Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red questions  (Read 13238 times)
erick.boileau
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« on: July 19, 2009, 04:30:25 AM »
ReplyReply

If  I have no interest  at all in the video (and I have not except for familly) , which threat can be RED for the Medium Format ?  

will they produce Medium Format  (without video)  and IQ + price competing for photo ?

another question: who manufactures optics for RED ?  is there already any comparison with Hasseblad Zeiss Leica lenses  online?

thank you
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 07:22:53 AM by erick.boileau » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2009, 04:59:32 AM »
ReplyReply

This explains most of it:



It's been covered in this forum again and again. Here's one such thread from last year in which some people were predicting Red was on the verge of taking over the photo market: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=29435

Nothing's happened since then. MFDB prices have dropped significantly. Red is even less of a threat than before. (Sure, things *might* be different in 5-10 years).

Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2009, 05:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Given that the main threat to the MFDB industry is from the 35mm DSLR sector it would seem to me that any fusion of film/stills with modern day needs of usage would be far better served by the same 35mm DSLR sector with its huge customer base than by massive sensors in bulky packaging with a modular system that will reach MFDB prices giving files already proven too big to be economically necessary, totally unnecessary for video, providing manic processing times and a quality utterly OTT for the required usage. Seriously, why on earth would there be the slightest need for files from MFDB sized (nevermind the truly silly 6X17) video? Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong but I'd guess that working fashion photographers are much more impressed by the P40+ than the P65+ which seems to be the rich amatuer or enthusiasts choice. Who the heck would ever want even more megapixels and that in video?

If MFDB's are on the edge of being economically justified already due to the economy and vastly shrinking client requirements, just how long would it take for Canon to cream RED for the MFDB market who are looking for video in a DSLR like package but actually made from scratch to work with video? Rather than the 5D mkII which seems to have been a simple and lightly implemented experiment that became rather interesting. Seriously, a new DSLR which has full video control, a tilt & swivel screen, outputting the video in RAW at 21 FF megapixels, serious audio controls oh and incidentally with a serious AF system, weather and shock proof, in the same size as a 5D and using all the canon lenses and extras. Canon could probably do it for $4000 and release it this year en masse. What working photographer is going to care about RED then?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 05:58:45 AM by pom » Logged

erick.boileau
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2009, 07:14:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Pom ::

I agree,  for me the Canon 5D Mark II is "necessary and sufficient" for familly video   , a good camera for a good price

with a MF like  H3DII 39  (or  P45)  I have enough pixels  (and my computer says STOP !!!)  and the quality is  outstanding ... what else ?  : a better screen , better batteries,  a Bulb mode, ...  and that's it !  I can keep my camera for 20 years


Quote from: foto-z
It's been covered in this forum again and again. Here's one such thread from last year in which some people were predicting Red was on the verge of taking over the photo market: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=29435

Nothing's happened since then. MFDB prices have dropped significantly. Red is even less of a threat than before. (Sure, things *might* be different in 5-10 years).
 good to know that I am not alone, I see nearly no interest in RED except if I can buy an Hasselblad cheaper
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 07:22:23 AM by erick.boileau » Logged
Andre R
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2009, 07:38:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think RED will make a camera capable of stills only. Why would they when they apparently have found ways to capture 25/50/100 etc fps in full resolution?

Last year I had ONE request to shoot a tv commercial AND do the stills for the print ads at the same time... this year so far probably been asked 10 times. So I'm for one have to buy into the RED or whatever to keep up with demand (would not mind the $4000 Canon...).

AndreR

Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2009, 07:58:30 AM »
ReplyReply

http://mediastorm.com/0019.htm

http://mediastorm.com/0025.htm

http://mediastorm.com/0023.htm

Scroll across those projects and view them if you have time. It's really easy to say, "Oh, yeah, I'll just start shooting video", but do you have the skills to tell a story; structure a shooting schedule; drag around an audio guy with a boom mike; raise the money; go back and back again and again to shoot more footage; and then spend days, weeks editing all that stuff? I'm not sure if I do.

It's easy to watch something like that, but watch it in the context of "how long did it take to do that?" or "how did they do that?" and it changes.

Just because a 5D2 or a Red Scarlet can go from Stills Mode to Video Mode at the flip of a switch doesn't mean than a human being can.

That Red would have to get a hell of a lot smaller for me to really want to use it day in and day out, for stills. And it's very easy to say, "Oh, we'll just grab a Still Frame from the Video", but honestly, set alone on its own, would that really be the best approach for a Stills shoot, on many projects? I guess we're really beginning to dismiss the importance of a still photograph at that point.

I know several filmmakers that also shoot stills. Their passion is film. I think most people -- you're one or the other. Rarely do you find people that do both things equally well. It's such a different skillset, yet on the surface, they seem so similar. They are not. I just think you run the risk of trying to do both stills and film, and you end up being half-ass at both. David Lynch might do both well, but let's be honest, this probably ain't David Lynch out there carrying a camera around, alone.

http://interviewproject.davidlynch.com/www...isodes/017-john
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 08:07:49 AM by gwhitf » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4890



« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2009, 08:03:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Human beings have a tendency to see the world filtered through a screen made up of their own personal requirements. "I don't need such and such, therefore it won't be a commercal success." That's not the way the world of commerce works. Successful companies look at what the overall market, or at least a targeted segment wants, and then try and fill that need. Or, in some cases, such as with Apple (and I believe RED) lead the market in a new direction.

Andre's comment "Last year I had ONE request to shoot a tv commercial AND do the stills for the print ads at the same time... this year so far probably been asked 10 times. So I'm for one have to buy into the RED or whatever to keep up with demand" is exactly what this is about. Other working pros have echoed it on these pages in recent months.

The print world is dying. The online and on-air world is growing, and the online world includes stills as well as the need for motion production.

The wealthy hobbyist, the fine art photographer and the amateur may not need video, but working pros do. And if they don't today, they will tomorrow. It's simply the way that things are going.

Maybe the Apple analogy is a good one. Two years ago Apple had zero presence in the phone market. Now, it is the hottest brand, and the App store has revolutionized the industry. The iPhone itself causes people to stand in line literally. When was the last time someone stood in line for a Nokia phone?

24 months ago there were smartphones, but Apple did it right, and now Nokia's quarterly sales are down 70%.

I believe that the Scarlet and Epic will be a game changer. I could be wrong (it won't be the first time), but those that poo poo the company, its products or its vision do so at their peril.

Sure, Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic can and will compete, just as Nokia, Palm, Sony Errikson and the rest do in smartphones. But when a disruptive technology or company comes along being the incumbent fat cat doesn't buy you much. Just ask General Motors.

Michael


Logged
Andre R
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2009, 08:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I was actually hired to do that 'one' job I referred to. I was shooting (with my H3D) in 'parallel' to the film guys, they lighting up the set (indoor studio) with their HMI's and kinos while I used my studio flashes. Funny how they kept on asking ME about how best to light the thing...as I was the 'photographer' (so I should know best?).  They even asked me if I could 'direct' the talent while they were filming... Anyway, made me think why I didn't do the whole thing myself (specially when I know they got paid 5 times more than me).

AndreR
Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2009, 08:27:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: foto-z
It's been covered in this forum again and again. Here's one such thread from last year in which some people were predicting Red was on the verge of taking over the photo market: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=29435

Nothing's happened since then. MFDB prices have dropped significantly. Red is even less of a threat than before. (Sure, things *might* be different in 5-10 years).
And if that one day eventually happens, nobody will stop anybody to buy one of those bloody cameras and the world will keep spinning.

Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2009, 08:42:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
The print world is dying. The online and on-air world is growing, and the online world includes stills as well as the need for motion production.

And for that we need MFDB levels of pixels in big expensive rigs? You said it yourself, it's needed for online use. Why should the industry require much more than a slight paradigm shift in the current solutions such as the 5D mkII or the GH-1? Methinks that the industry in this economy is not interested in spending that much anymore however much the rich hobbyists love to spend on P65+'s (which I'd be interested to hear if any working fashion pro would even begin to justify from a business point of view). I can't see that RED will be any different.
Logged

ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2009, 08:44:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Andre R
I was actually hired to do that 'one' job I referred to. I was shooting (with my H3D) in 'parallel' to the film guys, they lighting up the set (indoor studio) with their HMI's and kinos while I used my studio flashes. Funny how they kept on asking ME about how best to light the thing...as I was the 'photographer' (so I should know best?).  They even asked me if I could 'direct' the talent while they were filming... Anyway, made me think why I didn't do the whole thing myself (specially when I know they got paid 5 times more than me).

AndreR
I know someone,  she a well known fashion/celebrities photographer.
She has began to film commercials a few years ago and recently, over dinner, she told me: " i do filming because it seems 'a thing to do' and my agent asks me of doing it. But it is a pain: got to go through several meetings and more working days, sometime I get involved for two weeks, just to shoot  30 secs clip and I still get less than 50 grands. when I do a photo commercial job  I still get 50 grands and I have to work just 1 day and maybe a couple of meetings."


Logged
Andre R
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2009, 09:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply

"....and for that we need MFDB levels of pixels in big expensive rigs? You said it yourself, it's needed for online use..."


I think the point is to shoot stills and motion at the same time. Same framing, same lighting, same 'look' etc. And then have the possibility to grab ANY frame for the stills you need for print media. So you shoot the whole thing in full resolution, and then output the 'movie' to whatever format you want/need, even low-res web if that is what you need (or hi-res for that tvc...).

"...get involved for two weeks, just to shoot 30 secs clip and I still get less than 50 grands.." Sounds good to me!


AndreR
Logged
heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2009, 09:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
when I do a photo commercial job  I still get 50 grands and I have to work just 1 day and maybe a couple of meetings.

sounds better to me  
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2009, 09:14:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Human beings have a tendency to see the world filtered through a screen made up of their own personal requirements. ...........................But when a disruptive technology or company comes along being the incumbent fat cat doesn't buy you much. Just ask General Motors.

Michael


In 45 minutes the crew arrives and we're out the door to shoot a project in motion and in stills, different cameras, somewhat different techniques but one mindset.

Is it the right thing to do, or am I "happy" to do both . . . I don't know because that covers a lot of territory, but I am positive if I didn't have the capabilities to do both I wouldn't be shooting today and turning a profit and even if I was only capable of shooting one medium I would be marginalized.

Early on I moved to digital for the same reason I've been learning to shoot motion, not to become marginalized by technology or by lack of knowledge.

Do I love the still photograph, well yes I do or maybe I "did", but that doesn't mean I can't do both or at least give it a hell of a good go.  I don't agree with the sentiments you can't be good at both, but then again I've never been big on tradition.

I heard the same thing on the transition from film to digital, "our photographers shoot film, or digital is just a fad, or why would a photographer want to be a lab and a pre press guy".  I knew then that was just a head in the sand approach and I feel the same way about the talk about stills to motion.  (And btw: to a person everyone that said those quotes is no longer in my industry).

In commerce it's not just what I want, in fact it's not about what my client's need today, it's what they may need in a few days or weeks or months, because things change very fast in today's world.

Maybe I won't be Ridley Scott, but that was never the goal anyway, though as an advertising photographer, now advertising image maker, I do think I can take the years of experience and bring something to the game.  

Now is the RED or the words motion imagery hype?  Maybe but that's what pop art is  . . . hype and to a very large extent commercial and editorial image making is about hype and and must be current.  No client wants their product to look old, no client wants to miss out on an opportunity.  

I get a big kick out of the fact some people talk of digital still photography like it's traditional.  That to me is a mind scratcher because when was the last time you delivered film to be viewed on a lightbox and that was just 7 or 8 years ago when you did.

Old is out.

I doubt seriously if anyone at this stage in image making can shoot something that to some extent has not been done before, but the successful artists learn to keep pushing their message, going forward and not looking back, shooting something that their "specific" client hasn't had before.

Michael's analogy of the I-pone is perfect.  Prior to that there were hand held computers, (though big) smart phones with cameras (thought small) organizers like Palm, (though limited) and all apple did was put it all together in one easy to use package.

That's my goal, one easy to use package and in today's world doing more equates to being more.  

I can make a very long list of people in my industry that are not working today, retouchers, photographers, printers, labs, digital techs and crew and though some is a reflection of the economy, some is just the result of not keeping and open mind and hoping that life magically resets itself 4 years back.

That won't happen . . . never has.

JR
Logged

gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2009, 09:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Andre R
I think the point is to shoot stills and motion at the same time. Same framing, same lighting, same 'look' etc. And then have the possibility to grab ANY frame for the stills you need for print media. So you shoot the whole thing in full resolution, and then output the 'movie' to whatever format you want/need, even low-res web if that is what you need (or hi-res for that tvc...).

It's so easy to just fall back on that statement: "We'll just pull a frame grab", but many times, what works as a moving commercial might not work as a solitary print ad, even if it's from the same concept. It always sounds so easy, when the creatives are sitting around a conference table, but it's quite another thing when you're down in the trenches, actually doing the work.

I did a job in March, a four-day ad job, and the client asked me to shoot video and stills. The usage was for print ads (300dpi CMYK), non-moving web banners from the stills, and flash-based ad banners with moving imagery. The concept was roughly the same for the moving images and for the print, but not exactly. I accepted the stills part, but declined the motion part. I knew my brain would be full with all the details of the stills part alone, and we'd be humping long hours on that alone, let alone last-minute weather issues and last-minute client changes and scheduling changes. (It was).

In reality, even though the film crew was shooting right behind me, they shot different angles to get their moving-image concept. There is no way in hell I could have done both. Just in "hours in the day" alone.

In the end, it was the weirdest job I ever delivered: my stills concept had to achieve three things simultaneously:

1) 8.5x11 proportion vertical for print use
2) long long wide horizontal for web banner
3) long long tall vertical for web ad

And when I say "long long" I don't mean 16x9, I mean much more extreme than that. But even weirder, the print ad part of the image had to be dead center, and both overlapping web banners would extend out from that. So in the end, the images I delivered (every shot), was made up of about six to eight images each, and the final image was shaped like a cross; vertical long and horizontal wide. Imagine that. So yes, the commercial world is changing, due to internet banner ads.

But my point is: the Stills portion is still very demanding, and I still maintain: Jack of all Trades, Master of None. Pick your craft -- film or stills, and get busy. Because each one is going to take 110% of your brainpower to keep up.

So easy to say you can do both well. Bullshit.
Logged
Andre R
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2009, 09:48:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
And when I say "long long" I don't mean 16x9, I mean much more extreme than that. But even weirder, the print ad part of the image had to be dead center, and both overlapping web banners would extend out from that.


You are actually very right. I know I 'need' to get into this motion/moving photo business, but it is not going to be easy. The tv commercials I have been asked to look into are obviously landscape format, the billboards/print ads they want from the same shoot are all portrait format. Not to mention the extensive photoshopping...(how do I do THAT on lets say 90 THOUSAND frames?)

AndreR
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4890



« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2009, 10:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Andre R
Not to mention the extensive photoshopping...(how do I do THAT on lets say 90 THOUSAND frames?)

AndreR

It's done all the time. In the motion world it's called "grading" and all of the tools that one is used to (and more) are available. With RED and its successors and imitators it's done on raw files, and therefore even "better" than what we do now with "baked" video, which is the equivalent of JPGs in terms of malleability.

As for resolution, the Scarlet and Epic will be available with 3K, 5K and 6K resolution sensor. 6K (6,000 pixels across) is the equivalent of a 24 Megapixel sensor in stills terms, so think Nikon D3X, Canon 1Ds MKIII, Canon 5D MKII and Sony A900 resolution at up to 30 FPS, raw, and with variable shutter speeds, not just those appropriate for motion.

So, grabbing a raw 24MB still from a video or high speed sequence will be possible.

No, MFBs won't be threatened just yet, but here's what RED has said about the Epic 645...

Epic 645, which will have a 16 bit 42X56mm 65 Megapixel sensor and will be able to shoot at up to 50 FPS. This model will have a Mamiya 645 lens mount and will cost some $45,000 when it becomes available in Spring of 2010.

It's easy to disss RED when it comes to their forecasts, but one just has to look at the profound and totally disruptive effect that they've had on commercial video and feature film production in Hollywood and around the world during the past two years to know that they are for real.

They are now in a "quiet" mode, which is totally appropriate as they proceed to bring their new cameras to market. But anyone that calls their announcements of last fall Hype just doesn't understand how brilliant their pre-marketing campaign is being.

Just look at all of the online discussions, such as this one!

Michael

Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2009, 10:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Just look at all of the online discussions, such as this one!

http://ow.ly/his7

Video showing the new camera.
Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2009, 10:36:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Epic 645, which will have a 16 bit 42X56mm 65 Megapixel sensor and will be able to shoot at up to 50 FPS. This model will have a Mamiya 645 lens mount and will cost some $45,000 when it becomes available in Spring of 2010.

Just curious where they are sourcing the sensor from?
Logged

Guillermo
Andre R
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2009, 10:48:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
It's done all the time. In the motion world it's called "grading" and all of the tools that one is used to (and more) are available.

Michael

Ok, so i will have something new to learn I guess.

Lighting is my other 'headache'.... I'm quite familiar with flash lighting and use it on 99% on my work (fashion/portraits/interior/food/sport/nature/...). My workhorse is battery powered profoto/Bron packs with Para's, Giant's and different modifiers. I often work 'alone' and carry all my stuff in my tiny car. Will that be a thing of the past? Will I have to get a ton or two with HMI's etc to be able to do something similar to what I do today? I keep a keen eye on what is happening in the continuous lighting world, but have never seen anything remotely as 'powerful' as a flash in the same 'package'...

AndreR
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 10:52:44 AM by Andre R » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad