:28:07 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4857



« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2008, 06:03:12 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 06:03:55 AM by michael » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2008, 06:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2008, 08:53:19 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2008, 11:49:21 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2008, 11:51:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1904



« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2008, 08:54:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Red One records up to four channels of audio I believe
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 02:26:13 PM »
ReplyReply

(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
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 03:41:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(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'...
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 09:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2008, 03:40:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2008, 10:28:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2008, 06:57:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4857



« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2008, 09:34:40 AM »
ReplyReply

My article in RED is now online.

Michael
Logged
LughClyde
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2008, 12:57:49 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2008, 01:40:25 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2008, 09:47:46 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2008, 01:58:06 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
LughClyde
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2008, 09:15:03 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2008, 11:18:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 12:50:25 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad