Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: new MF back for photokina  (Read 46403 times)
Tim Lüdin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 28, 2008, 06:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks TMARK for the infos.
You are right the rolling shutter of the RED sucks. RED knows that.
The epic will be much better in that regard.
To be honest. As a RED owner I am extremly impressed with the EX-1 and EX-3.
Sony could build a real RED killer if they wanted to but then they would caniblize their own high-end line up.
Like James metioned, if only the db makers would funktion like RED.
We would see some realy great products out here.

Jim Jannard is a camera lover just like us. He built his own dream cam, just that simple. He and the RED team just built the coolest cam that they could and they wont stop to improve it. They just released the new camera build 16. This build puts the camera in a new galaxy. The IQ is so much better now.

It would be nice if canon would improve their IQ over a year like the RED Team does. The RED  philosophy is just great. They never quit making their product better and it's for no charge. It's so easy. Build the cam you would like to work with. Make it affordable and people will buy it like crazy.

RED did that in only 2 years time. Crazy.

Camera makers wake up please.

Tim
Logged

Cinematographer & Photographer
My Webpagewww.timluedin.com
snickgrr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 28, 2008, 07:08:39 PM »
ReplyReply

So this begs the question, Why are the MF peeps making incremental change in their products rather than leaping buildings in a single bound?
How could Red do what they did and the MF back people can't?
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #142 on: June 28, 2008, 08:03:50 PM »
ReplyReply

This is seriously exciting. After looking at output from the current 1080 cameras, and finding them too sharp and not quite right looking, the new Sonys and of course the Red cameras, give me hope that we can really make video which looks like really good film now - and for "cheap." And with control of depth of field, and with still grabs which rival current dslr and MF back image quality for prints, WOW.

I have often thought, I could really relax in a shoot if I didn't have to constantly be deciding when to fire the shutter. To be able to direct the models/actors and know that every instant is being captured and I can choose from them later - well that makes things a whole lot less stressful, IMO.

P.S. Why is a 16gb memory card for those new Sonys $900?? I just bought some Sandisk 16gb CF cards from B&H which were $99 after rebate. Sheesh.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 08:29:45 PM by 203 » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #143 on: June 28, 2008, 08:42:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is seriously exciting. After looking at output from the current 1080 cameras, and finding them too sharp and not quite right looking, the new Sonys and of course the Red cameras, give me hope that we can really make video which looks like really good film now - and for "cheap." And with control of depth of field, and with still grabs which rival current dslr and MF back image quality for prints, WOW.

I have often thought, I could really relax in a shoot if I didn't have to constantly be deciding when to fire the shutter. To be able to direct the models/actors and know that every instant is being captured and I can choose from them later - well that makes things a while lot less stressful, IMO.

P.S. Why is a 16gb memory card for those new Sonys $900?? I just bought some Sandisk 16gb CF cards from B&H which were $99 after rebate. Sheesh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Re the memory card prices:  Sony seems to have had some issues with their OEM, Sandisk.  The OEM agreement is expiring and we can expect to see major price drops on the 16 gig, as well as the the long awaited 32 gig SyS cards.  By the way, dumping a 16gig card via the PCI-X slot on a MacBookPro takes NO TIME at all.  There is a new hard drive that attached to the "cold" shoe that has a SyS connector on it, so you can record to the drive directly, then to the PCI-X port on your Mac.

It also has an automated backfocus tool that adjusts the rear element for optimum focus.  Just aim it at a resolution chart and KABOOM you have optimal focus.  With the H cameras you have to have it calibrated at the factory.

The MFDB makers better step up.  The EX3 has so many of the benefits of "integration" ala Hassie H yet allows for open lens selection.  Also, the EX3 takes integration really far with the adjustable element etc.  The IS really works as well.  I mean really works well. The example given was the EX1 on a tripod in the back of a van driving down the autobahn.  It was rock steady w/o any push in etc.  It just works.

Why can't we have this in a MFDB body/lens?  Hassie is probably on the right track with integration, but its really only implemented to be restrictive, for the most part.  I know, hyper Phocus or whatever its called is real, but why not a moving element like the Sony?  Fiji makes the Sony lens as well as the H glass, so why are half assed integration?

The AF is really, really good, as is the LCD.  The EX1 is about $6k, about $10k less than I paid for my P30+.  The color and tonal gradation is just amazing, especially with faces.  

I think its a matter of time before Red or Sony breaks bad with a hybrid larger than 35mm still/cine 35mm cam.

