Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

In development...

Brandon said:
does shake reduction mean image stabilization?
Click to expand...

Ah -- it appears that in the DSLR marketplace, everyone uses different terms: "Image Stabilization" (Canon), "Vibration Reduction" (Nikon) and "Shake Reduction" (Pentax).

But yes: some variety of image stabilization that's camera body- (not lens-) based, please!

:love:
 
Are you going into the CMOS sensor fabrication?
 
ygo said:
Are you going into the CMOS sensor fabrication?
Click to expand...

Not likely, getting into the CMOS fabrication industry is a multi-billion dollar upfront investment and also requires billions of dollars in annual machinery upgrades to maintain the latest fabrication technology.

I'd be surprised if RED has any real interest in going this direction given that their production levels are relatively small for a major Asian CMOS fab plant to handle.
 
Stephen Williams said:
It's not a pain just very easy just me and the director. I will probably shoot 400 feet in 2 days, so there is no saving using a RED either.
Click to expand...

I think he meant shooting uncompressed digital is a pain, just because you need so much hard disk space. You make a good point, but on the other hand you can't see your footage after you shoot it, it must go to a lab to be developed and printed and so on. For 400 feet over 2 days the cost of the camera rental is probably your biggest expense, but if you were shooting a large amount of footage the economics start to change...but you know this already, of course.

Also, bear in mind that not all compression is lossy, ie you are not necessarily throwing away information. "*****************" can also be expressed as "*x17" which requires only 1/4 of the space to store but provides enough information to reconstruct the original sequence perfectly. For obvious reasons, when a piece of software is compressed for delivery a non-lossy method is used. But even lossy methods can be surprisingly faithful to the source material. It's not as simple as 'compression = compromise'.
 
roxics said:
There are shoestring filmmakers like myself who can only afford something like the D90 or perhaps the Scarlet (whatever its final price would be). We're willing to make sacrifices on some things like resolution, variable frame rates, so long as we get a camera with inexpensive lenses and the manual controls of a true DSLR even when shooting digital motion pictures.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm so excited about the Scarlet, while understanding it will cost quite a bit more than a D90; I know that for such n investment I'll be getting something Very Good Indeed and have a meaningful upgrade path from there - which isn't the case with some good-but-limited products from other manufacturers at a similar price point.

Meantime, I too am looking closely at a DSLR-with-video. Sure, it has limitations and I know it's going to involve quite a bit of workaround...but the price matters. As pointed out above, the D90 is $1300 with a lens and involves compromises, but for that price you get quite nice 720p video with great DoF and very good light sensitivity. This is less than you'd pay for a DVX-100 or about the same as a Canon XL-1. To me the compromises involved are acceptable. I would get a better image and ergonomics from a HVX-200, but the sale price of the Nikon is about the same as 2 weeks rental for the HVX, and I get a free high-quality still camera :sarcasm:
 
Am i reading this correct?

Am i reading this correct?

Jannard said:
Scarlet has been talked about extensively. It is a 3K, 120fps camera with a built-in 8X zoom that starts at 28mm (full frame still 35mm) wide angle. The T-stop will be "at least" as published.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just drunk on excitment and my reading comprehension skills have been compromised due to intoxication, but are you saying that our whining has paid off? have you again done even what you said was "imposible" and will be giving us "The" Scarlet we have been crying for?

-3k Scarlet
-full frame 35mm
-120fps

If Im correct im very pleased with the exception of the fixed lens although assuming that if you are able to do it fixed that you will also be giving us a PL version.

I'm sure you realize that if you give us Pro D.S./operators this Brain at price most people can afford $5000 - $7000 that you will be putting a camera in the hands of pros that will truly be a Pro Cinema replacement for 35mm cameras making it a situation where I as a D.P. will also become the rental house. This is huge!!! The following may sound out of the blue but If you do this I am going to commit right now that i will give 1/2 of the rental fees i make with my camera to Children's cancer research. I know that sounds a little out of left field but if you visit my sons Blog... http://fynstec.blogspot.com/ you will understand why it's my responsibility to give back to so childhood cancer is no more. I look for any ways possible to give back and this would be a great one.
 
