Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red as of 2007  (Read 181985 times)
TaoMaas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2008, 02:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
  I edit with the Avid Media Composer and much prefer it to Final Cut, but others feel jus the other way around. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've been working on a Media Composer for the past 11-12 years.  We're getting ready to upgrade to HD and had been debating between staying with Avid or moving over to Final Cut.  Are you guys shooting HD and, if so, what cameras are you using?
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 567



« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2008, 09:28:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been working on the Avid Media Composer since giving up pre-read editing on D-2 and D-3, probably about 1994 or so.  When I went into business for myself in 2004 I needed to hit the ground running and stayed with AVID.  I knew several other people who changed to Final Cut Pro and it has worked out for them.  I shoot mostly in SD up to now and use a Sony DSR-130 which is the D-30 camera head docked to a DSR-1 DVCam back.  I have a Sony HDV-Z1U that I use for a couple of clients and have rented both Sony 900's and Panasonic Varicams.  I will buy a full size HD camera package sometime in the next year.  A friend of mine has said that if Sony made a car, he'd buy it and I kind of feel the same way.  I own some Panasonic gear and used a Panasonic DVC-Pro 25 camera for a few years.  I actually prefer the tape handling in the DVC-Pro equipment over the DVCam.  I am intrested in Red and signed up for their email alerts, but have never received one.  I havn't been to NAB for a few years and hate going to Las Vegas.  I suppose I should go and catch up.
Logged

Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2008, 09:41:00 PM »
ReplyReply

If you do get  to NAB, David, ask for me at the RED tent and say hello. I'd be pleased to tell you about the camera in person.

Tape is what we're all used to, but when I sit at my edit suite and look at the compact flash reader sitting there, that must have cost me all of $30, I have to laugh at the cost of a HDCAM SR deck....

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 567



« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2008, 10:18:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Graeme,

Thank you very much for the kind offer.  I won't be able to make NAB this year.  I am booked through June, but I would love to be able to get the Cliff Notes version of Red.  I am always looking for a competetive advantage and Red certainly qualifies as that.  Many of the projects I work on require hours and hours of master footage and that has favored tape up to now.

I seem to have more and more battery systems to keep up with as well.  Can Red be powered by Anton Bauer Dionic batteries?  That would be one less thing to worry about.  My still photography system is Nikon, so being able to use Nikon lenses would also be an advantage.

If you are able to, please PM me anything you can share about Scarlett.

Best regards,
David
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2008, 03:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please elaborate.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is backward because people are going 'I will miss less shots' not going

'hey cool' think of the new stuff I could do 'pan arounds' '3D' or whatever other ways of showing ones idea there are in the screen environment which I would argue is going to be a prevalent (not exclusive) manner of viewing stuff soon

SMM
Logged

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

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2008, 08:20:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't speak about Scarlet until the announcement. I'm not up on which batteries work, but http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...t=anton+battery had 140s working well.

Nikon lenses will work, through an adapter. There's a manual adapter from RED and I think Birger are making electronic mounts. SLR glass is great, image wise, but not often the best ergonomics for movie making.

Graeme
Logged

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

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2008, 09:05:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

If you actually believe that none of your customers have ever made prints from your discs, you are deluding yourself. My experience, and the experience of most photographers, is that people commonly print JPEGS, even web-sized prominently watermarked JPEGs from online galleries. Whether they will actually admit that they do so is quite another matter. Did you just ask them over the phone, or did you actually go to their houses and look around?
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2008, 09:54:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can't speak about Scarlet until the announcement. I'm not up on which batteries work, but http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...t=anton+battery had 140s working well.

Nikon lenses will work, through an adapter. There's a manual adapter from RED and I think Birger are making electronic mounts. SLR glass is great, image wise, but not often the best ergonomics for movie making.

Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean nikon glass will work with scarlet ?

This sounds most attactive to me

Unless I am wrong most regular video cams that have interchangable lenses seem to be about $5k and those wide lenses about $4k

At that point scarlett and my nikkors will I imagine be comparible in price considering I already own the nikors including all the old legends like 85/2 and 50 1.2

Looking forward to your announcement

Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video !

S
Logged

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

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2008, 11:23:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'll have an article on the RED camera up within a few days.

Check their web site and Wikipedia for more info. It's all there.

A properly equipped camera is going to cost at least $50,000.

There is a new hand-held version called Scarlet to be shown at the NAB show in a few weeks that will likely come in at about the price of a high end DSLR.

Producing video is a serious business. There is a steep learning curve and buying a camera is only a small part of the process. Final Cut Pro makes Photoshop look like a simple program.   

Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

Your right the learning curve from shooting stills to moving imagery, (film or video) and the time and learning investment to edit, color time and grade, is obviously there, but not near as far a leap as it was 5 and especially 10 years ago.

Prior to FCP, the latest avids and the newer SD and HD cameras, shooting anything that was interesting and professional grade could easily take an investment of a hundred thousand dollars and the project had to be an absolute dedicated video or film shoot.

Final Cut Pro really did change all of this.  Now for the cost of an I-mac, a few hard drives and a thousand dollars software suite, you can cut anything and if your learned in photoshop, lightroom, etc. the learning curve is not years, even months . . . it can be weeks.


This was the first still with video project we shot a few years agok, using a standard def XL1 and the first version (or close to first) of FCP.

[a href=\"http://ishotit.com/first.mov]http://ishotit.com/first.mov[/url]

It's not Ridley Scott, but it also only impacted the cost of production by about 10% and don't think it didn't add to client satisfaction by much more than 10%.

The next step is cameras such as the Red and Scarlet.  I'm amazed that your article on the LL site didn't start 500 threads about cinema  vs. or including still photograpy, because convergence is here and the two genres are much more related than most photographers realize.

If the Red works and it works seamlessly into the non linear editors, the idea of having a full frame (in cinema terms) camera for under $50,000 opens up possiblities for art and commerce that really excites me and though 50 grand seems steep, compare that to the price of a new medium format back, a camera and lenses and it's very comparable in costs.

(it's not the 4k part that juices me, it's the fact that you can pull focus and give a real film look without loading film, processing, telecine and the rest of issues film brings up.

Convergence is here and has been for a long time, but it takes an open mind and the willingness to learn new ways of working.


I'm telling you nothing you don't know as LL is actually where I believe publishing is going.

This is a rough cut from a work in progress from a few weeks ago.  It was primarily a still shoot with the video component and produced in studio AND on location in one day and the costs and style of production is not as different as most people would think.

What 5 years ago would have only been a still session to produce this;



has now moved to this.

http://ishotit.com/inprogress_4_04_08.mov

Personally I don't like the term video because it makes me think of the 10 pm ambulance news or some blue gelled infomercial and hopefully cameras like the red will change all of that.

Just like film to digital capture, digital video can have the look and the properties of film capture with a lot more useability at a lot lower costs.

I'm sure right now on some forum the Red has started the same scream from purists that digital will never replace film and there is nothing like looking at a film image on a 400 ft. wide movie screen.  On some of this I agree, except our common carrier is not 400 ft. wide screens, it's lcd's and the content comes from the cable company, apple TV or a computer.

The Red or any digital capture device changes nothing in the way of thought and creativity but it does offer opportunity for expanded art and  commerce.



JR
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 11:46:22 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2008, 12:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I was talking about RED ONE, not Scarlet. I can't say anything at all about Scarlet other than "Pocket Professional" until we officially announce at NAB.

Yea, it's tricky to follow focus on a stills lens, but the image quality is usually great.

Graeme

Quote
You mean nikon glass will work with scarlet ?

This sounds most attactive to me

Unless I am wrong most regular video cams that have interchangable lenses seem to be about $5k and those wide lenses about $4k

At that point scarlett and my nikkors will I imagine be comparible in price considering I already own the nikors including all the old legends like 85/2 and 50 1.2

Looking forward to your announcement

Ergonomics.. you men the focus throw is too short for nice 'focus pulling' if that is the phrase - rmember I know nothing of video !

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

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

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2008, 12:53:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was talking about RED ONE, not Scarlet. I can't say anything at all about Scarlet other than "Pocket Professional" until we officially announce at NAB.

Yea, it's tricky to follow focus on a stills lens, but the image quality is usually great.

Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Graham

I thought so - I reckon hard to follow focus on any lens  but the PL lenses have stoppers and bigger gearing dont they ?

Fingers crossed on Scarlett and nikkors  - a big plus for existing stills guys



James

As ever you are right on it

That 'little film' (what phrase do you want?) is exactly the sort of thing I think I could almost pull off

It would seem to be a big 'USP' over a straight stills guy

I notice the sound is pretty much lashed on afterwards

Interesting to see the integration of the stills

lovely -  thanks for posting

SMM
Logged

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

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2008, 11:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Graham

I thought so - I reckon hard to follow focus on any lens  but the PL lenses have stoppers and bigger gearing dont they ?

Fingers crossed on Scarlett and nikkors  - a big plus for existing stills guys
James

As ever you are right on it

That 'little film' (what phrase do you want?) is exactly the sort of thing I think I could almost pull off

It would seem to be a big 'USP' over a straight stills guy

I notice the sound is pretty much lashed on afterwards

Interesting to see the integration of the stills

lovely -  thanks for posting

SMM
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Having never held a red, my thoughts and hopes for what this camera will do are only what's being said, but if this camera lives up to 1/2 of it's potential, then I seriously would conisder my role as "film" maker over my day job as photographer and I don't say this lightly as photography has always been my calling.

I just completely believe that moving imagery is not just the future of electronic publishing, it will be the standard.  

8 of our last 9 "still" projects our studio has shot and produced have had a moving imagery component and in 1/2 of those instances, the moving imagery had equal importance to the stills.

Last year we shot an ad campaign for a new lingerie line and in parallel produced a video to be used by the manufacturer to sell the product into the store chains.  The video wasn't really an afterthought, but it was secondary in realtionship to the print campaign, the signage and packaging.

the interesting thing was not only did the video sell the line into the stores, it's viewership on you-tube was many times larger than the viewership of the print campaign.  Whehter that was actual buyers or not I don't know, but this tells us something about the power of the internet.

Maybe i'm overstating this but every day I see more interest in the fact that we shoot moving imagery.

Right now we work with two Canon HDV cameras, one as a dedicated video camera and the second has the red rock adapter, and nikon lenses to give a "film" like look.

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.

[a href=\"http://www.redrockmicro.com/]http://www.redrockmicro.com/[/url]

Even still, once put through a Da Vinci and colored, these little prosumer cameras produce an amazing film like file and this from just 2k.

http://216.79.18.60/2kplus.htm

The importance of the Red, to me is not just that it's a real dedicated system that shoots a raw file, but I am sure it will open up a whole new level of competition from Canon, Sony, Pansason, JVC, etc, who for a long time have pretty much had the video market to themselves.

They either produce a smaller easy to use prosumer camera, or larger ENG cameras, but none have actually hit the film quality level . . . yet and I'll bet they're are some sweaty palms in Japan thinking about how to protect their high end market, though still compete with the Red.

JR
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2008, 12:38:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just completely believe that moving imagery is not just the future of electronic publishing, it will be the standard.  JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Brave words that I am sold on

ps the red does exist - you could hold one now - its the cheaper scarlett that doesnt

SMM
Logged

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

Posts: 14


« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2008, 09:29:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm not attacking your DSLRs or other ways of shooting babies. I've used SLRs of one type or another for about 35 years and have captured many excellent baby portraits. Despite your summary judgment against my skills (without knowing anything about them), I'm a damn fine baby photographer. Of course, I'm always looking for a way to be a better one.

All I'm saying is that I've found a way that helps ME be a better one for MY style of baby portraits. If that helps you, fine. If not, please ignore me. Part of MY style and market for baby portraits the size limitation really isn't an issue. I've asked my customers if they've printed any of the pictures and they've told me that they haven't. They haven't even done 4x6" prints.

One of the revelations of moving from amateur to pro is that you no longer have the luxury of shooting for all possible outcomes. You absolutely have to narrow your focus to fit the market you are selling to. If you don't narrow the focus, you won't be able to compete in that market. Narrowing the focus means that you don't have the time or resources to be all things to all markets.

Therefore, I'm not selling to a market that is looking for 16x20" prints of their baby. There is no reason to saddle myself with the technology to just maybe someday needing to do 16x20" prints. It costs me money that either jacks up my price or hurts my profit.

Clyde



Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
LughClyde
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2008, 09:33:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I've asked them and they told me that they haven't printed any. Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them? That would be an odd trust relationship with my customers. I did ask them by e-mail, phone, and in person. Yes, I have been to some of their house. Remember that I shoot baby portraits in the baby's home. I do get repeat business and have looked in there homes.

Clyde



Quote
If you actually believe that none of your customers have ever made prints from your discs, you are deluding yourself. My experience, and the experience of most photographers, is that people commonly print JPEGS, even web-sized prominently watermarked JPEGs from online galleries. Whether they will actually admit that they do so is quite another matter. Did you just ask them over the phone, or did you actually go to their houses and look around?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
LughClyde
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2008, 09:36:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, video does open up more ways of shooting. However, it doesn't necessarily shut off the old ways of shooting. I'm sure that much more viewing is done on electronic media than paper media right now - today.

Clyde




Quote
It is backward because people are going 'I will miss less shots' not going

'hey cool' think of the new stuff I could do 'pan arounds' '3D' or whatever other ways of showing ones idea there are in the screen environment which I would argue is going to be a prevalent (not exclusive) manner of viewing stuff soon

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2008, 10:18:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, video does open up more ways of shooting. However, it doesn't necessarily shut off the old ways of shooting. I'm sure that much more viewing is done on electronic media than paper media right now - today.

Clyde
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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
Logged

TaoMaas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2008, 03:20:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

True...they can exist together, but it takes a very strong photo essay of stills to draw more interest than even the most ordinary video for most subjects.

Quote
  I you understand lightroom you will understand DaVinci, if you can work photoshop you can work Final Cut Pro [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not sure about that one.  For some reason, the concept of key frames seems to throw a lot of people.  I've always thought it was a lot like understanding hyper focal distance.  Sometimes it takes a while to grasp it, but once a person does, they say, "Oh...that wasn't so hard."  
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2008, 03:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One of the revelations of moving from amateur to pro is that you no longer have the luxury of shooting for all possible outcomes.

Actually, being a pro means that you get calls from clients who hired you to shoot some photos for their web site, and now want to make posters from the images. Being able to accommodate such requests with high-quality, high-resolution images will go far to set you apart from Aunt Mary and her digicam.

Quote
You absolutely have to narrow your focus to fit the market you are selling to. If you don't narrow the focus, you won't be able to compete in that market. Narrowing the focus means that you don't have the time or resources to be all things to all markets.

As a professional photographer, narrowing your focus to the point where you ignore one of the most lucrative segments of photography income (print sales) is ludicrous from a business perspective. I made about 40% of my income as a professional photographer from print sales, and additional 20% or so for the PS work and usage rights for high-resolution images that the client intended to print themselves (book covers, product packaging, etc. as well as DIY prints), and the remaining 40% or so from shooting fees. If you're not getting something in that neighborhood from prints of your baby images then you're missing out on a lot of money in lost print sales. If you go to a Wal-Mart or Picture People or similar studio, the ratio of income is even higher because their shooting fees are much lower. If you operate in a way that precludes print sales and limit your images to web/monitor display, you're cheating yourself out of a LOT of money.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3344



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2008, 06:58:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, being a pro means that you get calls from clients who hired you to shoot some photos for their web site, and now want to make posters from the images. Being able to accommodate such requests with high-quality, high-resolution images will go far to set you apart from Aunt Mary and her digicam.
And the relevence to a specialist in baby photography? Who uses video for one particular problem. Maybe he has a 10x8 for doing advertising?  

Quote
As a professional photographer, narrowing your focus to the point where you ignore one of the most lucrative segments of photography income (print sales) is ludicrous from a business perspective. I made about 40% of my income as a professional photographer from print sales, and additional 20% or so for the PS work and usage rights for high-resolution images that the client intended to print themselves (book covers, product packaging, etc. as well as DIY prints), and the remaining 40% or so from shooting fees. If you're not getting something in that neighborhood from prints of your baby images then you're missing out on a lot of money in lost print sales. If you go to a Wal-Mart or Picture People or similar studio, the ratio of income is even higher because their shooting fees are much lower. If you operate in a way that precludes print sales and limit your images to web/monitor display, you're cheating yourself out of a LOT of money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 06:59:18 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad