I might come accross as a fanboy because I'm so enthusiastic for RED's future EPIC offereings that will come in FF35, 6x45, 6x17 sensor sizes. The level of innovation, enthusiasm and the hunger of Jim Jannard and his team but also the existing userbase is just incredible.

I started saving up for a red investment months ago and keep an eye on the red.com webpage but yesterday I came across this video footage that just made me speechless and kept me smiling for minutes.

Check out that dynamic range, the lifelike or even better colors, the skin texture, skintone, detail in the eyes. Look at the skies - even overcast skies have nice definition and detail. It also has that nice film feel to it.

I'm so deeply impressed and I believe you will be too after watching this video.

Caution: The video is over 400 MB so save it to disk instead of watching in your browser. That way you can go to full-screen mode too.

Red.com video footage - Reel 720

The link can be found in this thread

Boris,
I think you are right on with this message. I to think the future is in RED technology and the window it opens up. I also think that unless Phase One includes a video capability to their digital back formats they will be in a tough position in the near future.

Douglas

This has been posted so many times. So much that I believe Michael started a new forum for video cameras.

I just don't see it happening within next 5-10 years at least.

Afaik, Red doesn't work with flash, and has very limited shutter speeds. Also, who wants to shoot with this monster?? People are already complaining about the size and weight of MF cameras.

So will this get moved back when we're talking about RED 645 and 617 sensors? Those are large sensors as in '& Large Sensor Photography'.

Perhaps we'll see new movies with Bruno starring in the Legend of Douche-Bagger Vance. Perhaps play the role of the bouncer at the Double Douche in Roadhouse 2.

The Red can be configured for hand held work. What you posted was a shot of a Red set up like an Arri or Panavision 35mm film camera. We use our Red in a much smaller configuration for most things. Remove the i/o sync box, the matte box, the long lens (a 180mm?), the accessory attachments, etc., and its smaller than an ENG camera from a year or two back. We shot on a tram in Brussels last March, hand held, available light, and were barely noticed until Grief or Refuse or one of those miserable stops where the dejected, marginalized, angry Brussels residents hang out.

I think, and this is my opinion based upon my experience as a stills shooter in NYC and as a video producer/gaffer/writer/DP in NYC, that stills will be increasingly marginalized, pushed off to the edges as one of three things: a commodity (Flickr, iStock); incidental to the video shoot; or super highend work shot by fine artists. The low and medium end of the market is disapearing under our feet. Now that I mainly work in motion, I can say that my rates are WAY up, I feel more mobile, and I get more respect from art buyers because I'm not bidding against hundreds of others for a grey seamless/pretty girl shoot. Ignoring the change that is already well underway is like the band playing on the deck of the Titanic.

true flash may not be an option, but if you are shooting video with continuous lights like HMI, you can very easily shoot stills.

Scarlet will change everything. Trust me on this, (and quote me if I prove to be wrong).

I've eaten my hat before, but not often, and I don't think I will this time

Michael

I think there will definitely be an even greater shift towards video and away from still. A reduction in print advertising means advertising will shift more and more to the web. Increases in bandwidth will just means stills on the web become video on the web. I think its a natural progression that can't be stopped.

There will always be still in some form in advertising, but a lesser role over time.

So it is quite possible that MFDB or Red stills might be a non-issue before long.

Obviously that punishes the users that need high resolution stills for exhibition prints or other uses. But the numbers might not be there to support those markets.

I ABSOLUTELY do NOT understand why this thread has been moved to the video section. To be honest my work has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with videography. I'm not even (yet) interested in that currently.

DSMC stand for DIGITAL STILL MOTION CAMERA. So this means it's every bit as much a still images capture device as it is suited to capture moved pictures. It's kinda like a 1D MK3 with better frame rates and more resolution. The red RAW format will even be supported by Adobe.

Read for yourself what RED's considers their DSMC to be in the Red Epic FAQ

This seems really short-sighted. I feel this thread doesn't reach the intended audience here. I was particularly talking about STILL IMAGES. This IS GOING to eat away major MFDB market share or even end MFDB's completely. That is the context that some people don't understand.

And World Police "foto-z" that has never anything more to offer than "This has been posted before" (so what? Millions of men tell their wifes they love them although it's been said at least a billion times). Please send me the link to the thread where this VIDEO has been posted before. You say it's too big and spreading COMPLETELY uninformed BS.

This body can be configured in many different configurations. It can be configured as a DSLR that is probably smaller in size (at least depth) than a Hassy H3, Mamiya RZ, Mamiya 645, Leaf AFI/HY6 because it does NOT have a mirror. So it doesn't have mirrorbounce that somewhat reduces low speed shooting possibilities like it did with H1/H2 and to some extend still with H3 Hassies.

Some pics that should make it obvious how compact IT CAN BE: DSLR configuration of RED EPIC

Also, let's not forget that they are currently only working on their second generation of products. Can you remember CD's, MD's, vinyl, tapes? Now you can fit more music onto a single miniature SD card than a couple dozen CD's could store. iPod anyone? With time stuff gets smaller but obvious the sensor size, modularity and required "sturdiness" comes into play too.

It can certainly be switched to STILL IMAGE mode and it will certainly work with strobes as you can read HERE: Will the DSMC have a hot shoe so that strobes can be fired with a pocket wizard?

But I guess it would make more sense to work with HMI's and other continuous lighting.


So back to what this thread was about. Can you imagine extracting A SINGLE PICTURE out of that video and that is what your still images will look like without hours and hours of photoshop retouching just to get pleasing color and enough dynamic range? What do you think about the quality of the footage. The skin texture doesn't seem waxed like a Canon 1Ds MK2. Transitions to shadows are gorgeous. It has a film like look. The iris of the eyes has gorgeous detail that you will never get with a 1Ds MK3 and hardly ever with a P30+. In some sequences the colors are so saturated and gorgeous as possibly only velvia could render them but still skintones are nice.

I am impressed. With every single STILL frame.

Hi Boris,

the link you posted doesn't work for me or a few other friends that have tried..

Leaving that aside - you aren't the only one that is seeing the end of MFD as we have known it - however one caveat - I want movements in still form l so I can control the image I make in something more than just flat planes and I will watch the announcements regarding lens manufacturer choice for the 617. If RED can somehow allow/create a platform that also delivers technical camera capability - well - it is pretty much game over.

A lot of people talk costs btw - in Australia the official quoted price I hear for the Phase One P65+ I am told is nearly $70,000 - I know that I wont be buying into another iteration of the MFD scam. These clowns were actually 'bragging about the price at the profesional imaging show last week...

btw - no need to be so strident, believe it or not- a lot of people have a brain and quietly go about comparing this versus that value proposition - it is technology that has got me and quite a few friends very excited - interestingly - not one of us currently owns or shoots with ANY form of video and not one of us needs to make a living out of making images - RED redefines what FUN is - and that is what is exciting.

The market that RED is going to attract is MUCH bigger than the current market for MFD backs - current back technology is already irrelevant to everyone except vested interests and conflicted groupings blah blah blah.. it wont matter in th end..it wont matter how much old tech people bray and spray and propagandise and preach - nothing will matter except the quality of the value proposition. The timing of the death of MFD - well that is about IF/WHEN RED actually delivers - oh and dont think that the CaNikons aren't watching and thinking either.


Pete

Hey Pete

Actually the video is over 400 MB so you will need to download it first in full before you can watch it. I'd assume that's going to take 10-30 minutes depending on your download speed.

I think this topic was moved to stop the noise that would have been inevitable in the "used medium format camera section" and before anyone thinks that is an unfair remark, that really is where medium format has been for a long time, in the legacy camera business.

HY6's were not finished (never to be finished) reworked 6008's, H series blads were made for film, Mamiyas are still warmed over film cameras and that's it. The only close to new "cameras" in the world of medium format all based around the days of film and 1 second a frame capture, (at best).

Also if you look at the posts in that section it's mostly about past cameras, RZ's, Rollei 6008s, HY6's/AFI's, Hasselblad V's. It's like the buyers guide to KEH.

The world of professional image making for profit has moved on and if anyone doesn't believe this, go to the bio section of any large NY repping firm and every photographer's little black and white portrait shows them standing behind a Canon or Nikon, soon it will be a Canon, Nikon or RED with an hdmi port 20mm rods and a mattbox.

The emails I get from digital techs, production companies and studios all are pushing the RED or the 5d2 as video/still solutions and whether anyone in traditional still photography likes it or not, the talk in advertising is not about print, it's about interactive and motion media.

Where RED fits in on any of this, only Canon and Nikon know, but the the Scarlet or whatever it will be called comes out with a real 4 to 5k image that looks good in still and motion, then it might be the next professional imaging tool. If it comes out at $40,000 and Canon or Nikon make one for $8,000 then it probably won't be the next professional imaging camera.

Actually I think costs is less to do with the actual camera, than usability. If RED can make the software right, meet their users deadlines and expectations and not go down the path of medium format still cameras then they might be ok, because today nobody has the time or energy to learn a new medium with any camera that is a work in progress.

This doesn't mean that a RED or 5d2 will spell the end of still photography, it just means that we will work differently in the professional world. The people that can tell a story with still cameras are quite capable of telling an interesting visual story with motion cameras and though today you might not be able to view full 2000 pixel wide video streaming on your computer in real time, don't think that it won't happen soon and don't think that advertisers don't want an advertising vehicle that makes the viewer see their product and logo for more than 2 seconds as they flip a page.

In fact all I have to do is look around my, or anyone's office and it's obvious that it has become a world of lcd screens.

It's Michael's forum to do with as he pleases, but if interest in this forum is going to be maintained, or grown, I would respectfully suggest he change the name of this section from videography to professional motion cameras, because what's coming out are really not just video cameras and really won't be just inexpensive combo cams.

I would also suggest it be moved under, or above the medium format section because even in his own word's the Scarlet will change everything and this is where the talk is going to be.

JR

[quote name='Boris_Epix' date='Jun 30 2009, 02:29 PM' post='294742']

"Check out that dynamic range, the lifelike or even better colors, the skin texture, skintone, detail in the eyes. Look at the skies - even overcast skies have nice definition and detail. It also has that nice film feel to it. "

I agree, the footage looks beautiful and I cant wait to get my hands on the FF35 Scarlet. But dont be fooled by the 'dynamic range' here, these are big budget shoots with tons of union crews & electrician trucks with HMI's etc filling in the shadows.

me, I am investing in lighting for now, and am secretly hoping canon answers with their own DSMC with the 13 stop DR that Red is promising for some of their future cameras.

