Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: new MF back for photokina  (Read 42478 times)
203
Guest
« Reply #160 on: June 29, 2008, 09:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm burning 22 DVDs from a four day shoot. The REAL downside of digital photography.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eh? What's wrong with buying a hard drive? They're cheap, faster, more reliable, etc., etc., etc. $85 for 320GB, $130 for 500GB, $220 for a Terabyte...
Are you giving a client a stack of 22 DVDs? Do them a favor, buy them a $85 Maxtor and give it to them with the images on it.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 09:58:19 AM by 203 » Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #161 on: June 29, 2008, 10:08:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's the thng with stills in someways it's all sideways.   Rather than have interchangable backs/bodies, why not have interchangeable lens mounts?

JR.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 11:31:24 AM by James R Russell » Logged

BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #162 on: June 29, 2008, 11:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I would expect the single frame from Red and Sony EX1 & EX3 to good enough for use on the Internet, but are you folks saying it is or will be soon good enough for printing full-page in magazines, and in-store poster-size duratrans display?

Billy
Logged

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

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #163 on: June 29, 2008, 11:29:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tim this can become a very interesting discussion and I think it deserves a new thread.

You are cleverly separating the technical side from the art etc. but I think that these two sides will have to work together as they will for sure affect one another.

I have spent the last 5 days on a big production set where they are filming a new ad campaign, all shot on an ArriMax 35mm. This is a fairly new ground for me and I'm learning something new every day.

However there's an AFi7 there that is located next to the Arri and that is used for capturing as many images as possible during each take, that involves with allot of special effects and difficult lighting conditions, meaning mostly wide open at 400iso
Each take is about 40 seconds and at the moment it looks like the AFi7 is the only capturing device that can produce a minimum of 30 usable frames (usable as in sharp) over 40 seconds sessions and that can be edited/ picked into high quality inkjet posters. No other system would have given us a decent amount of 95MB frames to work from.

This could be where a future RED will be able to do both, but I have doubts as to the usability and the image quality/ size of the images, assuming that stills technology is also going to move forward.

The same AFi7 camera is also used for capturing high-speed motion (think explosions) at 1/500-1/1000 with flash. I cannot see how a 1/100 camera at 5K can achieve this.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I guess this could be moved to the video section, but when you think about it, this is the most professional of all the areas, so a discussion of high rez digital cinema and high rez still photography belongs here.

I find it interesting that most people view photographers as this one artist that wakes up and goes into the the studio or location, the assistant hands him/her a fabulous medium format camera, the photographer takes a few snaps, drinks an espresso and then goes to the wrap party.

I don't even think that a lot of the camera companies understand who a lot of their market is.

Most photographers are small independent producers.  We and our staff search out locations, negotiate talent, cut permits, work budgets, handle payroll, arrange for travel,  etc. etc. to the point that the only real difference between what we do vs. what a movie production house does is we wear more hats and cross more territory, usually because our budgets don't always allow for one person per skill set thinking.

Given this, our equipment purchases also have to move us forward.  It's fun to buy a new camera, but today buying a new camera isn't something that's probably going to be useable for 10 years, so we have to be wise in where we put our resources.

From my perspective, owning a p21+, P30+ and Contax, what do I really gain by going to a new still system and spending an additional 20, 30 or 40 thousand?

Now wearing my independent producer hat what do I gain from buying something like the Red for the same cash outlay?

Obviously from a still camera makers standpoint you want to see a market where everyone can afford a new 95mb file high rez digital camera every two years and still have the money and time left over to pursue other areas, but for most  that's not the case.

In my industry we are always marketing, though the web, print, editorial and we are always driving  and pushing our art looking for that edge to get noticed or continue the buzz.

I know for a fact that offering moving imagery in parallel with our still productions has moved us forward and I also know a lot of photographers that would scream to the heavens is someone even suggested they shoot video during a still session.

In a way I hope they keep that mindset, at least the ones I bid against.

My point is not all photographers have the same busienss model, in fact of the successful photographers I know, when you scratch below the surface you  will find that the ones that work non traditional are the most successful.


