What did I always say about digital stills cameras?

[Daniel Smith]

Ok fine so we don't know yet what this thing is like, we only have numbers, but it looks promising.

 

A friend of mine has seen test footage and it looks amazing apparently.

 

http://www.casio.co.uk/News/Cameras/Casio%...gital%20Camera/

 

Video cameras suck.

 

 

I've heard they are also going to market it as a video camera, so it avoids the European trade charges for stills cameras. To bring the price down even further.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Daniel Smith]

Some vids:

 

http://world.casio.com/ngdc/en/features3.html

 

 

Apparently it shoots 60fps at the full 6 megapixels. But I've heard it's only 2-3 seconds bursts at that rate. Which sucks...

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Chris Keth]

It's not the ability of the camera itself that is limiting right now. It's the ability to save data fast enough, which is why you can only do bursts.

[Daniel Smith]

The clips on the web site are pretty long, and that's at 300fps. I just hope there's way you can knock it down to 25fps or whatever and shoot at HD quality. That should give a lot longer bursts.

 

Out of choice I probably wouldn't shoot at the full 6 megapixels anyway. And I have very little use for 300fps.

 

 

 

But either way you gotta admit, pretty impressive for a cheap stills camera!

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Douglas Sunlin]

Will they take a Canon Rebel EOS in trade? :)

[Hal Smith]

Demo movie here:

 

http://world.casio.com/ngdc/en/mov_concept.html

[Chris Walters]

That is some camera! Is that available in the US yet? whats the price range. I might want to get my hands on that thing. The high speed stuff looked amazing!

[K Borowski]

It could be 1,000 megapixels and still not interest me because of the brassy skin tones, crushed dynamic range, terrible overexposure latitude and flat colors.

[Chad Stockfleth]

what if it was a million and the skin tones were bronzy?

[K Borowski]

what if it was a million and the skin tones were bronzy?

 

Cute. . . .

 

Any serious reflections, or just less-than-serious ones? I work with this stuff every day, and every day someone tells me that their 5-MP something can out-resolve my 6x7 cm Mamiya RB because it doesn't have grain (incidentally, an RB has approximately 11x the res of 35mm anamorphic or academy). Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D. Forgive me for still being skeptical of people touting consumer cameras over tried and true professional cameras with over a century of development behind them, coupled with over 11 decades of film emulsion advancement.

 

Getting even more down to basics, you could give a Panavision 65mm with a spy satellite lens to a 10-YO and he'd still probably not be able to make a movie. Why is it that that same 10-YO, armed with this aforementioned technology is suddenly a consumate artist with the experience necssary to top a 40-YO cinematographer who has ate, slept and dreampt movies all of his professional life?

 

It is, after all, the eyes behind the lens that tell the story, not the technolgy between that lens and that set of eyes.

[klas persson]

Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D.

Who said that?

[Daniel Smith]

It is, after all, the eyes behind the lens that tell the story, not the technolgy between that lens and that set of eyes.

I think it's not a case of one or another. It's a mixture of everything.

 

It's like how people go on about these new super HD cameras not giving any advantage, if you shoot crap all you will get is high resolution crap. But I don't think Star Wars would have been the same on 8mm or 16mm...

 

 

But come on, < $500 of stills digital camera that can pull that off... it's insane.

[Simon Miya]

Now someone is telling me that some $400 (L/180) digital camera shoots better movies than a $3/4 of a million Panavision with Vision2 50D.

 

 

Who said that?

 

Nobody said that.

 

And nobody is going to say that any Panaflex is capable of shooting 300 fps, because they aren't. The high-speed capabilities of the Casio is the whole point of this thread, after all. I think someone missed the point.

[darrin p nim]

It could be 1,000 megapixels and still not interest me because of the brassy skin tones, crushed dynamic range, terrible overexposure latitude and flat colors.

 

i hope your not judging it from that flash video. although i do know what your saying, alot of these highspeed HD cameras use the same technology, including the cmos sensor, ive shot on a Redlake Highspeed HD camera and it has the same "pre-shot" or in my case pre-trigger option aswell as the image quality. Because of the sensor has to perform at highspeeds the dynamic range is crushed in order to operate at such fast frame rates. Sometimes the resolution just cant make up for the loss of image quality. Its interesting that the technology has made it into a standalone DSLR body.