By the way, have you guys seen Build 16 Red images?  I was shown some low light stuff shot on a Build 16 Red and my god, amazing!  As someone who looks at images and not pixels, I prefer the Red and Sony images to any dslr.  They are slightly better than unprocessed MFDB images. I know my P30 with some work in C1 4 and CS3 can beat it and have the res, but Phuk Me, why deal with the hassle and the EXTRA expense?  Come on Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Blad, start the revolution before Sony or Red run you over!  Reduce prices, get some real integration going, make it all faster, make pricing transparent, sell a package with value added Macs and storage etc.  

I do think that frame grabs are kind of stupid, but real still shots from a higher res version of these cams could be great! Shoot your video, then shoot stills with the same camera . . . use HMI's to light the entire thing.  The best part about providing video is that you may be able to benefit from video's high price structure that clients accept.  What I mean is that day rates and equipment rentals are all more with video than with stills, yet our rates are unchanged in 20 years and we meet resistance for every 1% price increase.

Now might be a good time to buy a lightly used EX1 from a dealer.  I saw at least seven people putting a deposit on a an EX3 and trading in EX1's.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 08:53:47 PM by TMARK » Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #144 on: June 28, 2008, 09:28:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do think that frame grabs are kind of stupid, but real still shots from a higher res version of these cams could be great! Shoot your video, then shoot stills with the same camera . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey TMARK, assuming the image quality is there, why do you think grabs are stupid? Just curious. (I am talking about shooting something like it was for stills, but with video instead. There would be no chance of missing a facial  expression or the perfect gesture...)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 09:30:19 PM by 203 » Logged
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 28, 2008, 09:59:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 203,Jun 28 2008, 09:03 PM
This is seriously exciting. After looking at output from the current 1080 cameras, and finding them too sharp and not quite right looking, the new Sonys and of course the Red cameras, give me hope that we can really make video which looks like really good film now - and for "cheap." And with control of depth of field, and with still grabs which rival current dslr and MF back image quality for prints, WOW.

I have often thought, I could really relax in a shoot if I didn't have to constantly be deciding when to fire the shutter. To be able to direct the models/actors and know that every instant is being captured and I can choose from them later - well that makes things a whole lot less stressful, IMO.]

If this is the future of photography, shooting high res video with a camcorder and sorting through a  few hundred thousand frames to find a few good frames for stills, I am turning to a paintbrush and learning how to paint.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 10:00:20 PM by hcubell » Logged

DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #146 on: June 28, 2008, 10:08:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Shoot your video, then shoot stills with the same camera . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello again,

That is  coming sooner than you think--

Tim is correct re the rolling shutter but is being corrected, also you cannot shoot OFF the Tripod with

the existing HD-- the  supplied CF card allows only 4 mins of shoot time--and they are proprietary

CF's so you just cannot pop in a 16GB San/Lex /etc.

I shall be back in Vegas in 4 weeks and will report more on developments.

DesW
Logged
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #147 on: June 28, 2008, 10:18:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Like James metioned, if only the db makers would funktion like RED.
We would see some realy great products out here.

Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Tim,
Great to see a fellow "REDDY"-- participating on LL!!

This company is going to shake the foundations of the hardware Market as we know it today!

Incidentally I just attended a Demo from Colin of Hasseblad EURO and he said Phase are putting off staff??

Go figure

Mind  they do not have a cashed up 600MUSD Float behind them--Ha!

Best,

DesW
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #148 on: June 28, 2008, 10:49:33 PM »
ReplyReply

James, TMARK, 203, Tim, DesW, et. al.  THANK YOU ALL for this very interesting discussion.
Logged

Guillermo
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #149 on: June 28, 2008, 11:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey TMARK, assuming the image quality is there, why do you think grabs are stupid? Just curious. (I am talking about shooting something like it was for stills, but with video instead. There would be no chance of missing a facial  expression or the perfect gesture...)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that shooting stills has a different psychological effect on subject and shooter that allows something deeper than a motion shoot.  Its a different pace.  I also like shooting with strobes, or at least the option to use strobes.  

By the way, did you know that Red is offering a 100% credit of the purchase price of the Red 1 if you trade up to the upcoming Red Epic?  This is revolutionary!
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #150 on: June 28, 2008, 11:28:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that shooting stills has a different psychological effect on subject and shooter that allows something deeper than a motion shoot.  Its a different pace.  I also like shooting with strobes, or at least the option to use strobes. 

By the way, did you know that Red is offering a 100% credit of the purchase price of the Red 1 if you trade up to the upcoming Red Epic?  This is revolutionary!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I found a recent video shoot i did with a model to be very intimate in feel - not removed as you suggest...but I was hand holding the camera and very close to the model, maybe that helped.

