New RED Dec. 3 Announcement

[John Sprung]

David, I sincerely hope that your quote does not fall into the category of IBM's T. J. Watson's .....

I have to agree with David on this one. Serious professionals in both motion and still work won't want a "Swiss Army" camera. It could happen at the consumer level, which, of course, is where the volume is.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Kenny]

Convergence is great for consumer devices; I've got an iPod and a smartphone, so why not combine them in an iPhone and get both at the same time? I can stick just one device in my pocket that does everything. But I don't want my professional gear to do everything- I want it be completely specialized to what I need it for, and I want it to do that one thing very well. It's fine that RED is making cameras that can function as whatever you want it to, but my question is why, as a professional, would I care that the sensor I bought can be used in a billion configurations when I only need it for a handful? How is that a benefit to me?

 

Well, for one thing, it allows the R&D and fixed manufacturing costs of that sensor (and associated processing hardware) to be amortized over a much larger number of units. This is a huge deal in terms of reducing costs.

 

I'm also not sure pro photo guys wouldn't be interested in a pro photo camera that could capture high quality motion images. Flickr started letting people upload video clips a few months ago -- but with a 90 second time limit. The idea is that this isn't for YouTube-style videos, it's for what Flickr calls "long photos" -- little individual slices of life that are conceptually the same as still photographs, but happen to contain motion. It's not impossible to imagine "long photos" emerging as a medium some pro photographers would be interested in working with.

 

There are also situations where a dual-function pro-level device might be attractive for logistical reasons. Capturing images in remote locations is one. News photography/video is another -- I bet news organizations would be fairly interested in a pro-quality photo camera that their field photographers could switch into a high-quality video mode if they happened to be in the right place at the right time to get some video nobody else could.

 

And of course, a pro photo camera that shoots 24 (or more) frames a second also opens up new possibilities for shooting still photos. Instead of shooting 24 fps with 1/48 shutter, set your shutter to something more appropriate for still photos. Point the camera at the model, or sporting event, or other subject which typically requires you to take a large number of photos and then pick out the few good ones. You now have 24 frames every second to choose from. We've actually used our Red this way a couple of times, and it's really interesting. When you tell someone to smile on camera (or whatever), you get not only the ending expression, but all the intermediate expressions, so when you're choosing your still, it's practically like having the ability to "dial in" exactly the amount of smile you want.

 

But the best way to discover lots of cool things to do with these sorts of devices, of course, is to put them in the hands of a few million people.

[DJ Joofa]

I have to agree with David on this one. ...

 

If John Sprung says that I will believe it. ;)

Edited December 5, 2008 by DJ Joofa

[John Sprung]

And of course, a pro photo camera that shoots 24 (or more) frames a second also opens up new possibilities for shooting still photos. Instead of shooting 24 fps with 1/48 shutter, set your shutter to something more appropriate for still photos. Point the camera at the model, or sporting event, or other subject which typically requires you to take a large number of photos and then pick out the few good ones. You now have 24 frames every second to choose from. .

This has been done for quite a long time, though not as fast as 24 fps. IIRC, the Nikons of 30+ years ago with a motor drive could shoot 7 - 10 fps. They were used just as you describe to get pole vaulters or horses at the peak of their jumps, and things like that.

 

With any existing motion picture camera, you can always shoot a short burst of MOS if all you need is something from which to grab a still.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Kenny]

This has been done for quite a long time, though not as fast as 24 fps. IIRC, the Nikons of 30+ years ago with a motor drive could shoot 7 - 10 fps. They were used just as you describe to get pole vaulters or horses at the peak of their jumps, and things like that.

 

That's sort of my point. 24 frames/sec (or higher) continuous shooting is in some respects just the logical conclusion of a general trend (particularly with pro DSLR cameras) toward higher maximum frame rates and and longer-duration bursts. It's a feature that will inevitably end up on pro photo cameras. And once your camera is capable of it, why not add a couple of firmware features so that people can do more interesting things with it as well?

Edited December 5, 2008 by Chris Kenny

[Scott Fritzshall]

Well, for one thing, it allows the R&D and fixed manufacturing costs of that sensor (and associated processing hardware) to be amortized over a much larger number of units. This is a huge deal in terms of reducing costs.

For the manufacturer, obviously. That doesn't always equal reduced price though.

 

I'm also not sure pro photo guys wouldn't be interested in a pro photo camera that could capture high quality motion images. Flickr started letting people upload video clips a few months ago -- but with a 90 second time limit. The idea is that this isn't for YouTube-style videos, it's for what Flickr calls "long photos" -- little individual slices of life that are conceptually the same as still photographs, but happen to contain motion. It's not impossible to imagine "long photos" emerging as a medium some pro photographers would be interested in working with.

Eh, ok I guess. I think that's a somewhat limited market though, right? The people shooting for media that are inherently still are surely the biggest market, and they wouldn't have a need for that. I'm not opposed to creating a new type of medium, but that's a kind of odd one since it's not really video and not really still. I wonder what avenue of exhibition there is for that aside from the internet and maybe art galleries that have video displays.

 

There are also situations where a dual-function pro-level device might be attractive for logistical reasons. Capturing images in remote locations is one. News photography/video is another -- I bet news organizations would be fairly interested in a pro-quality photo camera that their field photographers could switch into a high-quality video mode if they happened to be in the right place at the right time to get some video nobody else could.

I suppose I could see that, although I don't know how often it would actually be convenient to use compared to having a point&shoot video camera.

 

And of course, a pro photo camera that shoots 24 (or more) frames a second also opens up new possibilities for shooting still photos. Instead of shooting 24 fps with 1/48 shutter, set your shutter to something more appropriate for still photos. Point the camera at the model, or sporting event, or other subject which typically requires you to take a large number of photos and then pick out the few good ones. You now have 24 frames every second to choose from. We've actually used our Red this way a couple of times, and it's really interesting. When you tell someone to smile on camera (or whatever), you get not only the ending expression, but all the intermediate expressions, so when you're choosing your still, it's practically like having the ability to "dial in" exactly the amount of smile you want.

Everybody says this, but if you need hundreds of photos and you've got hundreds of potential frames for each, with most not very different from the surrounding frames... that's just kind of obnoxious to work with. I have a feeling that most people would have a much easier time just taking the right picture to begin with.

 

But the best way to discover lots of cool things to do with these sorts of devices, of course, is to put them in the hands of a few million people.

Well yeah but again, we're talking about pro gear here, not consumer level stuff.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, I sincerely hope that your quote does not fall into the category of IBM's T. J. Watson's ("I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", though Wikipedia says there is scant evidence that he said that), and then there is this quote which I don't know the authenticity of ("Serious business machines don't need graphics").

 

I think you are accessing future's/tomorrows' users with the workflows that exist today -- though you might have accepted how technology will shape out in future, but perhaps you are not relenting on modification to the workflows that are in existence today.

 

Obviously I may be wrong, I don't know trends that haven't occurred yet. All I can speak from is my experience on movie sets, and the need for my movie camera to be able to shoot stills as well is fairly limited.

 

But there may be, as I said, a reason for an owner-operator who works in a production company to have a camera that can do both well.

 

On the other hand, consolidation of many features into one device is not always desirable -- how many people would prefer to buy a TV set with a DVD player built-in? Such devices exist, mainly for watching dailies and reels in offices, but most people would rather be able to buy them separately, and repair/replace/upgrade them separately. Hence why a company that shoots a lot of stills AND a lot of video would probably end up wanting the option of separate devices to do each, or at least, back-ups.

 

I'm not really talking about workflow, but the nature of the work itself, not how the work is then handled, processed. A DP shooting a feature film or a TV series, with a fully-accessorized movie camera on a tripod head, rarely wants to strip the whole thing down and convert it into a still camera, and then re-attach everything to put it back into studio mode, nor are there periods on a movie set where you alternatively shoot movie scenes and then still images. So in that scenario, a camera that does both has limited applications.

 

The same goes for a typical still shoot.

 

But I can think of scenarios where a production company may want a camera to do both, a commercial house for example that does print and TV advertisements, but I can also see such a company wanting separate devices as well.

 

I'll never say that there is no such need for a camera that does both -- we already see uses for still cameras that take bursts of video, like on location scouts, and we often pull still frames from movie footage for marketing purposes. But, for now, I'd have to say that the likelihood that most movie cameras of the future will also be bought and used for still photography, and vice-versa, most still cameras will also be used to shoot professional moving images... that this is the future of cine camera design... well, I don't see it going much beyond certain industries and professional production companies that handle both print and moving images, or owner-operators that shoot both.

 

Most people tend to specialize in either, so they use tools that serve their specialization. So unless you imagine a future where cinematographers are just as likely to shoot print advertisements and still photographers alternatively shoot movies, I don't see why most people are going to need a professional camera that does both in super high-resolutions.

[DJ Joofa]

Obviously I may be wrong, I don't know trends that haven't occurred yet. All I can speak from is my experience on movie sets, and the need for my movie camera to be able to shoot stills as well is fairly limited. ....

 

David, thanks for your detailed analysis. I think you are right, so I shall take back my words, especially so, since you deal with the practical aspects of handling high-profile cameras day in day out, which I don't.

[David Mullen ASC]

I admit that my ability to look deep into the future and see new technologies, modes of working, etc. is somewhat limited, despite the fact that I read sci-fi literature... I'm probably too much in the middle of things to want or need to look beyond two or three years into the future -- I figure I'll deal with new technologies as they get closer to becoming real.

 

Jim Jannard is the risk-taker and trendmaker, not me. Buying a $300 Micro Litepanel light was my big purchase in 2008 -- I'm not exactly someone who takes big chances with my money... I'm still trying to work up the nerve to purchase a set of filters. And get some pay TV cable channels like HBO and Showtime so I can see my work when it airs.

 

The thing is that trends in technology do not follow logical paths or even steps of progression. Yet a business that sells new technology has to attempt to predict the future, at least far enough so that their product is relevant to the market when it finally debuts in a few years. So Jim is making a guess based on current trends, but he's also protecting himself -- after all, these new DSMC cameras don't necessarily have to take over the still camera market in order to be successful or profitable. But I think he's realized that he's grabbed the tiger by the tail -- innovate or die, so to speak. He has to generate new customers beyond the original 4000-5000 that ordered RED ONE's. Yet traditionally people who buy professional movie camera gear, and even people who buy broadcast cameras, don't normally buy another pro camera in only one or two years unless... they have had a big increase in business and need to expand. Otherwise, they probably want to be able to use their purchase for at least three to five years, if not more.

 

So you either have to expand your customer base, or tailor your business model towards a smaller, more elite customer base. It seems that with EPIC and Scarlet, Jim Jannard is trying to do both, move into the larger prosumer/consumer video camera market, and into the narrower professional cinema camera market. I think making a play for the still camera market as well is part of the plan to expand the customer base, but I don't think he needs to succeed in that area if he does well in the first two areas. Seems more like doing well among still shooters would be gravy.

[Keith Walters]

And get some pay TV cable channels like HBO and Showtime so I can see my work when it airs.

It always amazes me how all the film and video wannabes always assume that an actual working professional like yourself must automatically have a house bristling with all the latest techno wizardry, satellite TV, souped-up computers, 12 foot plasma screens, ultra-fast Internet with unlimited gigabytes per day download, coffee tables strewn with copies of American Cinematographer and so on and so on!

 

The most common complaint among the ones I know is the bloated image and movie files that people expect them to be able to download, because many of them jast have a basic Internet plan so they can get emails. One guy I was talking to recently was amazed that I could turn out quite professional looking DVDs using nothing more that Windows Movie Maker and the free software that came with my DVD burner. His computer doesn't have a DVD burner....

 

I've actually appeared as an actor in a couple of commercials that I've never seen because they were only shown on cable, and I don't know anybody who has a cable connection. (They were only cheap DigiBeta jobs and I couldnt remember the name of the production company :P )

 

Somewhere up at my mother's place I've got a large box of Hi-Band U-Matic tapes of stuff I did 25 years ago, that I never got round to transferring to VHS. The tapes are probably useless now, and I don't know anybody with a Hi-Band player anymore anyway.

[David Mullen ASC]

It always amazes me how all the film and video wannabes always assume that an actual working professional like yourself must automatically have a house bristling with all the latest techno wizardry, satellite TV, souped-up computers, 12 foot plasma screens, ultra-fast Internet with unlimited gigabytes per day download, coffee tables strewn with copies of American Cinematographer and so on and so on!

 

The most common complaint among the ones I know is the bloated image and movie files that people expect them to be able to download, because many of them jast have a basic Internet plan so they can get emails.

 

Well, I don't have a coffee table, but there are copies of American Cinematographer strewn about the place...

 

Just today I was asked to view a cut of a feature I shot -- they sent me a bunch of Quicktime files to download... first file alone took almost two hours to download (and I have a fast connection) and then failed near the end of the download because I didn't have enough space on my laptop for such a big file, so I then spent a bunch of time moving files onto my hard drive and cleaning up my laptop so I could receive the file. It would have been easier if they just sent me a DVD...

[Keith Walters]

Well, I don't have a coffee table, but there are copies of American Cinematographer strewn about the place...

 

Just today I was asked to view a cut of a feature I shot -- they sent me a bunch of Quicktime files to download... first file alone took almost two hours to download (and I have a fast connection) and then failed near the end of the download because I didn't have enough space on my laptop for such a big file, so I then spent a bunch of time moving files onto my hard drive and cleaning up my laptop so I could receive the file. It would have been easier if they just sent me a DVD...

That's why God made USB external Hard Drives :lol:

I'd been meaning to get one for a couple of years now, and now I finally have, I don't know how I ever got by without it! The bright side is, the price has remained roughly the same but the capacity has increased astronomically. I bought a Western Digital 640GB "Elements" unit, which has had a few poor reviews, but it's never given me an ounce of trouble.

The only slight fly in the ointment was that to transfer files bigger than 4GB the drive has to be re-formatted from FAT to NTFS, which is very easy and quick, but it's not made at all clear in the instructions and I had to find the answer on the Internet.

Other than that, you just plug it into a USB-2 socket, attach its AC adaptor, and it's just "there", (and "there" on any other computer you plug it into). Magic stuff.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I'd humbly suggest that you could use download managers. There's even free ones, like this:

 

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/

 

It allows for a lot of things among better speed and also *resuming* the download, in case the connection broke down or some other malfunction occured.

 

For example, if you were downloading a [large] file and the connection broke down on 98% of the download - it's a pain. But with a download manager, you could resume the download from 98 % on and not from the beginning all over again.

 

Hope that I'm helping.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

I'd humbly suggest that you could use download managers. There's even free ones, like this:

 

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/

 

It allows for a lot of things among better speed and also *resuming* the download, in case the connection broke down or some other malfunction occured.

 

For example, if you were downloading a [large] file and the connection broke down on 98% of the download - it's a pain. But with a download manager, you could resume the download from 98 % on and not from the beginning all over again.

 

Hope that I'm helping.

I'm used to work with Opera, too. The resume option is available there. And if I am not wrong Firefox has also this possibility.

 

EDIT -- I said option but it comes as default.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Emanuel A Guedes

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Yeah, Firefox is cool.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

What are your thoughts on this announcement?

 

Seems like Red looked at the SI2K and thought, oh hey, that's a good idea. We could just sell the sensor as a separate entity, and make the package fully customizable.

 

Hopefully, economically, it's better.

[Stephen Williams]

Seems like Red looked at the SI2K and thought, oh hey, that's a good idea. We could just sell the sensor as a separate entity, and make the package fully customizable.

 

Hopefully, economically, it's better.

 

Hi,

 

One of my objections to R1 is having to pay for a lens mount you don't want, voiding the waranty & upgrade path when you take it off.

 

Stephen