I think you are right...in point of fact, none of the current crop of "combo-cams" are worth a crap from the standpoint of cinematography...want a zoom motor? Get a real motion picture camera...want focus stops? Get a real motion picture camera Want some really good (and really friggin' expensive) optics? Get a real motion picture camera.

While Nikon and Canon are producing cameras that "can' get really nice video, shooting the stuff is way ugly. Canon needed a firmware update to allow auto-focus during video capture...really? I mean doh...

The Red camera has all the earmarks of a good motion picture camera––note, I ain't talking "video here" but if a video camera has the same functionality as a Mitchell or Panavision, then it's a motion picture camera like the Red.

It's cool...and Hollywood (and the rest of the film word is smitten) but for "stills" (what the motion people like to call photography if they don't call it "flat-shit" which a lot of agency producers call it) I can imagine what my life would be if I went from trying to setup and get the moment (a typical approach to "stills") instead of spending hours and hours going over all the hours of motion material in the hopes of getting a really good single frame that works as a still. See, if you are shooting "motion" then you aren't looking for "stills".

Still and motion are two entirely different mindsets. I shot commercial film in the late 1980's and while I made a good cinematographer (DP) I never really made what would be considered a "good" director. That's another whole set of skills and mindset. And don't get me started on editing...here are very, very few people who are good directors _AND_ editors...Chris Sanderson might be an exception (although it sure takes friggin' forever to get stuff edited––I love ya Chris).

I think the funniest thing I've heard of lately is that Vincent Laforet is gonna move to Hollywood to shoot movies...yeah, right...Vince is a real good shooter but he has no concept of what Hollywood is all about. They will chew him up and spit him out and move right along to the next sucker.


:~)
"The Movies" is a very special industry and not many "photographers" would last a New York minute in it...

Your points are well taken, though some of it is a little dated.

I don't for a moment believe that every still photographer is going to be asked, (or be good at) shooting a 90 minute feature, a 20 minute short, even a high budget 30 second spot.

Then again, the world of advertising has taken a serious change. Interactive is the only thing anybody is talking about and I can understand why.

Myself, this year I've planned and had design work done for three direct mailing campaigns. Each time when we are ready to go to press, I've hit the brakes.

Mainly because at this stage 1/3 of the recipients aren't in their same rolls or have their jobs and the other 2/3's really aren't buying that much large produciton high end photography, at least in traditional print.

Also in traditional print, to reach even a moderate number of qualified viewers is 2000x more expensive than
a well designed electronic promotion.

If this holds true in my industry, then the same can be said for consumer advertising. Nobody wants to spend $200,000 in still production on a campaign, $1,000,000 on a media buy, that may go into a magazine, that may go on a shelf, that may be bought all with a lead time of 90 days and all the while the magazine has dropped circulation and pages or worse is read mostly on the web, because we all know the web is free. (insert insane smile here).

The advertisers that want to get their message out, want it out today and if motion can be added to a still shoot that is just gravy on top and everyone likes a little gravy.

We've spoken to a lot of AD's we work with, about every talent agent in the U.S. (mostly to renegotiate use on older projects), production companies, crew, etc. etc. and all exactly echo the same story.

The one thing that everyone talks about is motion. I'm not even sure if at this stage agencies and their respective advertisers really know what to do with it when they get it, or what vehicle to place it in to get proper viewership, but they ALL want motion along with stills of the same quality and would love nothing more than to have a still frame from a motion clip that is good enough to run double page.

Every paying client I know is much more than interested.

It's funny our business is very myopic. You talk to an AD about Vincent L. and few know of the Canon video or of his work, other than stills. You talk to them about the new Levi's and Wrangler Europe interactive campaigns and they all know about those and those are motion pieces.

As far as making it in Hollywood, hell, LA, NY any major market is tough in any form of the industry, so going to get chewed up and spit out is nothing new. I wish Vincent the best of luck.

Now in regards to post production. Professional post production, stills or motion is difficult and time consuming if you shoot in volume, under deadline and have high expectations. I find it no harder to pull a days shooting of selected motion clips and display them than I do 2,000 still frames. I find it no more difficult to do some quick color correction on footage than I do batch processing out 2,000 jpegs so in the end it is close to being a wash.

Editing, effecting, color correcting for final output, yes that it another layer, (well except the color correcting) but that is usually handed off to a third party, so from the photographer/dp./director (whatever we are nowadays) it's pretty much the same.

In regards to the Canon, it has it's issues, though for 3 grand it's magic and I've seen some pretty amazing imagery produced from that camera.

Will a 5d2 replace a Scarlet? No, probably not, but will a 5d2 work within a lot of dual purpose media, even high budget media . . . yes it will. It does take a lot of accessories to work that camera at a professional level including click stops for focus, but their is a cottage industry that has developed for the 5d2 that is not only quite large, also backordered by months, so obviously this camera is very much on everyone's mind.

I have my own take and belief's on where advertising is going and about 1/2 is just pure speculation, though I do know that print and traditional network television viewing is down, and "personal" computer time is up, so that kind of tells us what image carrier is going to get the most attention in the future.

Then again as Michael says, I could be wrong, though I don't think so . . . not this time.

JR

At the doctor's office last week I had plenty of time to sit around and wait (naturally) so I took the liberty of looking through the consumer magazines the office had laying around. It was sad (and a bit shocking although I had already known what to expect from previous visits). The page count in Time or Sports Illustrated or People are SERIOUSLY way, way down–I mean they're like newsletters...however the page count in Vanity Fair isn't doing so bad. Vogue is pretty fat an happy too. But by and large the magazines that _USED_ to house the national ads I used to shoot have piddly crap in them now. Boy I sure am glad I don't shoot commercially anymore!!!

I don't have a reliable crystal ball on commercial ad work these days (I got out a few years back cause it just disgusted me what people were willing to bust a nut for) but I don't think we've seen what the future really is. We've seen bits and pieces...tiny slices at best. But when real broadband (I mean streaming HD video broadband) the "net" ain't gonna look like ot does now.

Last decade it was the internet phone beaming really bad frozen & broken video of journalists embedded in Iraq, now it's Iranians beaming out cell phone video (which still sucks but does gets you to look, watch and react).

Personally I just shoot images I feel like these days and do the occasional book now and then. It just ain't fun anymore to do "real work".

:~)

Some of what James has written above are among the mostly insightful comments that I've read about what's going on in the industry, and is echoed loudly by many working pros that I speak to.

As for Jeff's comment... "Personally I just shoot images I feel like these days and do the occasional book now and then. It just ain't fun anymore to do "real work".

All I can add is – AMEN.

Michael

who knows - but i imagine more than a few people raised an eye brow back in the early 50's when look magazine photographer stanley kubrick had similar aspirations.

Apologies if my points were already covered a dozen times above.

I still have a dichroic colour enlarger and would probably still be on film if it weren't for my wife's foot in my arse, so I consider myself more a dinosaur than a technology fan boy.

BUT, the future promised by the Red Scarlet/Epic, should it deliver, seems so compelling I feel like I'm ready to not only drink the Kool-Aide, but mix it up in big batches.

I don't have a plan for using one. I certainly don't have continuous lighting for it, but I will probably buy one as soon as I can and figure out the important details later.

I'm embarrassed about my emotional response, but I can't remember the last time technology got me all hot and bothered.

What I'm pretty sure of is that if you could have a Red 645 Epic for the same money as a MFD back system, having both MF quality stills AND video -- unless size of the unit is a deal breaker -- how could you not opt for the Red solution and have both options available? Obviously this applies more to users who don't already have a system they're happy with and heavily invested in.

Then again, I don't do this for a living full time, but I can't imagine I'm far off from what people will be thinking when units are actually available.

From the latest British Journal of Photography

quoting Nick Knight

'I'm one of the last fashion photographers,' he says. 'If I was 15 right now, I wouldn't want to start working for magazines, because they're clearly not the most interesting thing around. Other people must be thinking the same thing. They're looking through the magazines and thinking, "There's no excitement in these things any more because they're just dolling out the advertisers' lines and products". All the excitement is over there on the internet.'

'If people randomly see my images on the back of a magazine there's no preconception about how they should judge them, they're just the vernacular of what they see,' he says. 'That's how photography works best. But if you want to speak to people, and what I do is communication, then there's no point in going and speaking to very few people when you could speak to many more. A magazine might have 10,000 readers, but I can reach 10 million people through the internet. It's the medium best suited to where we are now.

'I have three kids. My youngest is just 12, and the oldest is 16,' he adds. 'They don't pick up magazines, and we have lots of them in the house. They look at the internet, talk to their friends across chat rooms and social networking sites and go on YouTube. That's the reality. It's different media, different ways, and I want to work on the medium where the most interesting things are happening. Taking a load of photographs and putting them in a magazine that nobody looks at is very unappealing. Creating a set of photographs to hang in a gallery for some of my friends to go and see holds no interest whatsoever. We're looking at a completely different set of values.'

Just as I have started to use the original 1Ds camera from Canon years ago, migrate from my Contax N Digital, I always see the digital still and motion is the same media, like it was with film use on still camera and motion camera. Every technology is pushing it to happen, allow it to happen, and it must happen. What I see the difference is with still image, the photographer is the master, yes, shooting some advertising with agency and director and a layout (have to do it because the layout is sold), but still in large part, the photographer is the master. For motion pictures, photographer is more like a technician, several of them, one holds the camera, one help with focus, one help to move the camera on dolly (when it is not on steady cam), the photographers are a team of technicians, and the director is the master. I think it is inevitable the lines of still and motion will cross, but the term photographer and meaning behind it will not be the same, at least not exact the same. When we look at the still image we question the man behind the camera, when we see the motion pictures, we asked about the director or sometimes the producer, few about photographer - or simply the "camera man". I did not say "camera man" is not important, but typically we see higher value on directing.
But, I see the camera such as 5D2 is really a bench mark camera for photographers, more than the Red, because red still work like a movie camera. Because camera like 5D2 with its latest firmware is the first true professional device that allow the still photographer to try to learn motion picture, be the master, rather than taking cues from directors, cut and roll as directed. Already happen in the industries, the still is a smaller part (and was always smaller) of TVC or movie, less and less shot made in still studio, and photographer asked to come to the set to snap between the production - yes, not for those high budget assignments, but most of today's assignment when compares to past is all budget limited.
And for the bring part of all these happening, photographer today is in fact given better change to really perform his roll as photographer to bridge the still and motion, with tools never available before. We just have to make a decision.

Regards, K

Kuhn,

I'm not saying your wrong, not saying your right, but in all walks of life there are no absolutes. Robert Rodriguez can work a camera, Joe Pitka probably the most successful commercial director in LA started as an editor, Sodenberg regularly puts camera in hand.

On the flip side of this many of the better editorial still photographers know little of technique but are good directors, so there are no rules.

I guess you can position yourself where you want to be, but to have control you have to have know your art top to bottom.

Shooting commercially is like walking a tightrope. If you only shoot for yourself, your gonna be out of work. If you only shoot for the client, your gonna be out of work. So you find this weird, happy medium.

My client's have a brand to protect and so do I. Good work always comes when both parties respect that. Great work comes when the mindset is 1+1 = 2. Great business comes from giving a client more than they anticipated.

I have a rule and that is I don't work for the client's company, I work for the person that hires me. If I make them look good, get them a raise, two weeks extra vacation, an award, a bonus or just a pat on the back, then usually my life is good.

Regardless of all of that, the real differences between still and motion are not as great as most people make it out to be. Yes, shooting a feature is different than a commercial and LA is full of great commercial directors that fail at theatrical, but the real moral to this story is, if you work hard, you can be anything you want.

Consequently shooting a web piece is different than a 30 second spot, but if you do it well, the rest always falls into place.

Going from stills to motion is not that huge of a leap. Of course it's a different way to tell a story, a different way to frame a shot, a different way to show movement, but in the end if you know photoshop and lightroom, learning an AVID, FCP or directing the color in a Divinci suite is not that big of a leap.

I know still photographers that just loathe the thought of motion, but I "knew" ex photographer's that loathed the thought of digital capture, so life goes on and everything moves forward.

I actually like motion and it may be the ego in me, but I think it's kind of cool that I can get a viewer to look at my image piece for 1, 2, 3, or 4 minutes rather than just 15 seconds.

I've been shooting motion for a while and though I'm no Kubrick, maybe never will be, I;m still learning and still moving forward and I have to admit it's been very good for our business, even in these tough times.

http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic_man/index.htm

I've also come within three seconds, three times of buying a RED and the only thing that stops me is my experience with medium format. I just loathe the thought of buying some cumbersome system that locks me down and is a work in progress.

I commend Jim Jannard and the whole RED team and I am positive I'll end up with one of their products, but not until they get to a larger frame dimension and I'm positive it goes to high iso without issue. (it may now, I just don't know yet).

What I absolutely don't want to do is drop 50 grand on a system and then find myself using a $3,000 Canon or Nikon for 90% of my work, because in the world of stills, that's what I and many others have experienced.

Personally I don't care if a camera is motion camera used for stills, a still camera used for motion and I don't care if the brand is Holga or Leica. I just want to shoot what is unique to me and hopefully my clients.

But back to the thought of shooting for commerce, I dig the challenge, I love the juice that comes from a set of twenty people, twenty clients and the stomach lining eating feeling I get when I have to perform on time, on delivery. It makes me a better image maker . . . I think.

Once again, any of us can be what we want to be and personally If a photographer/artist wants to marginalize themselves down to dp or camera operator then that's fine, but if they want to control the project they will have to up their skill set.

Is the world of motion imaging going to roll over and throw open arms out to a still photographer? Of course not, but in this biz, nobody rolls out the red carpet until you've proven yourself.

It's always been like this, always will be.

JR

[quote name='James R Russell' date='Jul 3 2009, 03:29 AM' post='295372']
Kuhn,


http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic_man/index.htm

this is great, how did you do this/ I am interested in the the technical info if you want to divulge it; camera, software, iso, etc

Very nicely summarized, James.

I have the 5DMKII & am interested in the RED. How we apply motion to our work is a big question? We just did an ad campaign that had at least 50 images to make one ad! Got a couple of layouts last week & they are still + 3D but not motion. If we were shooting people on white backgrounds, location or catalogue I could see the use for motion. I am open to motion & love feature films as we both see more creative there than in fashion/editorial or ad work. We both find a lot of ad work in Sydney is complicated & sometimes too clever. Meanwhile I will play with the 5D.
Denis

Not necessarily. Check out Nick Knight's work at ShowStudio.com He uses both motion and stills for fashion ad work.

http://www.showstudio.com/campaigns/shisei...09/default.html

Very true, of course, so far there are only few once that cross the line and being successful. And given how good 5D2 is, it is not going to change the entire way the motion pictures were shot, but at the same time, I think it will give rise to a lot more experimental short film or long film, creative production that was not possible earlier. Shooting and film is a whole lot different, there are talents who shoot great movie and great stills, and there are great photographer produce nice motion pictures, but there are more could not achieve both. I also don't think 5D2 will challenge RED, they are different, and different tools design for different functions. But again, I think in the sense of 5D2, it offers a powerful tool for still photographer to have a better grasp for what motion picture is about, that many of the still photographer could not try before.
beautiful clip by the way.

Regards, K

i could not agree more with what has been said here about how things are happening right now...maybe motion is a little bit of a buzz word right now, but it happens to be how things are seen and watched...there is a reason youtube is where it is.....so i won't even start to add to any of this or discuss the still/motion transformation...

but, everytime i look at RED it reminds me of classic MF...especially the price list....i understand that it is nothing compared to what film people are used to, but for still people who are used to owning their own camera it is still a bit steep.....the scarlett might bring down the body, but a whole kit is still up there....

i am shooting with the 5dII and am blown away every shoot....i really can't believe it sometimes....

my question is what will canons next 5d look like? we are at 35mmFF right now, keep the mpix, just make it even better, higher iso,....and find a way to suck out raw video from the sensor....
the fact that canon just came out with their firmware makes me believe that hey had no clue what it would do to the market...they haven't even thought about raw video and pulling stills from video!

but imo the part that will change the landscape entirely in favor of motion will be post production...if that red software really works the way it looks (LR for video)...there really is no reason to even start with a still shoot......

in almost all my still shoots, i could shoot motion right now....just flip the switch...or even better...i won't even know until i start editing.....

afaik the W spread with bruce willis was shot on a red.....

I agree.

RED, 5d2, Still that move, stills that are still, motion that is still, motion that is frozen, it doesn't matter as long as we find a way to shoot something interesting and get it in front of the attended audience and the world of advertising, the more people that can see it the better.


http://www.russellrutherford.com/man_15_sec.mov




It's all just camera, light, subject, and some kind of story, even a 15 second one.

The old rules are dead, if we ever had any rules.

Nothing new about that.

JR

That RED demo reel is amazing. Amazing because it is so transparent. It is pure motion picture. That's it. The notion that it is digital capture doesn't even come into the viewing experience.

Compare that to Public Enemies. Saw it last weekend. I immediately noticed something was really weird about it. Lost of purple fringing, probably sensor bloom, Maybe CA. Not sure. Lots of other things that made in very uneasy on my eyes and brain as well. At times it was difficult to watch. I posted my querry to another forum and was directed to this Photo.Net thread. All I can find is that it was shot on HD video. That one was not ready for prime time IMO.
http://photo.net/off-topic-forum/00Tq9c

I like it. Nice work, James. Thanks for sharing--both your work and opinions.

-Brad

I just thought Id chip in with what I have been up to..

I shoot (most) of the stills for this company (thier brochure looks better than thier web but so it goes) Hassy/Sinar for stutio and NikonD3 for location

http://www.blackerdesigns.co.uk/

We have also been working on some promo video using a 5d2 that is not fully finished yet..

http://www.vimeo.com/4824319 (part one)
http://www.vimeo.com/5515337 (part two)

I have had really great fun and am really interested in the skillset to be learned in doing stills and motion for clients - I feel it is the future

All the work is with no crew just myself

SMM
----------------

I think if we take a step back and look at professional digital imaging, the one group that has always lead the way are wedding photographers.

I know when I started shooting digital stills, most of my workflow came from them, because they were at the forefront of having to deliver a large volume of images quickly to a client.

They also needed software for web editing, on demand printing and publishing and now I'm sure the same thing holds true for motion imagery.

You can think of the wedding photographer's client's (the proud couple) as a small client or ad agnecy that wants to get their message out that has a limited media buy, so they turn to you tube, flicker, facebook, or dot mac and publish their story.

You can also think of the wedding photographer as the main core group that medium format still camera makers lost in the transition of film to digital, hence the demise of Bronica, Contax, Rollei, etc. etc.

The wedding photographer is not different in their selection of cameras than the advertising photographer, which translates to they need what their clients need which is the ability to quickly craft and shoot stills and motion in a very pressured situation.

My thought on the RED is though I find the process of making a digital cinema camera amazing for the price point, RED in some ways reminds of the medium format makers in the fact they are slow to come out with that second tier version of their camera, the one that doesn't sell for $40,000 and
the one that does really autofocus, process easily, has a almost universal format and works in low light.

So the title of this thread "Is the future of medium format still imaging actually video?", to me should be expanded or changed to "is the future of professional image making video, stills or a combination of the two?". I think it's both, I think stills and motion will co-exist with each other, but I do think the future of cameras will be systems that are capable of working in both mediums and are affordable, expandable and quick.

If RED steps up then they're the one, but if they don't do it quickly you know Canon and Nikon will.

If RED doens't go down the road of medium format, they'll succeed, but if the put thier buyers on hold waiting, waiting and still waiting, then . . . well . . . we know what is happening to the still specialty camera makers.

Actually if you asked me what I need it would be a D3x, or 1ds3 or 5d3 that autofocuses with accuracy and shoots 60 to 8 fps.

But don't ask me, ask the wedding guys.

JR

so true! they are also the ones who never know if that shot will end up as a 4x6 or a 20x20 which is why the larger format always helps....

there is a supposed leak on the entire next year nikon dslr line up out on the web....even if it is just bs...the specs sound right anyway....d700x this october: everything from the d3x plus HD video 24fps....all other bodies after that HD video as well....

i don't even care that the next flagship is supposed to have 30mpix.....

the question is when can nikon/canon provide variable framerates for HD? maybe even via software update? and when will they provide raw data, which is still be biggest advantage of the red?
once nikon/canon realize that pros might want that option (and i honestly don't think they even know that someone might want it) red is done....

i am amazed that red came out of nowhere (i am sure someone will correct me here) but they won't be able to compete with nikon/canon once nikon/canon start competing with them....

the other player here is of course panasonic...they not only work on the GH1 but also own a very nice share of consumer, semi pro and pro digital video....i would not be surprised if they are the first ones on red's heels.....

Sony is the one to watch, in my opinion. The EX series video cams which have excellent IQ, the same color engine as the A900. The EX series beats the Panasonics, even the $50k Panasonics. The Sony development team for the EX1 is out on Long Island, I believe in Melville, a long way from the Japanese labs. Sony sets up their product development lines as competitors, which results in a priduct like the EX1 and 3, that costs $5k - $8k, has better IQ, color response, low light capability than $50k - $100k Panasonics and Sony's. The IQ is so good we use the EX3 with a PL mount as B camera with the Red. The footage integrates seamlessly with the Red A Cam footage. If the EX series shot raw, it would be even better. If the sensor were Cine35, I'd be in heaven.

As to JR's comment about wedding shooters leading the way, well, that is correct. I never thought of it that way, but of course, the wedding market would eat up Scarlet like device, or an Epic. Super highquality wedding video, coupled with high quality stills, either pulled from the raw footage or, more than likely, shot like a still with the same camera. Wedding guys could be the photographer and the videographer. More work but more money, hopefully, as well. This is where the 5D2 is most likely working a revolution.

foto-z, has stated that things may not become good for 5 years or so, I believe he is dead wrong. I was at the forefront of film to digital, and I heard statements like, it's not there yet, or give it time, a few more years. Well from first hand experience, I've seen photographers lose clients! They were too timid, or stubborn to react to a changing world, and today, they have less clients, less money. This I have witnessed. The transition to digital cinema, is on the move, get on, or get left. History repeats itself over and over.

Image Mechanics in Santa Monica Ca is hosting a convergence conference entitled "Collison Conference" (http://www.imagemechanicsexpo.com/). This is the future of our business, ever progressing, ever changing. Learn FCP, Adobe Premiere, get more info. Visit the sites that inform, teach, discuss.

My 2 cents,

Von

I'm a wedding photographer by profession. Absolute nonsense. You can shoot video or stills, you can't do both. I remember all the hype when the 5D mkII came out and everyone said that wedding photographers would be all over it for video. That died down very fast in the industry when everyone realised how unpractical it was in real world shooting. They all have mkII's but they ain't shooting video with it. The only examples around of that type of shooting are heavily stage managed, pretty much contrary to everything that wedding photography has become as it broke away from the last century. Shooting stills while doing video only works if you are controlling pretty much everything. Weddings are the opposite of that entirely. You could do it with a 2 man team but then, um, we've been doing that for years, he's called a 'videographer'.

Von,

I agree, in a way. The development level of the video portion of the 5D2 reminds me in a way of that first-generation Canon D30, years ago.

But what concerns me here is: When it went from Film to Digital, it was just a transition within one craft.

But now, moving from Stills to Video, we're talking about a whole new Skill Set, and also HMI instead of Profoto. It's a MUCH bigger deal, in this new transition.

I've never shot a wedding, but I have shot a lot of motion picture work and my share of stills.

I agree. There's no good way for one person to shoot both, especially with uncontrolled action, unless you're prepared to accept the compromise of lifting stills from the motion picture stream. One person can, with difficulty, change from motion to stills and back again, but he or she can't do both at the same time.

That said, there's no reason why a good still photographer can't become a cameraman, or vice versa. Many of the skills are common to both media.

It's not easy, though. Good cameramen also have skills as an editor, director, gaffer, grip and sound mixer. Most of the good directors I've met have been editors and photographers first.

Director/Cameraman is the best job ever.

Then, there's stuff like this. Productions like this plain blow me away. "Zero post production", say the authors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Et7UQh1tg...ature=rec-HM-rn

That Olympus thing was "inspired" by this, (as they say in the legal business).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmkLlVzUBn4

http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/i...p?gallery_id=17



JR

Do you have any comment on shutter speed

If you shoot to freeze action - 250 + then the footage is strobby

If you shoot for smooth footage the stills are blurred

So in this example it would seem that the Red was being used as a motor driven camera - nothing wrong in that of course - just I think a D3 on crop would outperform it (13FPS?)

IS there software for smooting sharp (say 250th) frames into fluid 'motion'

S

Whether any of those sessions were shot motion and still at the same time, still then motion, or motion then still then motion, or if a D3 would have 30% more image quality, a p31 35% more image quality or just shooting with an Arriflex and an 8x10 would make a difference is somewhat irrelevant to what is happening today.

Today it's about costs, more media exposure and to some extent what is the flavor of the month.

When name photographers start shooting with the RED some of it may be the flavor of the month, it might be hype, it might be useful, but all any of this means is somebody got paid to shoot and either they or the client decided to shoot what is primarily a still session with a motion camera.

With all due respect this is a photographer's forum so the conversation usually spins towards image quality, smooth or choppy motion, which camera might be better and though that makes for useful conversation, in the end this is still a photographer's forum and I doubt if 4% of the people that read this will ever commission someone to shoot a commercial or editorial project.

When it comes down to the RED, or a 5d2, D3 whatever, if your a commercial photographer the real decision is made by what the client requests or even demands and it's obvious that more and more some clients are requesting motion as well as still imagery.

Now even if your clients never ask for a motion image, never see you in that role, I doubt seriously if most professional photographers, (and by professional I mean people that dervive 100% of their family's income off of photography) would be quite happy to have the last 4 years of work in still and motion.

This is a funny business, fads come and go, what is absurd today, can be commonplace in two years.

It's also an industry that can seem to be very set in it's ways until something is deemed natural or normal, then the dam breaks and everyone is doing it.

Right now motion and still production is in it's infancy of being accepted, but everyday there are more examples, which means everyday somebody that writes the check goes from the mindset of "why" to the dictate of "we must".

Every time I think I really understand this business, things change, but there is one thing I am certain of. You either move forward or you get passed by. I've never seen anyone hold their position and last long term.

Now to answer your question about 1/250th of a second yes you can smooth it though it does effect the quality of the motion, yes you can find some freeze frames at 1/30th of a second but best case scenario is to shoot the session twice and not just for technical but also asthetic reasons.

Maybe the day wil come where everything is shot at 1/500th of a second, every frame is 6k across and large enough for any application, print or motion, but don't let the facts get in the way of perception, because perception rules.

JR

Yes I am 100% professional and have been learning 'motion' for the last year now - I think this multi skilled approach is the way forward for photographers, especially those like myself working for lower budget clients for who paying two crews is a challenge

Really I consider myself to be someone who fulfills the imaging requirements of my clients which used to be 'stills for print' but now it is moving towards 'stills for print and stills and motion for web'

The closest I have got to this duality is for 'Gul' which was created by shooting motion and then repeating the scenes immediately for stills - my effort is summarized on my current homepage www.sammorganmoore.com

I tend to shoot 5d2 for motion and D3 for stills, even though I have a H1 and digiback, which now only comes out in the studio or on really sunny days, I feel that my images with the D3 are more dynamic than with the blad - Im not a 'peeper'

I think clients may not notice a lack of MP in my shots or that my nikon lenses have more CA than the blad lenses, but would certainly notice if I were delivering stills with motion blur or strobby video

Im just not seeing how a motion camera, whatever quality, could be grabbed from to create stills, due to that contradiction that motion needs 'motion blur' in the frames to run properly while stills generally need to freeze the action

(and we have not even talked about lighting for motion where the light levels allow 250 shutter)

Can you outline a workflow in FCP that could create smooth motion from a movie camera shooting on a shutter speed of no less than 250?





S

The best way is to call an effects house, colorist, someone that works in all formats, cameras, film and digital, though there are workarounds to smoothing video, from making single frame sequences and then apply cross desolves to adding slight motion, blur.

There is no definative answer because every scene whether a pan to a zoom will look different at different shutter speeds and frame rates.

There is a reason in the film world that everything is tested before hand, even setting the focus on the PL mount to checking every lens in the case, shutter speed for look, etc. etc.

What can be an easy photoshop fix on a still can be a many thousand dollar fix in motion.

Anyway, I don't really think that all motion imagery regardless of shutter or camera will always cross purpose to stills, or vice versa.

I also don't think it really matters whether you shoot the stills before or after a motion session because each artists has their own style.

Usually it is easier to shoot the motion imagery first just because your working such a wide frame size and then go to the stills but once again, to each his own.

Right now it doesn't take much research to realize that the cross over potential of all of these new cameras from the RED, the Lumix and the 5d2 is a big part of both the cinema and still worlds.

Zeiss has new compact lens sets in a PL mount that make shooting motion with a still camera much easier and precise, traditional film rental companies have moved into selling and renting dslrs and accessories.

http://blog.abelcine.com/tag/video/

JR

Indeed

That seems a little adrift from the concept that Red seem to be pedalling of just pulling usable stills from a usable motion clip

If one could record at 240FPS then one would have a series of useable stills (1/480th) and they (10 frames) could be stacked to create a nice blurred 1/48th frame that would look like 'film' when projected at 24P

The technology is obviously an order of magnitude away from that in terms of buffer, resolution, onboard memory, ISO, post production muscle etc

Without even considering framing and DOF requirement or the fantastic AF that C+N have for stills shooting

It would seem we are years away from a tool that one can pull decent stills from a useable clip

Large chip DSLR motion and using one set of primes for motion and stills is of course really nice although I have ended up buying different nikkors for motion than I use for stills - but its not a different way of shooting


S

Not really that far away. The next RED promises 120 FPS at 5K, should be within a year from now. The RED One is a terrific digital motion picture camera, but the Epic 35 is really the camera that will set new standards in the film industry. It will also be the camera for still shooters to use to capture perfect still images along with motion. Scarlet will be a winner on the low end, and the Epic on the high end.

And I think all this will happen probably within a year from now.

Canon should be in a perfect place to compete, once they realize the demand. The Canon 5D is fine for fooling around but to really compete they need to shoot variable frame rates and output the frames as raw files as the RED does. Panasonic and Sony have the knowledge but will they be willing to destroy their high end video product lines with full frame 35mm sensor digital movie cameras for $5-25K camera bodies? We're in for a wild ride but it will be fun.


As far as getting stills from the footage, RED Cine and other software does it already.

Because I have always wanted to shoot both motion and stills, it's really a dream come true for me.

Im not sure how you mean you are getting stills from footage - sure you can extract the frame but is it any good?

Surely if you are creating usable motion footage your shutter is at 1/48 and therefore your stills are blurred in the main (and therefore unusable)

OR

you are shooting at a motion freezing shutter like 1/250 - you get usable stills but your footage is strobby and stutters and is therefore unusable in the main

---

As for the computer horsepower of dealing with 120FPS 5k RAW my computers certainly not near being able to handle that !

S

Michael,

I'll donate a paper hat, w'll write "Michael is a good sport" on it with food coloring, and you get to put it in a blender before you eat it

Edmund