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 :)

The true definition of Video vs. Raw

Michael Brennan said:
To differentiate RED, F35 from the rest how about electronic large format camera. ELF

Unambiguous and descriptive without a marketing bent.
Click to expand...

How about something to distinguish it from cameras that have a reflex mirror shutter, like the D-21? Or what about cameras that have a large format but have fixed lenses instead of interchangeable lenses? We could handle those scenarios with only a small change to your acronym:

Mirrorless Interchangable Large Format
 
Michael Brennan said:
...
Go back to basics.
Arri 435 = film camera
Sony, Panasonic, RED, Alexa = electronic camera.

To differentiate RED, F35 from the rest how about electronic large format camera. ELF

Unambiguous and descriptive without a marketing bent.

Mike Brennan
Click to expand...

Except that electronic cameras preceded digital cameras, didn't they? Tubes and all that stuff... :reddevil:
 
And tubes and pixels on CCD and CMOS are all analogue devices. It's only when the signal hits the atod that it gets made digital.

While film cameras are still in use, RED will be a digital cinema camera. When film has declined enough, I'm sure people will just call RED a cinema camera. Or perhaps when people realize it's not the analogue or the digital or the photochemical that makes the difference any more, but the skill and talent of the team making the movie we can them cinema cameras.

Graeme
 
In mid-2005 I first heard directly from Jim about his dream for Red. In mid-December 2005 I was an invited attendee to the Red Summit meeting held at Oakley Headquarters in which we had an all day think tank about what this new Red camera should be. I sat at a big table between Jim and Graeme and gave my input. A bunch of other guys were there, but I can't tell you who (NDA). I then wrote all the early magazine articles (Studio Monthly, etc.) about the emerging Red One camera. So, I have a very good handle on what Red One is, how it came to be, and what it was designed to be used for.

Though I started learning still photography way back in 1969, and learned cine style work on film cameras in the '70's, the core of my professional work in the '80's and '90's was mobile EFP (electronic field production) work - broadcast network TV, cable network TV, and high-end business productions. From 2000 to now my work has been mostly EFP, but also a large amount of DSLR stills work.

I believe Red chose the term "digital cinema camera" in 2005 to differentiate their the new camera's niche and primary usage from the scores of EFP cameras and film cameras in use in the motion media industry at that time. I also believe they chose to go with raw files and CMOS sensors because the then-proliferating DSLR market and technology featured some capabilities that went way beyond the usual RGB used in EFP camera systems.

If we closely analyze the original source of the basic technology used in Red One, and now probably Epic and Scarlet, I'd estimate that the largest percentage of that basic technology had its original inception in the DSLR industry, followed by a significant amount of technology originating in the EFP/ENG camera industry, and only a faint amount of technology that originated in the film industry. Red has analyzed those basic technologies, brainstormed some extensive improvements and innovations, and then hatched their own cameras. They didn't re-invent the wheel - they smartly analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the existing "wheels", then set out to create some much more capable "wheels" - thus Red One, Epic, Scarlet, and the future Red cameras beyond those. Beyond the technology advances Red has made though - IMO the inner core strength of Red cameras is Redcode.

Red One was called by Red a "digital cinema camera" - but based on its technology mix and features, it was also designed to be used widely in the EFP production industry. Epic and Scarlet take that evolution to the next level - they're digital cinema cameras which feature even more EFP-friendly features than Red One, and also have the ability to be used widely in the still photography industry.

I've never said with Red One that I "filmed" something. Where does the film load into a Red One camera? I've always said I was out "shooting" or "documenting" with Red one - because all of my work with Red One has been in the EFP style genres of production, and though I'm a 30+ year industry veteran I'm not hung up on being a traditionalist in my work descriptions.

The DSLR market is by far the largest market in the professional imaging industry. The next largest market is the EFP market, of which mobile EFP is the largest segment of that. The smallest market of the imaging industry (and of the overall motion media industry) is the cinema industry. But the cinema industry is very high profile and prestigious - thus its a good idea in marketing terms to connect products to it.

Like I've been saying since 2005, here and elsewhere - Red One may be called a "digital cinema camera" by name, but beyond its cinema usage it is also used widely in a broad array of EFP genres of production. With Epic and Scarlet being even smaller,and having even more EFP and stills friendly features, they will undoubtedly be used in a multitude of styles and industries that are not "cinema".

Red chose to term Epic and Scarlet as DSMC - digital stills and motion cameras. If I was naming those cameras, I would have probably named them MSC - "motion and stills cameras". In my mind the term digital is simply assumed at this point, and "motion and stills" encompasses all the motion media uses of the camera (cine style and EFP style), and then also addresses the camera's still photo capabilities.

Do I love shooting raw? Obviously I do, for both motion or stills. For quicker turnaround EFP work though, it will be real nice to have an option of going to RGB with these new cameras. In my mind, for the EFP and stills work I do, Epic and Scarlet will be ideal cameras. Someone who shoots exclusively cinema can lens and accessorize those same cameras for what they do, and simply stick with raw all the time. Its about having lots of options...

Lots of industries and styles are colliding and collaborating with these newest cameras from Red. Regardless of whether you choose to "film", "shoot", or "document" with them, the fact remains that these cameras can morph into what you need that day. They're modular, scalable, and highly utilitarian.

With new tools like this, its a great time to be working in the motion media and stills industries. :thumbsup:
 
Michael Totten said:
I suppose you could say something like: "we're shooting a (commercial/television show/music video) on this here Red 1, which is a movie camera".

Earlier in this thread someone wrote that the SMPTE created a new standard called "motion digital" which both Red and Alexa are part of (and that they were not video cameras)... but I couldn't find anything on their site. Does anyone know anything else about this claim?

I rather like the term digital motion camera, or motion digital ect...
It's accurate, inclusive, doesn't have any baggage and sounds professional.
Click to expand...

Hi Michael

Sorry for the confusion. My link to SMPTE was simply to say that the SMPTE standard for video includes a whole bunch of stuff that a Red or Alexa do not do - peak-to-peak voltage, carrier signals, synch pulses etc. This is proof positive that these are not video cameras. Anyone says a Red is a video camera I tell to record 30 seconds of bars and tone at the start of the roll ...

I have no idea if there is a SMPTE standard for motion digital as it applies to cameras like these and I kind of hope there is nothing anytime soon. Those sorts of things tend to stifle progress IMHO. Imagine Graeme coming up with some new form of genius, only to be told by the BBC etc that the new pictures are illegal because they're outside the SMPTE specs. How would the standard deal with HDRx for instance? NO. Please no.

The reason, by the way, I rail so strongly against anyone calling Red a video camera is that I find it so insulting. Video cameras NEVER looked like this and the "video" term is another way for people to denigrate the format and resist the progress these cameras represent. I love film and I've always hated video pictures. Motion digital I love also.
 
Well the original question was regarding the difference between video and raw.
Video records images from camera as complete defined color pixels, raw records the individual photosite data and defines color pixels that make up the final image in separate meta data applied afterward.
 
David Rasberry said:
Well the original question was regarding the difference between video and raw.
...
Click to expand...

That's true - it was pretty easy to get sidetracked here. In truth, though, the original question is a bit like comparing squirrels with tomatoes; not at all sure they are in the same genus. :rolleyes:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That's true - it was pretty easy to get sidetracked here. In truth, though, the original question is a bit like comparing squirrels with tomatoes; not at all sure they are in the same genus. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Squirrels and tomatoes?
Really???
You're joking right?
 
Video v's RAW

Video v's RAW

My view is the original question is a loaded one and should be ignored.

Redefine to:

Q: What is a RED ONE ? A: It is a Digital Cinema Camera.

Q: Is that a video camera? A: No, a Digital Cinema Camera goes way beyond traditional video technologies; for example it captures sensor RAW data at resolutions much higher than HD, with a very wide color space and dynamic range.....


Gibby is correct with his explanation that "cinema" should not limit your thinking to 24 fps capture frame rate, but instead the word "cinema" clues you in to the cinematic quality of the images such a camera captures - irrespective of the final delivery format.
 
Stuart English said:
My view is the original question is a loaded one and should be ignored.

Redefine to:

Q: What is a RED ONE ? A: It is a Digital Cinema Camera.

Q: Is that a video camera? A: No, a Digital Cinema Camera goes way beyond traditional video technologies; for example it captures sensor RAW data at resolutions much higher than HD, with a very wide color space and dynamic range.....


Gibby is correct with his explanation that "cinema" should not limit your thinking to 24 fps capture frame rate, but instead the word "cinema" clues you in to the cinematic quality of the images such a camera captures - irrespective of the final delivery format.
Click to expand...

Apparently I wasn't very clear in my original post... because most people (including you Stuart) are making the exact point that I've been trying to make since the first post.

That is - there's a difference between "VIDEO" and cameras like Red or Alexa.

All I'm trying to do is get people to comment on their thoughts on the subject.

Shane Betts may have summed up my feelings on the matter perfectly when he wrote: "The reason, by the way, I rail so strongly against anyone calling Red a video camera is that I find it so insulting. Video cameras NEVER looked like this and the "video" term is another way for people to denigrate the format and resist the progress these cameras represent. I love film and I've always hated video pictures. Motion digital I love also."

I couldn't agree more... referring to Red/Alexa as "Video" confuses people and casts a nasty/ inaccurate light....

Stuart, I think your response to my post is evidence that you do not actually think it should ignored. You're only reiterating what I intended to communicate precisely.
Why would you think what I wrote was "loaded" ?
 
Michael Totten said:
Squirrels and tomatoes?
Really???
You're joking right?
Click to expand...

"Apples and oranges" didn't seem to have enough contrast. :001_rolleyes:

EDIT: The term "video" obviously carries a lot of baggage with it and there does not seem to be one definition that everyone agrees on anyway. My point is that they original question really lacked any kind of an "either/or" direction; it simply wasn't a clear choice to be on one side of the argument or the other. Great for stimulating discussion but not so good for finding a conclusion.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
"Apples and oranges" didn't seem to have enough contrast. :001_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you're right - apples and oranges is a bit missionary... squirrels and tomatoes is better:beer:

Edit: I thought I was clear? I want to know the difference between video and Red, but I'm starting to gather there is no clear answer.
 
I've made up my mind on this after some minor research, Red one is a video camera along with epic, alexa F35 all of them.
I don't care that "Video" is considered a negative to some people, "Liberal" is also considered a negative to some people, that doesn't mean they aren't digital cinema cameras as well though it just sounds cooler to say kinda like "Graphic novel" instead of "Comic book".
 
RAW , Video, Cinema

RAW , Video, Cinema

My point is that they original question really lacked any kind of an "either/or" direction; it simply wasn't a clear choice to be on one side of the argument or the other. Great for stimulating discussion but not so good for finding a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's easy to get trapped into a false construct, happens all the time in politics of course.

" RAW is an electronic technology, video is an electronic technology. So why is RAW not Video? Your comment please "

Who cares? Isn't the issue how do you communicate the difference between a cinematic quality image capture provided by RED cameras that have DP's and Producers looking at it on a 40 ft screen with smiles on their faces v's looking at an image on the same screen that gives a passable impression of a glorified and highly magnified television set ?

That's why I suggest re-phrasing the original question. "Cinema" and "Video" describe those two different experiences.
 
I think VIDEO means 'I SEE' in Latin and has nothing to do with all the technical aspects.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
I've made up my mind on this after some minor research, Red one is a video camera along with epic, alexa F35 all of them.
I don't care that "Video" is considered a negative to some people, "Liberal" is also considered a negative to some people, that doesn't mean they aren't digital cinema cameras as well though it just sounds cooler to say kinda like "Graphic novel" instead of "Comic book".
Click to expand...

Yes. All valid points. The RedOne is a video camera. Now I feel cheap.

Hans
 
Erwin Vanderhoydonks said:
I think VIDEO means 'I SEE' in Latin and has nothing to do with all the technical aspects.
Click to expand...

And the word sophisticated, accepted to mean someone elegant, worldly, comes from the Greek word (I believe) sophistic, which means to appear to be something it's not. Specious, fallacious. So video cameras are quite sophisticated machines designed to see the world.

Anyone calls Red a video camera within reach of this grumpy old SoB gets a slap upside the head! :boxing_smiley:
 
http://eudict.com/?lang=lateng&word=video videre vidi visum

"Raw" is type of data.
"Motion pictures" can be made on different mediums.
"Movie" is one of many possible products.
"Cinema" associates with venues.

I may be shooting on "Digital Cinema Camera", but any of the suggested terms for what is shot on that camera are partial, hence inadequate.

10 years from now folks won't worry about VHS associations.
Original Latin term works just fine. It has been defined well before SMPTE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top