And speaking of price, does anyone know why the Panasonic P2 or whatever it's called is so expensive in the first place? I mean, a video camera for $250K??
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 11:30:31 PM by 203 » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #151 on: June 28, 2008, 11:33:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James, TMARK, 203, Tim, DesW, et. al.  THANK YOU ALL for this very interesting discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My pleasure.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #152 on: June 28, 2008, 11:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I found a recent video shoot i did with a model to be very intimate in feel - not removed as you suggest...but I was hand holding the camera and very close to the model, maybe that helped.

And speaking of price, does anyone know why the Panasonic P2 or whatever it's called is so expensive in the first place? I mean, a video camera for $250K??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It might just be me and my IATSE approach to film production.  I think that a still should have all the exposition built into the one frame, which is why I find most fashion stories to be so weak: they don't tell a story really, just a series of beautiful photographs with a goofy theme.  They used to call this a "portfolio" of images.  There was no pretension of narrative.  In any case, I think its hard, for me anyway, to pull a frame from a film/video that stands on its own. Film/video relies on scenes, over the shoulders, eye levels, editing, a series of looks that to tell a story.  Film/video shoots are also much more structured than most still shoots.  I've always run my shoots more like film shoots, but when it comes to shooting stills you can pop off the QR plate and go with the flow.  Not so much with video. It ends up looking sloppy if its not really well structured.

What sucks to a degree is that I havn't used FCP since FCP 2 came out.  Now they are on FCP 6!

The P2:  The EX1 has better IQ.  Is it really $250k?  A full Red 1 set up is about $70k.
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #153 on: June 29, 2008, 12:04:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is seriously exciting. After looking at output from the current 1080 cameras, and finding them too sharp and not quite right looking, the new Sonys and of course the Red cameras, give me hope that we can really make video which looks like really good film now - and for "cheap." And with control of depth of field, and with still grabs which rival current dslr and MF back image quality for prints, WOW.

I have often thought, I could really relax in a shoot if I didn't have to constantly be deciding when to fire the shutter. To be able to direct the models/actors and know that every instant is being captured and I can choose from them later - well that makes things a whole lot less stressful, IMO.]

If this is the future of photography, shooting high res video with a camcorder and sorting through a  few hundred thousand frames to find a few good frames for stills, I am turning to a paintbrush and learning how to paint.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are a few ways to approach all of this.

For moving imagery, the red gives just about everyone the chance to use a cinema camera that equals the quality of 35mm film.  That's the traiditonal view and I'm sure a lot of indies, documentaries  and demo reels will be shot with this camera.

Then there is the thought that this may replace still photography, which in some instances maybe, like sports,  journalism or action type of lifestyle, but overall in traditional media there will still be a need for dedicated still shoots.

That's if traditional media stays traditional and I don't think that is the case.  In fact I think sooner than later we will see more convergence between computer, print and television and more convergence between dedicated still shoots and moving imagery shoots.  (Forget the term broadcast because with web, cable and satallite transmission there isn't that much broadcast anymore).

I also think we will see advertising and editorial display that is a combination of still and moving imagery and a lot of what's coming probably hasn't been invented yet.

None of this means that it doesn't take talent, study and hard work to produce something worthwhile and none of this means that there isn't a roll in this for anyone willing to invest.

It's up to us to embrace it, or reject it, but don't think somebody won't take it to levels most of us can't imagine.

Regardless of the medium, camera or technique, it will still take talent and creative thought.

[a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4&feature=related]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4...feature=related[/url]


JR
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 12:04:51 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 29, 2008, 12:04:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Well this has been a interesting read as far as seeing what maybe coming down the road and very well may happen that it all turns to video. I think I will hang up my camera straps first though. I have been a still shooter for 35 years and everything i shoot is a moment in time, a slice of a fleeting moment and all that stuff. Not sure i can turn on a button and just let it roll at this point and than go pick a frame and say that is it. It just loses my interest a lot. As a still shooter does it not feel like your cheating somewhat. I don't know maybe i am so ingrained into this for all these years i can't see me changing the very core of why i am a shooter. Going from film to digital was more a moment of progress that did not take the core of shooting away as we know it. But going from bang and bang to whirl than cut just seems to take the core of a a still shooter out of his element. At 51 just not sure i can make this shift. Of course we all need to eat and if you force it down my throat than I will have to swallow but it just rubs me the wrong way. Just a thought
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #155 on: June 29, 2008, 12:25:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well this has been a interesting read as far as seeing what maybe coming down the road and very well may happen that it all turns to video. I think I will hang up my camera straps first though. I have been a still shooter for 35 years and everything i shoot is a moment in time, a slice of a fleeting moment and all that stuff. Not sure i can turn on a button and just let it roll at this point and than go pick a frame and say that is it. It just loses my interest a lot. As a still shooter does it not feel like your cheating somewhat. I don't know maybe i am so ingrained into this for all these years i can't see me changing the very core of why i am a shooter. Going from film to digital was more a moment of progress that did not take the core of shooting away as we know it. But going from bang and bang to whirl than cut just seems to take the core of a a still shooter out of his element. At 51 just not sure i can make this shift. Of course we all need to eat and if you force it down my throat than I will have to swallow but it just rubs me the wrong way. Just a thought
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not trying to make light of your statement because obviously you mean this with conviction, but to take it a step further I guess we could go back to the days when photographers put the subjects in head braces and shot 4 minutes exposures.

There is always something from the past that people have mastered and don't want to give up, but everything changes.

I you shoot beautiful stills people will hire you for that, beautiful film(moving images) they'll hire you for that and if you do both, well you might get hired for both.

This camera doesn't mean that your clients will come into your studio with a demand that you do both and regardless of how fast you shoot or at what frame rate it still takes talent.

I somewhat don't understand the I'm a still photograher and nothing else mindset, but I've been going against the system of being catagorized my whole career so I'm probably not the standard art/business model anyone shoud base their decisions on.

In fact a friend of mine said last night he has a difficult time explaing what I do and that made me smile, in fact it made me proud.

Personally, I embraced digital photograpy because it liberated me.  With some investment and knowledge I could be my own lab, my own printer and do it with immediacy, at a cost that just impossibile in the film only days.

I see the Red in the same manner.  $50k to $70k and you have a cinema package, another 4k and a compelte editing setup.  It was just unheard of a few years ago.

Personally I like change and have incorporated it into my business model and I really believe you can be anything you set your mind to.

JR
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 12:36:52 AM by James R Russell » Logged

DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #156 on: June 29, 2008, 02:26:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My pleasure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ditto from Moi

DesW
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #157 on: June 29, 2008, 08:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think I will hang up my camera straps first though. I have been a still shooter for 35 years and everything i shoot is a moment in time, a slice of a fleeting moment and all that stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess I am not sure that there is such a big difference between the two all of the time.
As I was coming at if from a fashion photographers mindset, much of the hasty video I made looks like it could be stills. I shot a video of a model two years ago, using a rented Sony camera (I think), a 1DII at 6 or 8 fps, and a point and shoot digital camera with video, just so I could see the differences if format. The video edited turned out nicely.
Anyway, here is a still. I think it works fine as a still. Of course if I had been telling a proper narrative with over the shoulders and stuff it may have made for some very goofy stills.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 08:22:18 AM by 203 » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #158 on: June 29, 2008, 09:29:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess I am not sure that there is such a big difference between the two all of the time.
As I was coming at if from a fashion photographers mindset, much of the hasty video I made looks like it could be stills. I shot a video of a model two years ago, using a rented Sony camera (I think), a 1DII at 6 or 8 fps, and a point and shoot digital camera with video, just so I could see the differences if format. The video edited turned out nicely.
Anyway, here is a still. I think it works fine as a still. Of course if I had been telling a proper narrative with over the shoulders and stuff it may have made for some very goofy stills.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well it is hard to describe what I was saying and not to take away from all that is written here and maybe a new thread is warranted. But simply put I guess it comes down to the decisive moment that seems to get a little lost with video. Instead of shooting for it you are just trying to find it. That feeling of, Oh i just nailed it seems to maybe get lost a little. For me it would certainly be a change of direction good , bad or indifferent. Continue on
Logged

Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #159 on: June 29, 2008, 09:45:56 AM »
ReplyReply

As has been said already, only landscapers really need more pixels.

The problem is that the perception is more pixels equals better pics. This forum is riddled with pixel peepers and it reflects the market as a whole. Sad, but true.

My 39Mp MS is more than enough. I spend hours (and I mean HOURS!) in front of the computer handling these files. Burning DVDs at 20 files per DVD (15-20 minutes) is a royal pain. Right now I'm burning 22 DVDs from a four day shoot. The REAL downside of digital photography.  

What I DO need are some TSE lenses. If Hassie produced the functional and optical equivalent of Canon's 90mm TSE (the best lens I've ever owned) I'd remortgage my house to buy it if I had to.

A TSE version of the fab 120mm macro would be wonderful.

D.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 09:50:25 AM by Dinarius » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad