IBC '09? There's a new Canon camera to be announced soon (Canon source)

[Meryem Ersoz]

It could equally suggest they realize they have shot their "video" camera division in the foot, so best to cut their losses and shut it down....

their video camera division has never been a substantial part of their overall earnings picture. compared to their stills division revenue, it is a drop in the bucket. so this may very well be the case. the 5DMII/7D shift may be just the excuse that they need...

if they can re-package video to their stills consumer base (already done, to some extent), then they probably can drop their video camera line without any impact to their bottom line. sell more cameras cheaper, that sounds like a familiar business model. more hybrid camera sales = more lens sales - that is where they make their money...

 

[Tom Lowe]

It could equally suggest they realize they have shot their "video" camera division in the foot, so best to cut their losses and shut it down....

... just saying.... this is all just speculation.

Well, they didn't have much a foot left even to shoot. Their prosumer "cine" line has been a joke for years. I think, though, that they finally may have woken up. We'll see.

For us consumers, it's actually great if a big war breaks out between Red and Canon. Let's face it -- it took the space race with the Soviets to prompt NASA to get a man on the moon in less than a decade.

 

[Pierre Gresil]

RED Army failed ???

RED Army failed ???

"it took the space race with the Soviets to prompt NASA to get a man on the moon in less than a decade...."

You say that because the RED Army failed with underpowered technologies ??? :eek6::eek6::eek6:

 

[Stefan Christou]

"it took the space race with the Soviets to prompt NASA to get a man on the moon in less than a decade...."

You say that because the RED Army failed with underpowered technologies ??? :eek6::eek6::eek6:

What?

 

[Chris Pickle]

I'll always have a soft spot for the Canon GL1. That was an amazing camera. It had an amazing piece of glass and it was ahead of all others with it's frame mode (even though it was 30). Remember, it was out way before the DVX. Had the GL1 embraced 24p in their frame mode, the pany would not have been the big hit it was. I had the first model, and I stuck a Beechtek on the bottom of it and recorded XLR inputs.

Chris

 

[Nova Invicta]

Red may have changed the game (actually the game was already changing when Lucas filmed Star Wars in HD) and its certainly got everyone from Arri, Panavision, Sony, Panasonic, Canon et al. focused on technology change but as I have stated elsewhere whether its technology from Red, Canon, Arri the public pay to watch content they dont give a flying fig what it was shot on. For those professionally in the field digital has brought as many problems as it has brought benefits its certainly not a panacea.

The first company to bring a modular approach to filmmaking was in fact Panavision with the very first Panaflex so the notion somehow Red invented this is nonsense, Red have certainly brought innovation to the market and I agree with Jim when we look back Red One will be a landmark camera that tipped the balance. What many people here however fail to see or concern themselves with is its good to see competition between manufacturers it gives us choices, it reduces prices, promotes innovation, it stops the Microsoft effect, and keeps a good balance between supplier & customer.

However open standards are also important thats why 35mm & 16mm film survived so long locked manufacturers codecs are irksome and there is at least one new company trying to dismantle that and its not Red, Canon, Arri, Sony, Panasonic et al. but a brand new company.

 

[Michael Vera]

To me (and this has already been touched on), I think in the end it's all about the end game.

I was looking through the forum the other day (old threads), and I read a post from Jim where he basically said he will do everything he can to try to satisfy the true RED fanboys/Redheads. This is, in effect, the primary difference that diffrentiates RED from big companies like Canon.

When Red first started it could have been a secretive project to produce a high performance camera, to compete toe to toe with these cameras, offering more features (such as Redcode). But in the End Jim, Graeme, Jarred and everyone at RED are not in the business of profiteering. They are not releasing simply adequate products and waiting for another company to come out to supply the motivation to improve.

I currently own a Canon t1i and can tell you canon is in the business of makin money, over producing products that blow away thier consumer base. Why else would they market the T1i as shooting 1080p when in reality, it captures a almost unusable 1080p @20fps (appears like a really nice fast moving slideshow). This kinda stuff makes me shake my head.

To me Red is a breath of fresh air. Not out to "make a buck", but to tailor make high performance cameras; not to the advertisement stickers that they put on the box to sell, but to filmakers ACTUAL needs, and oh ya hyper-affordable pricing, all things considered.

THAT's why I am a fan of Red, it goes far beyond the product line.

 

[Charles Angus]

However open standards are also important thats why 35mm & 16mm film survived so long locked manufacturers codecs are irksome and there is at least one new company trying to dismantle that and its not Red, Canon, Arri, Sony, Panasonic et al. but a brand new company.

To what company are you referring? The DII apparently records cinema DNG.

There is some unsubstantiated talk that the new Arri cam will, too.

And there are hardware solutions for recording 10-bit DPX out of cams like the F-35 and D-21. DPX is certainly a standard.

 

[M Most]

But in the End Jim, Graeme, Jarred and everyone at RED are not in the business of profiteering....canon is in the business of makin money...
To me Red is a breath of fresh air. Not out to "make a buck"...

I know what you're saying, but I really wish sometimes people would get a grip. If you think that Red isn't in the business of making money, then you don't understand the purpose of a business. I guarantee you that Jim does.

Now, within that there is certainly a lot of room to structure a business to be more (or less) customer friendly, and to be more (or less) adventurous in terms of R&D, and to be more (or less) innovative. But don't ever mistake this for something other than good business practice. The business of business is making money, whether you're selling cameras, sunglasses, or anything else. You don't become as financially successful as Jim Jannard by simply being a nice guy.

 

[David Rasberry]

I'll always have a soft spot for the Canon GL1. That was an amazing camera. It had an amazing piece of glass and it was ahead of all others with it's frame mode (even though it was 30). Remember, it was out way before the DVX. Had the GL1 embraced 24p in their frame mode, the pany would not have been the big hit it was. I had the first model, and I stuck a Beechtek on the bottom of it and recorded XLR inputs.

Chris

Ditto the GL2. Great camera for the money. I bought mine because of the lens quality and color rendition. Compared to true pro products it is a bit on the delicate side, but this is true of the consumer still cams from Canon and Nikon too. Never used the frame mode as it loses resolution compared with the normal interlaced mode and I was always finishing to NTSC standard video anyway.

 

[Michael Vera]

I know what you're saying, but I really wish sometimes people would get a grip. If you think that Red isn't in the business of making money, then you don't understand the purpose of a business. I guarantee you that Jim does.

Now, within that there is certainly a lot of room to structure a business to be more (or less) customer friendly, and to be more (or less) adventurous in terms of R&D, and to be more (or less) innovative. But don't ever mistake this for something other than good business practice. The business of business is making money, whether you're selling cameras, sunglasses, or anything else. You don't become as financially successful as Jim Jannard by simply being a nice guy.

I completely agree. However I did not say RED was not in "the business of making money" , I mentioned I don't feel they is in the business of "profiteering". To me there is a distinct difference. (which I may have caused confusion by using the term "making money" in the end of that sentence)

When you let the number of units you can hawk off to people be your sole motivation (i.e. How can we barely squeeze in the absolute minimum ability to shoot 1080p (T1i), so that we can label it as FULL HD and get a lot of normal uneducated consumers buy into it ), then the product itself will suffer. And motivation to improve will ONLY come when there is a threat of impact on sales.

I was never trying to say that Jim spends the majority of his time passing sunglasses and cameras out at orphanages lol, but what I was saying is that IMHO RED focuses on how to put the best quality products together and price them below the competition. When in reality their feature set far surpasses the competition.

Will they/do they make money? absolutely! but they haven't let "# of sales", cause them to rush certain features, or mis-represent their products in an attempt to simply "make a buck" at the expense of their consumer base, like I mentioned.

 

[M Most]

...they haven't let "# of sales", cause them to rush certain features, or mis-represent their products in an attempt to simply "make a buck" at the expense of their consumer base like I mentioned.

Once again, I see your point. But product feature "misrepresentation" often occurs at the consumer level, not always at the manufacturer level. For instance, Canon (since we're talking about Canon here) designed the 5D MkII to suit the specifications of the Associated Press, who asked them to put "some" video capabilities into a digital SLR. But once it showed up, people here and elsewhere were looking at it as some kind of Digital Cinema device and complaining about things like the lack of 24P capability - even though Canon never designed it for that market and never intended it to be used for that purpose. So misrepresentation works both ways.

 

[Michael Vera]

Once again, I see your point. But product feature "misrepresentation" often occurs at the consumer level, not always at the manufacturer level. For instance, Canon (since we're talking about Canon here) designed the 5D MkII to suit the specifications of the Associated Press, who asked them to put "some" video capabilities into a digital SLR. But once it showed up, people here and elsewhere were looking at it as some kind of Digital Cinema device and complaining about things like the lack of 24P capability - even though Canon never designed it for that market and never intended it to be used for that purpose. So misrepresentation works both ways.

Well what do you think of the specific example I mentioned?

I realize the T1i is a Rebel so it is already cheaper, and is not meant to be a Digital Cinema Camera. That being said Canon is the one that puts the "Full 1080" label on their boxes, and ships them to the distributors. Don't you think that crippling it at 20FPS at this advertised FULL 1080 is a bit of a misrepresentation? There are NO situations where 20FPS is preferable, its not even a standard of any kind, and in many cases is borderline unusable...

They don't market the T1i as a camera capable of capturing video the likes of which you will see in many feature films, but by marketing a camera as "FULL 1080" they are at least alluding to the fact that the camera can capture some usable form of 1080p footage. which it really suffers terrible with any sort of panning or motion at 20FPS...

Its widely accepted by a lot of the disgruntled canon users, that this was done to get a "head up" on Nikon who released the D5000 which maxed out at 720p capture. By slapping a Full 1080 capture on the box, it somehow makes the canon look better than the Nikon. When in actuality is pure marketing from Canon.

Its also not just some little feature that they do, Canon advertises the Video aspect of their cameras quite heavily now.

And for reference, I do like canon products, I'm not bashing the company. But I am just acknowledging the differences that makes me prefer one over the other....

These are the kind of silly things that I don't see happening with RED. Maybe I'm wrong tho....

 

[Jay Voutour]

There are NO situations where 20FPS is preferable...

Except for old people fight scenes (a la Jackie Chan, who, IIRC, likes them to use 21-22fps). :001_tongue:

 

[M Most]

I realize the T1i is a Rebel so it is already cheaper, and is not meant to be a Digital Cinema Camera. That being said Canon is the one that puts the "Full 1080" label on their boxes, and ships them to the distributors. Don't you think that crippling it at 20FPS at this advertised FULL 1080 is a bit of a misrepresentation?...
These are the kind of silly things that I don't see happening with RED. Maybe I'm wrong tho....

Well, Red from the beginning has called the Red One a "4K camera," and justifies this by saying that what they mean is that there's a sensor with over 4000 pixels horizontally. But the fact is that the industry has always defined the resolution of a camera as the resolution of the image it produces, not how many pixels are on the sensor, especially in a single chip design. And the resolution of the image the Red One produces, by Graeme's own figures, is not 4K. So while Red might consider it a 4K camera, they're using their own definition of "4K camera" to justify that. Now, in the case of Canon, they're likely calling it "Full 1080" because in their mind, it's not 720 interpolated to 1080, but it's an actual 1920x1080 image. They don't mention the frame rate. So while the industry might assume that "Full 1080" means not only a frame size of 1920x1080 but a frame rate that is at the very least some accepted, recordable, usable format, Canon has redefined the meaning of the term for its own purposes. Just like Red did.

The moral of the story is that it's silly to blame companies for misleading marketing, because it's done all the time at all levels by all companies, intentionally or unintentionally, depending on your point of view.

 

[Steven Caesare]

I think Michael Vera's use of the term "profiteering" was one that implies that RED is not looking to make money at the "expense" of the customer in ways other companies may.

There certainly is a different philosphical approach to product design, feature set, customer communication, pricing, etc... between RED and just about everybody else (which for this discussion seems to mean Canon).

Does Jim & Co. recgonize the need to build a sustainable profitabale business? Yes... even billionaires can finance multi-billion callar hobbies for only so long.

Does RED hope to make a handsome profit above and beyond just continuing to exist? I hope so. That way we'll be able to watch what happens wehn Jim decides to bankroll a flying car company 15 years from now.

However, from what Jim has relayed, he started RED when he couldn't get the camera he wanted from anybody else, and was frusterated in the way features were rolled out by existing companies. So the cameras are first and foremost for HIM.

It just so happens, that Jim believes that the methodology of building a "push the envelope" product at a reasonable price, and at the same time embracing a "give the customer all that we reasonably can" (free software upgrades, new features, full trade-in value, money back deposits + interest, etc...) will work as way to differentiate his product and company.

It seems to have worked so far... and built an almost rabid customer base along the way. And we have benefited, all the way from previously-unobtainable capabilty at an unheard of price, all the way to being able to interact directly with the very founders of the company to provide feedback regarding what would make the product more useful to us.

Meanwhile, it seems like the big boys tend to build and reease products with obsolesence in mind, or at least with the intent of protecting it's own product line.

Michael's T1i can do 1080 at 20fps, but when dropping to 720 Canon opted to not allow 24fps. Guess what? The new 7D can do 24p. Does anybody think that's not just a firmware issue? Did Canon give any inidcation of the 7D when the 5 series video capability was being discussed?

It boils down to differing approaches to building a successful business. I prefer Jim's.

-sc

 

[Steven Caesare]

... But the fact is that the industry has always defined the resolution of a camera as the resolution of the image it produces, not how many pixels are on the sensor, especially in a single chip design...

Can you give an example of another camera company that advertises it's camera at effective image resolution rather than sensor resolution or frame pixel count?

Thanks.

-sc

 

[M Most]

Can you give an example of another camera company that advertises it's camera at effective image resolution rather than sensor resolution or frame pixel count?

Yes. Sony and Panavision with the F35 and Genesis (both have 5.7K sensors, but are advertised as HD resolution cameras, which is what they output), and Arri (whose D21 has a 3K Bayer sensor, but is advertised as a 2K camera). Not to mention Thomson/Grass Valley with the Viper, which has three 9 megapixel chips (the pixel equivalent of 12 times HD resolution) but is advertised as an HD camera.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Interesting that those cams downscale and don't even give you the native frame if you want it?

Certainly different approaches.

-sc

 

[M Most]

The new 7D can do 24p. Does anybody think that's not just a firmware issue?

Yes, I do. It's a firmware issue, a hardware issue, and a legal issue (there are international tariff laws that relate to these sort of things, believe it or not).

People here seem to think that I'm arguing something. I'm not arguing anything other than to leave personal emotions out of logical conclusions about business. Red != All Good, and Canon != All Bad. They may operate differently, but they're also vastly different in terms of size, product differentiation, the markets they serve, the degree of personalized customer relations they're capable of, and the countries they exist in. But they're both businesses, with the ultimate intent of that being to make good products that they can sell and make money. That's really all there is to it.