Paul Stec said:
Maybe I'm just drunk on excitment and my reading comprehension skills have been compromised due to intoxication, but are you saying that our whining has paid off? have you again done even what you said was "imposible" and will be giving us "The" Scarlet we have been crying for?

-3k Scarlet
-full frame 35mm
-120fps

If Im correct im very pleased with the exception of the fixed lens although assuming that if you are able to do it fixed that you will also be giving us a PL version.

I'm sure you realize that if you give us Pro D.S./operators this Brain at price most people can afford $5000 - $7000 that you will be putting a camera in the hands of pros that will truly be a Pro Cinema replacement for 35mm cameras making it a situation where I as a D.P. will also become the rental house. This is huge!!! The following may sound out of the blue but If you do this I am going to commit right now that i will give 1/2 of the rental fees i make with my camera to Children's cancer research. I know that sounds a little out of left field but if you visit my sons Blog... http://fynstec.blogspot.com/ you will understand why it's my responsibility to give back to so childhood cancer is no more. I look for any ways possible to give back and this would be a great one.
Click to expand...

You're misreading this, Paul. The crop factor of the sensor lends a 35mm depth of field at 28mm.
 
It's very easy to spot HDV v 35mm projected.
Click to expand...

Hi,
I trust not only what digitalpraxis says, but of course also my eyes when I look at the super talking comparative tests published somewhere in this forum, comparing native s16, native 2k, native s35, native 4k. Please evrybody just look at them if you have not yet. They are quite a definitive answer.

For resolution, all digital and good HDV is comparable to a projected copy-of-the-copy (normal way of doing it, and seeing movies) 35mm: something between 700 and 800 lines.
You my not see much difference between s16 orignated material and s35 originated material just thanks to the fact that what we see is so much worse that what is lost in the process may be comparable to the difference between s16 and s35.
It's like when you compare a digital photo, say, originated with 10MP but reduced to 2MP... with one originated with 4MP: you can reduce this one to 2 MP too, and they are similar, because all the advantage was thrown out of the window.
I'm not saying that we throw away the advantage film has against Red - since I see it's rather Red the one who has the advantage. What I'm saying is that not only Red has an advantage, but film further decrease resolutions between shooting and seen at cinema screen. Leave alone S16. Yes, it's a valuable alternative to 35mm, or maybe we could say s16 could be even better than s35, because it costs 1/4 for about the same final resolution.
Actually it's not like that: I clearly see much less resolution in s16 originated movies, so while the loss in the process is big, It seems to be not as big as x4. At least not always.
I don't know, but why should I care?
We are past from such problems and we enjoy the fact a lot.
Theory's results equal practice's results only if you take into consideration ALL the factors.

If monstro has 13 stops, I can't imagine a single reason for film not to die in movie productions.
Oh, yeah, some one in the industry will of course film has 14 stops, really.
And when monstro-X will have 15 stops, of course some one will walk out of the grave and claim that film has 16 stops really. And when monstro-2X will have 30 stops, some one will inform us from ghost television that film has 31 stops... "really".
They always do that.
Strangely they all agree about films limit in still photography, and the domination of digital photography is accepted by everyone.. it's just in movie industry that, strangely, this old rivalry never ends. I suppose this is because people working with film do not have the proper perception of digital quality. We can undertand: a serious alternative to film was not available until last year. (still, Star wars was not perceived as soft looking if I recall well. Or... never mind. There we were: movies started to become digital)
Hey, film, DIEEEE once forever! Or revolutionize your chemicals. Mmm, please don't, we don't need more chemicals in our rivers and seas, only to get comparable results to todays' generation digital cameras.
 
Tetsuo said:
Hi,

Strangely they all agree about films limit in still photography, and the domination of digital photography is accepted by everyone.. it's just in movie industry that, strangely, this old rivalry never ends.
Click to expand...

Dont worry most of the pro photographers were saying the same about dslr's when they first arrived...We haven't matched film yet... Coming soon at a cinema near you.
 
How do these "rangefinder" cameras cope with different focal lengths of lenses, filters, etc...?
Click to expand...

I guess it would be a nightmare. At every change you would have to adapt to different frames in the viewfinder. Not a big deal for relaxed still photography: But for movies...
And I guess you are fucked if you think to use a zoom.
Let's wait and see how the next Red cameras will implement the electronic solution, something that I think is more comparable to the reflex concept of "same light" then the rangefinder concept of coupling.
I'm very curious. I did not think about this radical solution in a camera for shooting motion and still.
 
It should be the other why. IF film has any edge, it should be in still rather then motion, and in medium (not sure) and large format.
For cost reasons, if battle is already won by digital, that is in motion, since still photography could cope better with costs, unless a lot of film is shot.
There is nothing more pleasant and effective than taking a pentax 645 film miracle with you when you go to the country, lake, seaside, and mountains in the weekend, and shoot just a few rolls. That

global quality is not that easy to meet. In this case, film may well have an edge and is not necessarily put in discussion for a number of reason.
But come on, 35mm motion is waste of a different order, tha is usually justified only with "we have the money", "production pays".. thank you and goodbye to art (at least in a sort of Bresson

sense), culture (think this the way you prefer). How can you not loose the contact when between a story or your brain and the subjects in front of the camera there is a river of frames and money

running away.
How many years has shakespeare worked on a piece?

I think at the movie making process as approached rightly only in cases like Stanley Kubrik or similar - although not necessarily AS obsessive about details for the sake of details themselves -

where film makers really know what they are doing and why, talk less, do not consider themselves creators of anything, and with the extreme humility that should be the only good approach to any art

by any artist, apply with the maximum true (and not just talked about) inspiration, genuinity and possibly knowledge that is possible for a human being.
If it's just for entertainment, It doens't need to be expensive. If it is, I usually looks more like a show off with some other unsaid finalities rather that simply fun.
Building huge fake worlds just to say little and/or mean things... I have no interest in that.
And we can't cope with 10000 new shits every year. If we do, we are idiots.
I don't know if digital will also give some power to others than the usual special idiots, or if it will empower more idiots instead. Because, we, the idiots who want to do something, are hundreds of thousands at least.
A very dangerous time for art.
 
Film and Digital are not equivalent mediums

Film and Digital are not equivalent mediums

Digital is a better option for most indie players who are working under budgetary restrictions. Film is still more appealing to many major motion picture producers, directors, and DPs. Film handles over exposure differently than digital does, has higher dynamic range, random texture, and a greater color gradation etc. We've heard that too. With so many proclaiming films death, whilst yearning for its look, the question that comes to my mind is: why do we care? They will never be "the same." Digital will most likely supplant film at some point, but it wont be it. Digital need not become a simulation film in order for it to be a success.
Well got to go, I will finish this later.

John
 
jepn30 said:
Digital is a better option for most indie players who are working under budgetary restrictions. Film is still more appealing to many major motion picture producers, directors, and DPs. Film handles over exposure differently than digital does..
Click to expand...

God how I wish I could blow-out digital like film.
 
hello all! my 1st post. i just wanted to stick this thought in really quick. i own the very first jvc evireo with a hard disk drive. a while a go i thought that that thing was the -bomb!-then a gain it it seemed great because the pics and videos looked -good- on my tv i heard of RAW pictures but i didn't think it could work for video. i do most of the commercials for my school now i moved an found a great deal on an HD tv now the cameras videos look like over compressed turds. no i planned on buying the everio HD W/ 1080p because it was hd and i could afford it.but one day i got bored and i just randomly googled raw 1080p video camera and the first like 35 hits were RED and i thought to my self "what does aids in africa have to do with a camera" so i kept typing different things and finally i decided to just click on red.com and i spent literaly the entire night looking/drooling at the world's greatest geek porn, i was just so lost in this awesome wonderland that i've been dreaming of and when i saw the resolution/price- my jaw did not drop at all.
it broke off and bounced out the window. then i read the scarlet. 3k raw for the same price as that poopy everio! no! my b-day is february 6th and if you guys at RED can make the 2/3 scarled by that time. SCREW CHRISTMAS i'll save up all my money and garage sale y todo tambien and order that camera and the second it gets to my house my little house in florida i'll grab my macbook and my tripod and stand oon the tallest hill i can walk to and scream at the top of my lungs
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO:matrix:
 
another question. any chance on bigger drives?
 
lol well either way i still learn from you guys talking because i plan to become a film maker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top