Eugenia Loli-Queru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Spokane, WA, USA
- Website
- cargocollective.com
I read a few weeks ago that you are preparing a pocket professional camera.
I am a video enthusiast (not a professional: http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/07/02/the-zoo/ ), but I would sell my Canon HDV camcorder on the spot for a professional AVHCD camcorder in a similar price range that gives me what I want most: *some* background blur. You see, the biggest difference in the "look", between the expensive pro cameras and the "Indie/consumer" cameras (including the HVX/DVX series) is the contrast (which can be fixed with the appropriate lense/filter) and the background blur (which would require somewhat expensive adapters/lenses).
In order to get some considerable background blur, you need a big sensor size. Creating big sensors means more manufacturing problems which can mean a higher price, but that's ok. Speaking for myself, a $999 pocket camera that has an acceptable lense (for the price) but big sensor, AVHCD support recording 720 (24/30p) clips in normal CompactFlash HC format would not only "do the job", but it would be perfect for a particular niche market who are after the "cine look" on a budget. I am not even asking for 1080i or 1080p or crazy features. 720p is good enough if that's important to keep the price down, as long as the visual quality is good enough and it offers the "cine look" (complete with contrast and background blur).
The downside of this design is that there is no zoom capabilities to speak of. It is an optics limitation by using a larger sensor, so the zoom wouldn't be more than 3x. But that's ok. Except if you are an ultra-modern action director with extra needs, you would never zoom more than 3x in a movie (at least, not frequently enough). Sure, the inability of having a large optical zoom would hurt "family" sales, but I am talking about a director's toy here, not families...
The kind of product I am suggesting here exists in the digital camera world, it's the Sony DSC-R1:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dscr1.asp
It's a failed product, let me clear this up, right off the bat. But it's a failed product because for the price it was selling, users would just get a real DSLR with the appropriate lenses instead. But in the video world, things are different. Users are buying $5000 cameras and then they have to shell an extra $1000 for 35mm adapters+lenses usually to get the "cine look". While what I am proposing here would offer the cine-look for $1000 -- for those who want it.
Of course, I might be completely off the mark with this comment just because RED might be preparing a pocket camcorder with more capabilities in the price range of $5000. But even if they do so, maybe a "lite" 720p product as I suggested above could fill a niche if it was to be produced. The individual bits of technology for my idea already exists, it's just that everyone is afraid of failure I guess because it's not a traditional product with traditional set of features (in fact, Sony did fail with their equivalent digicam).
Opinions?
I am a video enthusiast (not a professional: http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/07/02/the-zoo/ ), but I would sell my Canon HDV camcorder on the spot for a professional AVHCD camcorder in a similar price range that gives me what I want most: *some* background blur. You see, the biggest difference in the "look", between the expensive pro cameras and the "Indie/consumer" cameras (including the HVX/DVX series) is the contrast (which can be fixed with the appropriate lense/filter) and the background blur (which would require somewhat expensive adapters/lenses).
In order to get some considerable background blur, you need a big sensor size. Creating big sensors means more manufacturing problems which can mean a higher price, but that's ok. Speaking for myself, a $999 pocket camera that has an acceptable lense (for the price) but big sensor, AVHCD support recording 720 (24/30p) clips in normal CompactFlash HC format would not only "do the job", but it would be perfect for a particular niche market who are after the "cine look" on a budget. I am not even asking for 1080i or 1080p or crazy features. 720p is good enough if that's important to keep the price down, as long as the visual quality is good enough and it offers the "cine look" (complete with contrast and background blur).
The downside of this design is that there is no zoom capabilities to speak of. It is an optics limitation by using a larger sensor, so the zoom wouldn't be more than 3x. But that's ok. Except if you are an ultra-modern action director with extra needs, you would never zoom more than 3x in a movie (at least, not frequently enough). Sure, the inability of having a large optical zoom would hurt "family" sales, but I am talking about a director's toy here, not families...
The kind of product I am suggesting here exists in the digital camera world, it's the Sony DSC-R1:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dscr1.asp
It's a failed product, let me clear this up, right off the bat. But it's a failed product because for the price it was selling, users would just get a real DSLR with the appropriate lenses instead. But in the video world, things are different. Users are buying $5000 cameras and then they have to shell an extra $1000 for 35mm adapters+lenses usually to get the "cine look". While what I am proposing here would offer the cine-look for $1000 -- for those who want it.
Of course, I might be completely off the mark with this comment just because RED might be preparing a pocket camcorder with more capabilities in the price range of $5000. But even if they do so, maybe a "lite" 720p product as I suggested above could fill a niche if it was to be produced. The individual bits of technology for my idea already exists, it's just that everyone is afraid of failure I guess because it's not a traditional product with traditional set of features (in fact, Sony did fail with their equivalent digicam).
Opinions?