JR


P.S.  Yair, now to take this one step further, if at photokina somebody annouces a still camera that will shoot very high frame rates, has a detailed 7" lcd that works in daylight, interchangeable lens mounts, really clean 800 iso, variable frame crops, color and tone (film like) processing in camera, useable in camera previews, wired or wireless tetheering to hand held devices, then you will get my attention.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 11:58:29 AM by James R Russell » Logged

E_Edwards
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #164 on: June 29, 2008, 11:47:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Rather than have interchangable backs, why not have interchangeable lens mounts?

JR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Different photographers have different needs. For instance, I'm a still life guy, I guess I need backs that mount on my view cameras, detachable backs.

Just to defend my own corner, there is still a call for photographers who can and know how to use view cameras with all their movements which are essential for controlling shape, perspective, focal plane placement, depth of field, etc, the very substance of still life photography.

I'm afraid that software correction (a la Hasselblad) just won't do, and anyone who thinks so needs to go back to (photography) school and learn the boring bits that no-one wants to know, for instance, there are still a few photographers alive who know and need to use the "Scheimpflug principle" every day of their working lives. I'm sure I' not alone. A tilt and shift lens may help, but I would be compromising, I need movements front and rear, so a medium format camera/back/lens fixed unit is no good to me unless it can do good front and rear movements.

I'm fine with files of around 100 MB, (not 100 megapixels, my god!) but I want the extra little quality in colour fidelity and edge integrity that you get with four-shot backs incorporated into a one-shot back, maybe a bit like the Foveon system, three chips, one per colour channel or maybe a single chip with three times the amount of pixels and clever electronics that divert each colour to their respective pixel...or whatever other technique that gives me the quality without having to 'guess' by interpolation.

I also want top quality at high ISO, (a gain of four stops over what I use currently, 50 ISO) so that I can ditch flash and work more regularly with my Dado lights, (lights that are mainly used for cinema or video but I love using them on stills, they are so cute) with shorter shutter speeds.

I also want a lens design that is optimised to work best and sharpest at apertures of f22 to f32, not like the current Digitar lenses that start to go furry at f16.

Lastly, I would like to have beautifully clear and sharp (and colour) Live View on big screens (wirelessly) with good refreshing rates.

If the Red, or any manufacturers, could offer all this, I would go for it instantly and pay whatever money it costs (within reason!).

Edward
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 11:49:09 AM by E_Edwards » Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 29, 2008, 04:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...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. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wha? DVD's? Man, hard drives are more reliable, less expensive, easier to deal with and faster to write and read from.

I would abandon ship on the burning of optical discs. It just isn't worth it. Especially for the larger files that originate from medium format digital backs.

It is crazy. It is crazy like 1996 crazy.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 04:13:55 PM by abiggs » Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #166 on: June 29, 2008, 04:45:50 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 10:50:35 PM by James R Russell » Logged

Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #167 on: June 29, 2008, 05:20:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd,Jun 29 2008, 10:28 PM
Re: video recording vs stills photography.

Oh yes, there is that kind of photography that is as empty as empty can be. And there are also those videos. The world is drowning in them. It's just noise. Video cameras will probably be great to create more of this noise, be it as "stills" or as "films". Does anybody here care to discuss this junk imagery? Ah, it's about business? In the sense of "making money"? Big Money? How interesting!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, let's all starve. We might get hungry, but at least we'll have artistic integrity.
Get out of my office.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #168 on: June 29, 2008, 05:26:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Re: video recording vs stills photography.

Moving film tells its story by showing a series of individual moments placed in a certain order in time. The series adds up in the head of the spectator to a developing experience.

Stills photography condenses a story over time into one frame. The spectator has to "edit" the different aspects of this one frame into an understandable message.

These differences inherently dictate that video will never give you the one still frame that you are looking for. And stills photography will never tell an interesting story when edited to a series of images, assuming that each frame does not tell a story in itself. Usually videos made by photographers are easy to determine because they are just a series of moving photographs. (James posted a few very telling samples in this respect. Totally boring from a cinematic point of view.) And most movie cameramen who handle a stills camera lack to charge the individual images with some interesting narrative.

Oh yes, there is that kind of photography that is as empty as empty can be. And there are also those videos. The world is drowning in them. It's just noise. Video cameras will probably be great to create more of this noise, be it as "stills" or as "films". Does anybody here care to discuss this junk imagery? Ah, it's about business? In the sense of "making money"? Big Money? How interesting!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Do you know the movie "Eraserhead" by David Lynch?
I think that was one of those amazing pieces of art that very few people appreciate. Not because being a great movie production for the masses. But for it's significance. Because how a very talented eye through different techniques can touch you very deep. And the the creative process can make you feel very uncomfortable and "art" isn't always a concept attached to beauty.



/Samuel
Logged
Tim Lüdin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #169 on: June 29, 2008, 06:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks guys for this very interesting thread. LL is at it's best at the moment.

As James mentioned, as a photographer, director and dp I wear many hats at the same time.
Here in Switzerland its easier to be multi talented to earn enough money to live a good life.
In the last year I was almost torn apart by the question of giving up one of my professions.
Film or photography. In order to become top notch in one field. I was thinking about the hassy like crazy. At the same time I had my RED on order. Now that the RED is here I changed my mind a bit. The RED is so much power for little money that the Hassy seems to be way overpriced.
More and more I think that it's ok to work in multiple fields. A photographer has always been a director and a DP is a photographer. And when you're good at that stuff, you always tell storys,  so there goes the director.
I think film and photography have always been in love with each other.

It seems that multi talented people could have it a bit easier in the next years, when photography and film will start to merge.
I dont think that we will just shoot video and at the end of the day we will browse through millions of stills. We still would shoot filmstyle and then change to photostyle. But the change could be very  fast. Very fluent and with just one camera.

Again, dont be afraid of the new stuff. Embrace it and get creative again.
Ok I'm 34 now, so it's easy for me to say that. But I'm sure when I turn 50 I will also have to learn totaly new stuff to stay in business or I will have it harder to be competitive.
That's life. It has always been that way. Why should it stop at photography?

So let's take it easy. Remember, we all have the best job in the world. We get paid to create great pictures. But dont tell anybody.  

Tim
Logged

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

Posts: 5087


« Reply #170 on: June 30, 2008, 11:42:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They had better also announce all new glass.  Who wants to see another 30MP of fuzz. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The same pixel size as in current Kodak 39MP sensors would give about 52MP in full 645 format, so this rumor does not sound like much of an increase in sensor resolution (pixel density).

Still I do not particularly trust the rumor: given comments from Kodak a few years ago, I imagine instead Kodak going to about 60MP in its current roughly 48x36 format, using the 5.4 micron cell size of its 8MP 4/3 format Full Frame type CCDs. Then sensor resolution (l/mm) would increase, but still only by about 25%.

Even then, pixel spacing would still be no smaller than in current 12MP "APS-C" DSLR's or 8MP 4/3 DLSRs, and decent moderately priced zoom lenses for those formats have no major resolution problems with those sensors. Are some people suggesting that expensive MF prime lenses are so much worse for resolution in l/mm than many far less expensive zoom lenses for smaller formats? That sounds almost like heresy against "bigger is better" dogma.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3650



WWW
« Reply #171 on: July 01, 2008, 12:02:27 PM »
ReplyReply

they are. (they = people..lenses).

Edmund

Quote
Are some people suggesting that expensive MF prime lenses are so much worse for resolution in l/mm than many far less expensive zoom lenses for smaller formats? That sounds almost like heresy against "bigger is better" dogma.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #172 on: July 01, 2008, 04:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don't worry, I'll never set foot in your office. Or is this it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's just an expression.
like don't have a cow.
(see what I did there?)

I just wanted to make sure you didn't take my reply as a strong personal critisism by adding a touch of humor. Judging from your reply, it worked.

regards,

Mike
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad