http://www.red.com/skin/img/workflow/hero_b.jpg

Edmund

12mpix at 12bit for 60frames/sec.....all that for an unheard price (still a bit more then any MF back)....in terms of file quality this hardly beats a DSLR...

did they ever get the stolen prototype back?

The price is less than that of a P45.

I couldn't make those gallery images with anything I own. The color is superb. Could you match that image quality and color ?

Edmund

From the looks of it, yes.

the price is 17000 for the base camera module...a complete (useable) camera is more then twice that....but still cheap for what is can do....or what it might be able to do...this camera has been floating around, was supposed to ship,.....either way seems to be a revolution for digital video.....but with the announcements today at NAB...things are moving fast for the Dvideo people....

yes i can match the color and quality....this does not seem to impressive to me, am i missing something?

Actually from the specs and the price: the chip in the red smells like the canon eos 5d one. but how do they manage to get 60 frames out of it?

wondering

Maybe I need to invest in a better makeup artist, then, or purchase some rolls of skin

Edmund

looks like competition for origin...

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/

It's not. Their website says the sensor is 24.4mm wide x 13.7mm high. That's smaller than the APS-C sensors in Canons consumer DSLRs, with even smaller photosites.

Your are right. I got fouled by the 12 MP 35mm super size. Still wondering.

To me it looks like Canons. Not comparable to a MDB.

Br
Samuel

Even if the quality / colur is good a slice of one frame of HDTV is still relatively low Megapixel wise.

This is 10MP.


Edmund

Then I guess you have answered your own question.

Are you suggesting that shooting stills with a this video camera is (or could become) an alternative to shooting stills with a still camera?

For certain genres of photography, I absolutely believe this is what will eventually happen. I don't think it's crazy to believe that within 5 years we'll be grabbing 22 MP raw files off a motion camera. For lifestyle shooters, action shooters, photojournalists, and some fashion, this would be quite attractive.

The decisive moment will no longer be decided by our fingers pressing a trigger, but selecting the perfect frame out of 60 from that one second in an editing house.

I'm sure this is being discussed elsewhere. I would love to hear others thoughts on this...

Also, I'm sure within 10 years Nano-Tech will play a huge role in this as well.


Randal

This topic is plain silly!

thank you...

In any case, one of these belonging to the "pool" might get rid of a lot of catwalk photographers ...

Edmund

Well the quality looks "photographic". No doubt. It's not like the still pictures from normal videocameras.

Br
Samuel

I make a living as a photographer. I think it's vital to stay ahead of the curve especially in a tech era.... I bought a 1D for 5K in 2002. Now you can get 10MP for under 1K.... Think about where we'll be in 5, 10 years.

I think most of us here do.



Sure, but that's entirely different to suggesting that a digital video camera is better than current digital MF. It's also off-topic.

My question is "can you do as well as those samples with regard to skin tone and focus smoothness?"

Most of today's imagery is rendered on the web and at fairly small sizes in print. It's not about how many pixels you have, it's how your images *look*. And those samples look seriously good.

If you consider it obvious that these images are inferior in look to MF imagery, then please say how.

Edmund

"For certain genres of photography, I absolutely believe this is what will eventually happen. I don't think it's crazy to believe that within 5 years we'll be grabbing 22 MP raw files off a motion camera. For lifestyle shooters, action shooters, photojournalists, and some fashion, this would be quite attractive.The decisive moment will no longer be decided by our fingers pressing a trigger, but selecting the perfect frame out of 60 from that one second in an editing house."
Randal



Randal is absolutely right folks.

I hate to even say it but he's right- in 5-10 years the "decisive moment" will probably be a grabbed video frame. Think back to the first Mac and the first version of Photoshop.
Can anyone who was in business then honestly say that they predicted the photography would evolve to where it is now? And so quickly. I didn't. If you did see it happening I hope you bought stock in Apple and Adobe. I certainly wish I had.

I agree that this may be a silly topic for a mfdb forum but the reality of high quality video frame grabs is already here-I believe some papers are using mini hd video cams now.
That said, the idea of this is repulsive to me, but......if you plan on being in this business for the next 15 years you at least should start thinking about how this may affect your business. Think back 15 years - nnow think ahead 15 years- or even 10. It doesn't take much imagination to see where photography will evolve to-like it or not.

Best,
Frank Poole

I haven't shot anything in daylight, but here's the first sample I could find using flash. It's a 100% crop:



Looks better than the Red sample to me. The Red sample is a touch yellow, and of course can't compete in resolution.

As for focus smoothness, which I assume to mean the transition between sharp focus and smooth bokeh, here's a quick'n'dirty sample using the Rollei 180mm f2.8:

At this point in time, HD video frame grab doesn't compete with MFDB for lifestyle or fine art. The rest of this post relates more to photojournalism and some recent shifts..read on if you please:

For those of us that do photojournalism as the other part of our life, this article was enlightening/disturbing/interesting:

The Dallas Morning News is now equipping their still photographers with Sony Z1U video cameras, and they have created an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels, which only two years ago was the maximum you could get out of a professional 35mm camera. The Dallas Morning News is regularly running 4- and 5-column front-page pictures from these video grabs. Then, they put the streaming video on their Web site.

From: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the...hotography.html
[digitaljournalist.org focuses on photo video media, journalism, etc.]

2 years ago most newspapers got rid of their wet darkrooms and bought more computers and photoshop! The SJMN just dumped the last of the film cameras from their inventory early last year. The staff photographers have been using digital for 5+ years.

In the SF area we have gone down from 4-5 pro labs for onsite/2hr E-6 (120 & 4x5) to only one. One of the 5 has moved south to Santa Cruz. 2 years ago, I used to be able to "pick my lab" for my 120 and 4x5, now there is only one.

The next five years will be quite interesting...digital killed the film star...video killed the still photographer [Sorry, couldn't help the 80s reference ]


Rich
NGOphotographer

Which leads me to think that the output of a 10MP video camera could be "boosted" to MF-comparable resolution ...

It would be interesting to know exactly how this algorithm performs - I assume it accumuates information from several sequential frames ...

Edmund

Well maybe for some applications the video camera will be used instead of a 'still-camera' however I do feel that you are looking at the development of digital video but do not take into consideration still photography will also develop further in the coming years.

Maybe in 10 years we will all be working with 180MP, 32bit color, 20stops DR and totally redesigned glass etc... We will all be laughing over the schmucks that use video and try to deliver a bit of quality with their tiny 39MP, 16bit, 12stops files.

It is not the first time the death of photography is announced. It just shows we have to stay in motion.

In case I was misunderstood, I wasn't predicting the demise of photography, but shifts are afloat.

As one of the previous posters mentioned, they need to stay ahead of curve. Here's an interesting scenario based on past history that may indeed play out...

Newspapers started experimenting/using digital cameras in 94/95-- 7-10 years later they are almost exclusively using them. Now they are experimenting/using video for stills.

Wedding photographers started picking up digital a fews years after the newspapers, once the quality was there.

Lifestyle and fine art photographers next...

Now if a wedding photographer starts using a video camera and offers a service, such as, reviewing the video in key/slow mode with the bride and mother/mother-in-law and the say "aahhh...look at that "frame/moment/picture" he/she/it is sooooo cute...

The enterprising wedding photographer could then say... "What size would you like? 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc. How many for the relatives?

You never know...just some thoughts...


Rich
NGOphotographer

PS If this needs to moved to a different forum because of the shift in topic, feel free to do so.

For which only a few MP are needed. Once resolution beyond that of the Red One is unneeded, both it and DMF seem to be massive overkill; may mainstream DSLR's can handle very well the needs of 'the web and ... fairly small sizes in print.' (Even my humble, obsolete, 5MP Olympus E-1.)


I thought your original suggestion was about being better than MF. If the new question is whether images at on-screen viewing resolution are not inferior to DMF, then I would say that the same claim can be made for many DSLR's costing (and weighing) far less than either DMF or the Red One.