Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red as of 2007  (Read 180186 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2008, 07:18:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Red Rock adapter works (don't confuse it with the RED), though it's cumbersom, somewhat sensitive and requires more work in post as shooting to a spinning ground glass give a softer, more pastel look to the already "cooked" hdv codec files.

http://www.redrockmicro.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael in your article on the RED camera, you mentioned the filmic look and how RAW woulfd help achieve it. In film the 'filmic' look that is so often talked about is actually down to size of capture, small chip vs 35mm film. The gadget mentioned above transforms a DV camera into one that produces images that [with care] look like they were made on a 35mm movie camera. I first came across this when working with a BBC Director/cameraman and I saw a short he made using this device on DV and 35mm lenses. It looked fantastic. Simply due to the different optical characteristics.
Not that the RAW files produced by the RED camera aren't a wonderful thing in themselves.

There was a site, that escapes me at the moment that had footage showing glasses in a bar shot with and without the adaptor. A banal setting, but one looked professional [filmic] and one looked video[cheap], with no difference other than the effective sensor size.
This is exactly the same argument with as with MF/35MM/Crop Sensor/P+S sensor that people have debated on this forum endlesly. But with the size difference between a video camera and a 35mm camera being so big, it's blindingly obvious there is in fact a huge difference.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 07:54:37 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2008, 07:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video ![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And why the RED camera is very, very much the wrong choice for you. It's a brilliant camera but is really aimed at film makers with a crew. Including someone whose only job is to focus the lens. A very skilled job it is too.
Wanting a camera that is like someone who has never done photography before and wanting a 10x8" monorail camera to learn on.
Buy the cheapest HDV camera with good manual features and play with that for a while. You'll also be able to edit the footage in Final Cut/Vegas/Premiere on any decent modern computer [with lots of HD space] as you learn. And there's lots to learn.


I've been following the development of the camera ever since it was announced and I was very impressed that the camera was priced so reasonably. Most manufacturers would have price pointed it at least 500% more. Sony for instance make some good kit, but they really price point cameras. They are always artificially crippled in some area, so you then have to jump from say a good 2,500 camera to a slightly better 20,000 camera and then 90,00 for the noticably better camera.
The RED camera has almost made it possible for anyone to shoot as high quality as a major studio. I've worked on films with 90,000 HDs which are pretty good, but are not a patch on this camera. The main problem is that the computer kit to handle the enormous volume of data will not be cheap.
BTW, most people rent fim making gear. Rarely does anyone actually buy anything.
And deal are always to be had when renting fim kit. I've worked on a 10,000 budget shoot with 130,000 worth of kit. And unlike stills kit hire, you don't have to leave a full deposit [which is the norm in UK].
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2008, 08:04:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It all depends on what you're shooting. Jim, RED camera founder, often shoots alone with RED zoom or prime lenses, producing some very nice wildlife shots and some great "funny car" stuff too. It's certainly doable. Say you are shooting stock footage, rather than narrative drama, then focusing is no worse than manual focus on your DSLR.

Graeme
Logged

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

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2008, 09:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It all depends on what you're shooting. Jim, RED camera founder, often shoots alone with RED zoom or prime lenses, producing some very nice wildlife shots and some great "funny car" stuff too. It's certainly doable. Say you are shooting stock footage, rather than narrative drama, then focusing is no worse than manual focus on your DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, I was thinking of follow focus shooting, as that's what is usually the tricky stuff. But even with stock, you may be shooting moving objects.
But I have to say manual focusing on DSLR autofocus lenses is not always easy. Mainly as the screens and lenses aren't designed for it anymore.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2008, 11:50:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael in your article on the RED camera, you mentioned the filmic look and how RAW woulfd help achieve it. In film the 'filmic' look that is so often talked about is actually down to size of capture, small chip vs 35mm film. The gadget mentioned above transforms a DV camera into one that produces images that [with care] look like they were made on a 35mm movie camera. I first came across this when working with a BBC Director/cameraman and I saw a short he made using this device on DV and 35mm lenses. It looked fantastic. Simply due to the different optical characteristics.
Not that the RAW files produced by the RED camera aren't a wonderful thing in themselves.

There was a site, that escapes me at the moment that had footage showing glasses in a bar shot with and without the adaptor. A banal setting, but one looked professional [filmic] and one looked video[cheap], with no difference other than the effective sensor size.
This is exactly the same argument with as with MF/35MM/Crop Sensor/P+S sensor that people have debated on this forum endlesly. But with the size difference between a video camera and a 35mm camera being so big, it's blindingly obvious there is in fact a huge difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The Red Rock adapter (as well as the P+S Technique) works.  Red Rock gives you an upside down image, P+S Technique a right side up image, both knock off a stop of light and both add grain, though maybe film like grain, still moving grain.

I've tried most of them, even working focus in post (a lot of post) and they are a temporary fix at best.

Add the Red Rock to a Canon or a Panasonic HDV and for 5 grand you've got yourself an almost film camera, add the P+S technique and you into another 12k or so.

On a web video they look good, even up to 12" monitor size, but large up to a wide screen 20 something inch you see the errors and loose that special something that 35mm film offers, that pretty pop of the eyelashes and that direct fall off in the background.

These band aid adapters work if your shooting Love in Paris, on a small indie budget, but they should no way be confused with 35mm film quality or RED quality.

Even though we live in a rent as you go world, the RED at the price point gives any serious or semi serious film maker a way to own, experiment, learn and shoot at a price that is just completley unheard of in the film world.


__________________________________________________________________________

Now Gramme, a few questions if you don't mind.

What is the effective clean iso of the Red?

Were there be dealers for demo or does one have to rent to try?

JR
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2008, 12:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And why the RED camera is very, very much the wrong choice for you. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This may be true or not

-In my limited experience with video I have become aware that wide is apparently seriously restricted in cameras without interchangeable lenses

 -that interchangeable lens cameras and wide lenses cost almost as much as a Red body

 -I would only need the body, I have a heap of compatable lenses

In terms of the computing - well I have a rig for 22mp stills


I can see that there is a purity of the Red system that IMO would make it easier to learn - like shooting RAW - you nail the colour later - things I am used to

I have had problems focussing DV cams - becuse there is too much DOF (I also cant focus my d80 manually but have a good rate with my H1)

Red solves that too I guess?

If Red could be seen as the FM2 of cameras its lack of silly features would make it the perfect learning tool IMO

In terms of the cost - well that is my decision - I think that it would do a lot more for my business than upgrading from a 22mp to a 39mp or upgrading from pair of D3's to a pair of D3x's in time which are my current other options for wasting about the same amount of money - and wasting money is always better than giving it to the taxman to waste

S

james I saw 320 listed as the base ISO somewhere
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 12:32:37 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

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

Posts: 14


« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2008, 09:36:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said.

You hit on the biggest difference in moving to video - storytelling. I always thought I was telling stories in my still photography, but honestly it now seems like I was stringing a bunch of nouns and adjectives together. The movies just doesn't work unless you have a story to tell and plan your production to tell it. You have to have the verbs to give it action and that action has to move somewhere. You are right that it takes a very different mindset.

I think that mindset can help us in our still photography too. The 16:9 format opens up possibilities and changes the vision of the world a bit. Let's be open to any improvements we can use from anywhere.

I also agree that the power of personal computers and the ease of the software pulls video and still photography much closer together. The market also pulls them together. More and more people are getting their information mostly from a screen rather than paper. It's a reality that pro photographers stuck in the model of selling prints have to wake up to. We have to find another way to make this business pay or we will be left behind and out of business. Yes, there will always be photo prints, just as there are platinum printers today. However, most of us will have to market to a majority market rather than a niche one to survive.

Clyde


PS - Why is 1920x1080 stunning, high res, and state-of-the-art on a large screen TV, but considered crap on paper?



Quote
This isn't black and white, either or, good or bad.

Video doesn't stop still photograpy, still photography doesn't have to have a video component, the web can carry video and stills side by side.

In fact I've gone through a video dialog session shot on 2k and tried to find if it would actually make decent stills.  Uh, yes you can do it in technique, but not necessarily in art as the direction, the framing and the overall look are much different in a still than a moving image.

Just a 16x9 frame offers a different way to tell a story than a 4:3 ratio.  (and much different set).

Regardless, we do have a form of convergence.  I you understand lightroom you will understand DaVinci, if you can work photoshop you can work Final Cut Pro and i've shot about every camera ever made and to me a camera is a camera each with thier own limitations and features.

What any other photographer or film maker does is none of my business, but a good eye, good taste and talent can be applied to any medium and I think some of the walls that seperate the two are already coming down.

I was suprised the first time I shot moving imagery how the possbilities were opened up to tell a story in more than one frame.  I was also suprised at the different mind set it took to allow myself not to try to grab it all in one frame.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 08, 2008, 09:41:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Movement adds a greater perception to resolution than a still image does, and usually monitor viewing distances are such that they don't get the same scrutiny as paper does.

That said, HD is now today's SD....

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
LughClyde
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #48 on: April 08, 2008, 09:59:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't have an 8x10, but do have other cameras. I think a lot of this comes down to how you market your services. If you market your prints, you'll get customers who want prints. If you market in a way that lets everyone know that you don't do prints, then you'll get customers who just want the pictures digitally. That's what I've found as I've moved to a strictly digital delivery.

I do wedding on occasion and have attracted brides who are more interested in the digital delivery than the printed one. I don't know if the market is there yet for a full time wedding photographer to aim at that market, but it is there and growing.

Clyde




Quote
And the relevence to a specialist in baby photography? Who uses video for one particular problem. Maybe he has a 10x8 for doing advertising?  

I know very succesful wedding photographers who do not bother with prints other than the album. They give the couple a DVD and charge as much as if they had done lots of prints and cut down the work they need to do. Times are changing and some people will find different business models.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 08, 2008, 10:22:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think a lot of this comes down to how you market your services. If you market your prints, you'll get customers who want prints. If you market in a way that lets everyone know that you don't do prints, then you'll get customers who just want the pictures digitally.

And you're turning away all the customers who might want some prints--they aren't even going to call you, so you may not realize how much business you're losing. I give my clients the choice of prints or digital images, or any combination thereof. Most purchased some prints, even if they wanted primarily digital delivery. Print sales may go down over time as electronic display technology improves, but I doubt they are going to die any time soon.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2008, 08:21:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
-In my limited experience with video I have become aware that wide is apparently seriously restricted in cameras without interchangeable lenses
Canon XL2?
A wideangle adaptor can also work very well, though always test it on camera you intend to use, to check for barrel distortion as quality varies.
 

Quote
In terms of the computing - well I have a rig for 22mp stills
Video rig places different demands on system. Fast storage is very important. Not that relevant to stills. But don't forget 24x12Mp per second even with compression is way more stressful on a computer than a mere 22MP still.


Quote
I have had problems focussing DV cams - becuse there is too much DOF (I also cant focus my d80 manually but have a good rate with my H1)
Red solves that too I guess?
Focusing will be pretty similar to D80, I'd have thought.

Quote
If Red could be seen as the FM2 of cameras its lack of silly features would make it the perfect learning tool IMO
More like a Hasselblad body as you can add lots of things to it.

Quote
In terms of the cost - well that is my decision - I think that it would do a lot more for my business than upgrading from a 22mp to a 39mp or upgrading from pair of D3's to a pair of D3x's in time which are my current other options for wasting about the same amount of money - and wasting money is always better than giving it to the taxman to waste
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd do exactly the same from the tax point of view. The new rules in the UK regarding capital expenditure are particularly good for that sort of thing.

What do you need that quality of image for though? Will it ever be shown on cinema sized screens? 1080p is probably the best quality anyone will see it at otherwise.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 08:21:38 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 08, 2008, 08:34:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On a web video they look good, even up to 12" monitor size, but large up to a wide screen 20 something inch you see the errors and loose that special something that 35mm film offers, that pretty pop of the eyelashes and that direct fall off in the background.
I thought I wrote something about that,     as although optically, they look much better, on the big screen the quality is obviously somewhat short of 35mm.


Quote
Even though we live in a rent as you go world, the RED at the price point gives any serious or semi serious film maker a way to own, experiment, learn and shoot at a price that is just completley unheard of in the film world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absoutely and I'm hoping RED will cause some serious red faces at Panasonic and Sony, who  prefer to trickle a minor tweak or two into cameras every couple of years and at articial price points. I have a huge amount of respect for Jim Jannard for what he is trying to do. And I'm certainly looking forward to finding out more about Scarlett.

I'm just hoping that the UK doesn't end up paying the normal, same price in pounds as you guys pay in dollars, as then RED is not so affordable.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2008, 09:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

No dealers, you buy direct, that means you do the $ to conversion and pay duty and VAT on your import. RED doesn't jack up  the price any extra just because you're not in the USA. To demo, I'd find a local user, or rent one. Quite a lot of rental places have them. Or come to NAB next week, and if you do, say hello and tell me you're from the LL forums.

Focusing, in terms of DOF is the same as about a 1.6x crop factor DSLR. But you do have a live view, and focus assists to help you.

The normal ISO rating is 320. All ISO in camera is totally in the metadata. It does not (unlike with a DSLR) effect the RAW image at all, just what you see on the viewfinder or LCD.

Graeme
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 09:19:15 PM by Graeme Nattress » Logged

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

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 08, 2008, 10:25:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Canon XL2?
A wideangle adaptor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JJJ

This rig seems to be about 3-4k which is a good proportion of red money

One wonders about the deprecaition of such compared to Red

(I know I have been hit for depreciation on DSLRs - dya wanna buy my two D1 nikons ?)

thanks for advice - sound like you actually know something about video

ps how does on translate '20X zoom' to '200mm on 35mm' ?


Graham

On a sinar my main stills camera the ISO is fixed like Red - even easier


S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2008, 12:18:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
JJJ

This rig seems to be about 3-4k which is a good proportion of red money

One wonders about the deprecaition of such compared to Red

(I know I have been hit for depreciation on DSLRs - dya wanna buy my two D1 nikons ?)

thanks for advice - sound like you actually know something about video

ps how does on translate '20X zoom' to '200mm on 35mm' ?
Graham

On a sinar my main stills camera the ISO is fixed like Red - even easier
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There is nothing wrong with SD on an XL2.  You get 24 fps and a good file, though one that is somewhat challenged for wide screen viewing, especially if you convert to the mpg2 dvd format.

Also cropping other than small 3% amounts begins to show.  

In comparison, HDV cameras are not that expensive, a canon xha1 is under 4 thousand, and even though you need adpapter lens to go wide, the quality doesn't suffer noticeably or at all.

It really depends on what you shoot and the look you want.  If you want a real film look, especially in dof,  any prosumer camera has such a small chip throwing focus is almost impossible within anything other than football field length.

For larger frame sizes the larger engs get very expensive require manual focus and still have a video type look.

The Red seems to be the next thing and though 4k files are still not standard even in Hollywood production that does all the intermediate steps in digital, 4k probably will become the standard, if only to have for archive footage even if you originally downsample to 2k.

Just like still cameras, the red, a super 16, a 35mm panaflex, a small handicam will not take the place of talent, taste, modern color timing, and intelligent shooting and editing.

Beautiful content is still the domain of talent and not just equipment and there have been a lot of amazing productions shot on very challenged low equipment.

It's not what a camera (any camera) does that is that important, it's what it keeps you from doing that makes a difference.

JR
« Last Edit: April 09, 2008, 10:14:03 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2008, 11:59:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is nothing wrong with SD on an XL2.  You get 24 fps and a good file, though one that is somewhat challenged for wide screen viewing, especially if you convert to the mpg2 dvd format.

Also cropping other than small 3% amounts begins to show. 

In comparison, HDV cameras are not that expensive, a canon xha1 is under 4 thousand, and even though you need adpapter lens to go wide, the quality doesn't suffer noticeably or at all.

It really depends on what you shoot and the look you want.  If you want a real film look, especially in dof,  any prosumer camera has such a small chip throwing focus is almost impossible within anything other than football field length.

For larger frame sizes the larger engs get very expensive require manual focus and still have a video type look.

The Red seems to be the next thing and though 4k files are still not standard even in Hollywood production that does all the intermediate steps in digital, 4k probably will become the standard, if only to have for archive footage even if you originally downsample to 2k.

Just like still cameras, the red, a super 16, a 35mm panaflex, a small handicam will not take the place of talent, taste, modern color timing, and intelligent shooting and editing.

Beautiful content is still the domain of talent and not just equipment and there have been a lot of amazing productions shot on very challenged low equipment.

It's not what a camera (any camera) does that is that important, it's what it keeps you from doing that makes a difference.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

james

I am not quite sure what you are saying !

Red=Good or Red=Bad ?

My big lesson with gear was buying a 16mp square MFDB that I traded and lost on - I should have just gone for the 22mp/H1 that is my workhorse

I have also hit big losses on DSLRs from the D1 onwards - I had no choice on that front becuase they were the best at the time

My lesson with gear is 'just go in at the top' - (if that is where you are going to eventually end up anyway)

I am formulating an economic argument for Red being

no lenses to purchase

it wont be redundant and 'valueless' in two years

and therefore could be cheaper than buying OK kit in the long run

aditionally having RAW archive footage in may library (and my library is a significant part of my income) will also mean no 'lost footage'

A large part of that argument revolves around my 'phlosophical' question which is

Will commercial shooters offering a moving and still package be the norm in the next three years?

Because if the answer is YES then I HAVE to buy some sort of video kit to stay afloat and therefore why not just pile in at the top end

I think that if scarlett takes nikon and costs 1/2 of Red then the answer is yes - but something makes me think that wont be the case....

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2008, 10:02:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
james

I am not quite sure what you are saying !

Red=Good or Red=Bad ?

My big lesson with gear was buying a 16mp square MFDB that I traded and lost on - I should have just gone for the 22mp/H1 that is my workhorse

I have also hit big losses on DSLRs from the D1 onwards - I had no choice on that front becuase they were the best at the time

My lesson with gear is 'just go in at the top' - (if that is where you are going to eventually end up anyway)

I am formulating an economic argument for Red being

no lenses to purchase

it wont be redundant and 'valueless' in two years

and therefore could be cheaper than buying OK kit in the long run

aditionally having RAW archive footage in may library (and my library is a significant part of my income) will also mean no 'lost footage'

A large part of that argument revolves around my 'phlosophical' question which is

Will commercial shooters offering a moving and still package be the norm in the next three years?

Because if the answer is YES then I HAVE to buy some sort of video kit to stay afloat and therefore why not just pile in at the top end

I think that if scarlett takes nikon and costs 1/2 of Red then the answer is yes - but something makes me think that wont be the case....

SMM
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who knows what the future brings and everyone has a different business model.

Most still photographers on any level do not want to mess with moving imagery, most videographers, film makers do not shoot high end stills, so this has not converged as much as it probably could/would/should.

The leap is not that drastic in learning curve, art and even monetary investment, but that doesn't mean much in the real world.

Is the Red a good camera, I don't know though it looks fascinating to me.

Is it an easy video cam, no not really but that's not what it's designed for, though beautiful cinema usually comes from the perceived flicker of 24 frames, a file robust enough to move in post and a physcial frame size large enough to throw focus.

Once again everybody has a different business model, though knowledge is power and the more you offer usually the more you work.

There is nothing unique about that in any business.

Then again buying a $1,000 handican and jiggling it around while someone shoots stills isn't going to say much and for this type of work moving to a $35,000 Red isn't going to change the look of production.

This is about producing beautiful imagery whether still or moving and if the camera doesn't stop you or something you don't have to think about then that's the camera.

The thing I am most interested about with the Red is the higher iso.

In this clip, found online, at 500 iso the blacks look very clean and ususally with highdef any black image underexposed gets very noisey.

[a href=\"http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov]http://www.bealecorner.org/red/extnightBM2k_1k.mov[/url]



JR
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 10:22:56 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2008, 02:17:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Most still photographers on any level do not want to mess with moving imagery, most videographers, film makers do not shoot high end stills, so this has not converged as much as it probably could/would/should.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that it may not be 'would' 'could' or 'should' but 'will' and 'when'

If it is 'will' then my agrument is not to p*ss about with the mide range but just pile in high

I dont think it $35k either not with a 28 1.4 nikkor only

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2008, 12:36:04 AM »
ReplyReply

All I can say, is "wait and see". I think Monday is going to be a very interesting day....

Graeme
Logged

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

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2008, 12:48:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All I can say, is "wait and see". I think Monday is going to be a very interesting day....

Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Graeme,

I know you can't/won't comment on the scarlet, but on the red.

What is the highest useable iso, i.e. clean shadows.

What is the delivery time for a full kit, weeks, days, months?

_________________________

Today we began production of a "film" using hdv canons and the red rock.

It's was interesting as this is the first time I've used the Red Rock for all the footage.

The upside is it throws focus very well, even the precooked hdv files are nice and once into post work will look very good.  

The downside is it's a very sensitive and large setup, even with Nikon Lenses.  By the time you mount a Marshall high def monitor upside down to see the image, a matte box and the required tubes, it's a very big camera and takes a lot of adjustment everytime you use it.

Also at anything past 6db you see a lot of moving noise in the shadows.  Nothing that can't be somewhat fixed, but shooting all day at 6db and around f 1.7 to f2, we were still very low on light

_________________________

Once again, I am somewhat surprised that this topic has so little play.  I would think the introduction of a 4k digital video camera wouild really shake the world of motion and still imagery.

4k is a 30megabyte file and when you think of how close that is to still camera quality it's amazing to think it can be used at such a fast frame rate.

JR
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad